Good article that mentions Bayern Munich (whom it seems will be OK) and Chelsea (whom may not be okay). The lower leagues, not surprisingly, have taken the biggest financial hit and are the most ripe for bankruptcy.
Again, I’m of the belief that Chelsea will be okay. The club owes money to Roman Abramovich, not banks. Big difference.
Courtesy euFootball.biz.
I just discovered a REALLY cool fan-powered site called FanIQ which, like Bleacher Report, allows sports fans of all stripes to post their own their own sports stories for all the world to see. As Bleacher Report has partnerships with both Fox Sports and CBS Sports, its visibility is a little higher than FanIQ’s (Bleacher Report is pop music and FanIQ is punk rock). But not only do I designate FanIQ as a Coolsite, I also listed it on my Blogroll.
I discovered FanIQ when I came across one its recent posts, “The Fall of Chelsea – The Roman Empire.” The phrase “Roman Empire” directly refers to Chelsea’s current owner, Roman Abramovich. It’s a little long but an excellent read.
The gist of the article is this: the once can’t-miss Chelsea Football Club is currently misfiring on all engines. They’ve yet to beat one of the other top three clubs in the English Premier League (and you can’t win the league title if you do that) and are currently in fourth place, making them no shoe-ins for entrance into next year’s Champions League competition. The writer, jumbovonolyphant, places the blame squarely on Roman Abramovich’s shoulders, pointing to his well-documented micromanaging that’s led to good managers getting axed, short-sightedness, and creating an atmosphere that prevents Chelsea from bringing in young talent (as an FYI, I think that the last things is a big part of Chelsea’s problems). He does give him his well-deserved credit for raising the profile of the EPL.
The only part of the story that I’m not 100% on board with is jumbovonolyphant’s statement that Chelsea’s one the teams “affected by the credit crunch.” While the team may have spent too much too fast, they’re technically not having a credit problem. The teams that are (Manchester United for example) borrowed a whole bunch of money at a respectable interest rate to fund their businesses, whereas Chelsea got their cash straight from Abramovich’s deep pockets. Leverage is certainly part of his business and I’m sure that he’s feeling the pinch in some places, but I have a hunch that he’ll survive it. This is splitting hairs but it’s an important characteristic that’s getting loss in credit crunch discussions, that the less you borrow, the more prepared you are to ride out the storm. But this is just part of the story and not its basis.
I attempted to post my opinion about this statement on FanIQ but had to register as a site member to do so. I tried to join but the process took waaaaaaaay too long. I have to point this out because I’m not telling the author my opinion straight on-although not for lack of trying-and don’t want anyone to think that I’m hiding my statements from him.
Regardless of my feelings about the credit crunch statement, I still think that the story is well-written and makes valid points. Please read the story, and form your own opinion.
Stoke City boss Tony Pulis tells the BBC that foreign ownership of English Premier League clubs is wrong, taking direct aim at Roman Abramovich and the Abu Dhabi United group, owners of Chelsea and Manchester City, respectively. He feels that the current crop of foreign owners don’t understand the history club footie and that he would much happier if EPL clubs were owned by those from within their respective communities.
I’m in no way coming to his defense here but while he may be acting protectionist, I see no evidence of racism in his statement. Some of his potshots are directed at Abramovich, who just happens to have white skin.
Also, and quite curiously, he didn’t mention either Manchester United owner Malcom Glazer or Liverpool co-owners Tom Hicks & George N. Gillett Jr., all whom are American and have received a boatload of criticism for not being English. Hicks and Gillett especially.
Pulis is expressing a common sentiment held by many traditional football fans, particularly English ones. I’ve said this before but in my footie learning process, I’ve found that old school fans have HUGE issues with Non-British ownership. It’s a direct result of football’s gentrification, and the gentrification as a whole ticks off the old timers to no end. And in reviewing some past instances, Pulis may have a point. An example of an instance is Roman Abramovich’s constant bumping of heads with then-Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho over team signings and playing styles. The conflict got to be so big (and in all fairness, Jose needs to take the blame for some of the conflict), that Roman eventually had to give Jose the axe.
All of this been said, it cannot be denied that the money brought in by these foreign owners (particularly Abramovich) has helped all of these clubs. And while we’ve yet to see this money yield many results at both Stoke and Man City, all the others have done well with the cash.
At a FIFA conference in Zurich, the Chelsea F.C. CEO gave his take on the current global crisis and how he thinks it’ll effect football clubs as a whole…including Chelsea.
A couple of things he said caught my attention:
“A lot of people misunderstand debt. Chelsea are not in the same position as other clubs. We pay no interest on our debt as we have no external debt.
‘Our “debt”, such as it is, is to the owner. He has invested the money in the club. And while that is currently in the form of loans, this can be turned into equity. I think our financial structure does give us some strength and competitive advantage.
‘There is nothing inherently bad in financing one’s business through debt. It’s the ability to make the repayments that is the issue. We don’t have those repayment issues. Companies all over the world are financed predominantly by debt, this is normal in business.”
His specific comments about Chelsea’s debt do carry some weight. The fact that they owe money to the club owner, Roman Abramovich, and not a financial institution do give the club a much better outlook than others.
His comments about “nothing inherently bad in financing one’s business through debt” tick me off for a personal reason. I’ve been doing a lot of personal finance reading and research for the past three years and view all debt as the eighth deadly sin. I may not own a multi-billion dollar club but if I did, I know that I would run it without using debt. Just the way my head’s screwed on.
First and foremost…ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS MUST GET OUT AND VOTE TODAY!!!!!
Funny article on footie in the LA Times today. Takes a few digs at Roman Abramovich.
REALLY GOOD ARTICLE from Soccer Lens on spending in the Premiership (love this site). Again, Platani’s talking about Premier League teams debt. Michel, MYOB!!!!!!!
I’m a big fan of goalkeepers so I have to hype up the Keeper Skool site that I just found.
These articles are a little over three months old but are still quite interesting…
This slideshow highlights the 20 teams with the highest valuation. It seems that the more lucrative your licensing deals are, the more your team is worth. No shocker that Man U. is at the top. And apparently, Inter Milan (#14 on the list) needs to nail down their licensing stuff. Each slide has link where you can click to more info on the team.
Next up are profiles on the 20 highest paid players. As sign of Roman A’s financial influence, five players from Chelsea are listed here. I’m glad to see that some players are using their fame and paycheck to further philanthropic projects. Also, Wayne Rooney has quite a few endorsement deals. And gee, who could it be at the number one spot? No surprise.
Nice slideshow on the top Arsenal shareholders. More informative than interesting, but interesting still.