Jump to content

coda

Recommended Posts

Also the Abramovich media situation is weird. Yes he has been a good and successful owner but some media clowns think he only grew to like Chelsea. Thats the current angle not whats happening in Russia 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 hours ago, Zatman said:

Didn't Matthew Harding die about 1997. I dont think they even won a trophy in his time in charge

I think the suggestion was that they were nothing before Abramovich. In the season Harding died for example they won the FA Cup, Vialli was up front for them and Ruud Gillit was their manager. 

The had just signed LeBoeuf, Di Matteo and Zola. 

They were already spending bucket loads of money and his death plunged them into a lot of trouble.  Rumours were they were probably going to go bankrupt. 

Abramovich was for sure a White Knight. 

Edited by sidcow
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Tuchel is wrong to criticise the fans for chanting Abramovich's name.

Thanking Abrahamovich for his services to the club is not an endorsement of Putin.

Tuchel can't have it both ways, as he doesn't know anything new about the guy, that he didn't know before.

The Premier League did their due diligence back in 2003 and found Abramovich to be fit to be an owner.

The sudden outbreak of piety is sickening.

 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I think the suggestion was that they were nothing before Abramovich. In the season Harding died for example they won the FA Cup, Vialli was up front for them and Ruud Gillit was their manager. 

The had just signed LeBoeuf, Di Matteo and Zola. 

They were already spending bucket loads of money and his death plunged them into a lot of trouble.  Rumours were they were probably going to go bankrupt. 

Abramovich was for sure a White Knight. 

Won a European cup too from memory, maybe cup winners cup

I seem to remember them having a lot of big names probably being on good wages and being half decent but not what they were under roman

Di matteo, vialli, zola l, ebeouf, not sure when desailly was, petrescu, babyaro, wise, Hughes, flo, Laudrup, poyet, then they had casiraghi for a month or whatever it was and I'm sure a big name balkan player, maybe stanic? 

Edit - deschamps too

Edited by villa4europe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Won a European cup too from memory, maybe cup winners cup

I seem to remember them having a lot of big names probably being on good wages and being half decent but not what they were under roman

Di matteo, vialli, zola l, ebeouf, not sure when desailly was, petrescu, babyaro, wise, Hughes, flo, Laudrup, poyet, then they had casiraghi for a month or whatever it was and I'm sure a big name balkan player, maybe stanic? 

Edit - deschamps too

Oh yeah, I'm not suggesting they were then what they became, or that they would have without Abramovich, but they were definitely on their way to something, those players formed the backbone of future Chelsea teams.  John Terry would have been along shortly obviously. 

Maybe they wouldn't have been able to afford Lampard to the squad or something. 

Anyway, they were definitely not nobody's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sidcow said:

Oh yeah, I'm not suggesting they were then what they became, or that they would have without Abramovich, but they were definitely on their way to something, those players formed the backbone of future Chelsea teams.  John Terry would have been along shortly obviously. 

Maybe they wouldn't have been able to afford Lampard to the squad or something. 

Anyway, they were definitely not nobody's. 

I agree, I'd say they were better than spurs are now for example 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I think Tuchel is wrong to criticise the fans for chanting Abramovich's name.

Thanking Abrahamovich for his services to the club is not an endorsement of Putin.

Tuchel can't have it both ways, as he doesn't know anything new about the guy, that he didn't know before.

The Premier League did their due diligence back in 2003 and found Abramovich to be fit to be an owner.

The sudden outbreak of piety is sickening.

 

There has been people calling out Abrahamovich for years, just like there are people calling out Newcastle's ownership now. You are right that the higher levels of the game have historically turned a blind eye and there's an argument that the current gestures are somewhat shallow. However, events change people's opinions and people grow. Just as standards that were in place in 2003 should have evolved by now. It's better that they're trying now than not trying at all. 

If Chelsea fans want to thank Abrahamovich for his investment, fine. Personally I don't like it and see it in a similar way I haven't liked where some of Villa's money has come from (gambling sponsors or the Targett loan). However, deciding to chant his name during a minute's silence is not respectable. Even if it had nothing to do with Ukraine or Putin just keep quiet for 60 seconds and then chant. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sidcow said:

Oh yeah, I'm not suggesting they were then what they became, or that they would have without Abramovich, but they were definitely on their way to something, those players formed the backbone of future Chelsea teams.  John Terry would have been along shortly obviously. 

Maybe they wouldn't have been able to afford Lampard to the squad or something. 

Anyway, they were definitely not nobody's. 

Yeah, I mean the whole thing at the time was the widely circulated claim that Chelsea were the ones Abramovic bought (as opposed to Liverpool I think?) precisely *because* they had just qualified for the Champions League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rds1983 said:

 You are right that the higher levels of the game have historically turned a blind eye and there's an argument that the current gestures are somewhat shallow.

 

I really don't like the way political movements co-opt football fans for propaganda purposes.

When governments conscript fans' collective sentiment for political ends it has unavoidable reminders of Nuremberg rallies.

It will be interesting to see if such orchestrated disapproval takes place in Qatar.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I really don't like the way political movements co-opt football fans for propaganda purposes.

When governments conscript fans' collective sentiment for political ends it has unavoidable reminders of Nuremberg rallies.

It will be interesting to see if such orchestrated disapproval takes place in Qatar.

 

I don't think it works that way, I think it's more the other way round. Football fans in this country form a kind of chaotic, impossible-to-control political force; it can be either progressive or reactionary, socialist or conservative, anti-racist or bigoted, but that the key aspect of it is that it emerges both from deep club-specific roots but also flashes into being spontaneously at certain key moments in time, e.g. the sudden emergence of anger about the super league proposals.

I don't think any political movement has managed to 'co-opt' football fans in a sustained way; the last really significant effort to do so was probably the far right in the 1980s, and while they had more successed than they should have along the way that ultimately ended in failure.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The criticism wasn't for chanting Abramovich's name - Chelsea fans have every right to do that, and indeed they have been doing that. (Luton fans had every right to chant "You are embarrassing" back to them too). 

The criticism was for chanting Abramovich's name during the minutes applause in solidarity for the people of Ukraine - that for me, is a really poor, crass gesture on behalf of the Chelsea fans, and they knew it when they did it - it's an expression that they know the two things are in opposition and that their support for Abramovich is more important to them than the deaths of people in Ukraine.

It's shitty and Tuchel was absolutely right to call it out in my opinion.

 

I just see football fans being co-opted into the government's international deplomacy and then being told they didn't do it properly, as an imposition.

It seems likely that before too long, every form of entertainment will require the audience to participate in some political endorsement or other.

Standing for the national anthem before a public performance was introduced to encourage volunteers to enroll in the Army during WW1, and continued until 1974.

I am not sure Villa fans would take too kindly to having the club thrown into doubt and uncertainty, by the governent threatening to confiscate the owners' assets.

 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â