Rivals : Chelsea
- Thread starter Mors
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I did hear a few people say InSalah
I actually think he could have made an impact in the team last season and made himself part of BR's plans for this season. He does look like a clever player with a definite goal threat. We don't need him after the summer signings but we could have used him last season and we probably would have skipped on the likes of Markovic if he had been useful. Probably all for the best, except for him, of course. The thing is that BR definitely made a personal appeal to Salah and really tried to convince him of the merits of joining him at LFC, and no doubt, warning him of the fate of talented young players in Mourinho's Chelsea. Salah may brood on those conversations in the wee dark hours.
Eden Hazard has suggested that Diego Costa could be lying about his age as the Chelsea star believes his new teammate looks much older than 25. Costa is one of several new faces at Stamford Bridge this season after agreeing a £32 million transfer from Atletico Madrid earlier this summer. At 25-years-old, he is expected to have plenty of miles left on the clock.
However, people have wondered whether Costa is actually older than his claimed age as time appears to have taken its toll on the Brazilian-born striker. Hazard is just one of many more questioning Costa. Eden Hazard thinks the worst. Speaking to Soccer AM, the Belgium winger said: "He looks old, I think he’s old. He is 25 but I don’t know if it is true."Time has not been kind to Diego Costa.
However, people have wondered whether Costa is actually older than his claimed age as time appears to have taken its toll on the Brazilian-born striker. Hazard is just one of many more questioning Costa. Eden Hazard thinks the worst. Speaking to Soccer AM, the Belgium winger said: "He looks old, I think he’s old. He is 25 but I don’t know if it is true."Time has not been kind to Diego Costa.
Decent read this
Roman Abramovich’s binge at the Bridge really is no laughing matter
The rehabilitation of Abramovich is one of the most sordid episodes in recent sporting history
Alex Livesey/Getty
Share via
Matthew Syed
Last updated at 12:01AM, September 15 2014
As the second goal went in for Chelsea on Saturday, the cameras wheeled around to Roman Abramovich, who was clapping and grinning. It is a picture we have seen a hundred times over the years and the response of the commentator was equally familiar. “That will make the owner happy,” he said. There is nothing wrong with this. Nothing wrong with an owner taking pleasure in his team’s success. Nothing wrong with a TV camera picking up on the moment. Indeed, this is the stuff of football. How many times have you heard it before: “Abramovich will be celebrating tonight!”; “That’s put a smile on Roman’s face!”; “Even the owner is dancing a jig!”
It is not what is said that troubles me, however; it is what is not said. You see, I am not sure I have heard a commentator offer a word about where the money that has funded the 11-year binge at Stamford Bridge came from. I have rarely heard pundits, who are happy to talk ad nauseum about Chelsea’s transfer dealings, relate that Abramovich’s billions were gained in an episode described as “the largest single heist in corporate history”. This is not just an elephant in the room; it is a festering pile of manure.
I have had a large mailbox from Chelsea fans over the years. A significant minority accept that the money bankrolling their club was corruptly gained (how could they deny it?). They say that they love the club, but bitterly regret the identity of the owner. This is a principled and dignified stance.
The majority, however, get irate about any mention of Abramovich’s corruption. They argue that other owners in football have dubious histories, as if this offers any kind of mitigation. They offer the observation that there was much chicanery during the Yeltsin era in Russia, as if that excuses the industrial-scale theft from the Russian people.
The most common justification offered by Chelsea fans, however, is also the most egregious. It goes something like this: “I watch football to switch off from the real life. It is an escape. I don’t want to get bogged down in thinking about politics.” This is offensive because it goes to the heart of a wider malaise in football. It is the idea that football is subject to a different set of rules to everything else.
This double standard explains so much of the ugliness in the game. It is presumption that infects owners, administrators and, in the case of Sepp Blatter, the head of Fifa. And it culminates in the grotesque charade of a top London club being bankrolled by funny money while those within the sport collude in the surrealist fantasy that the owner is merely an eccentric rich bloke with a charming grin. “Oh, I say, even Abramovich is jumping up and down after that goal!”
The deafening silence surrounding Abramovich would be understandable if people lived in fear of libel action. That is the reason why many who are alleged to have indulged in dubious behaviour are spared scrutiny in the media. In the case of Abramovich, however, there should be no such fears. The facts about his past emerged from his own lips or, at least, those of his designated representative. It was in that astonishing trial in London in 2012 pitting Abramovich against his former friend Boris Berezovsky — who subsequently committed suicide — that we gained definitive insight into the money that helped to transform English football. Jonathan Sumption, the QC who delayed his ascent to the Supreme Court to represent Abramovich, admitted that the auction of assets that delivered the Chelsea owner his riches was “corrupt”. There was “an agreement to sell media support to the president of Russia in return for privileged access to state-owned assets”, Sumption revealed.
He later described the auction procedure as “easy to rig and was in fact rigged”. In essence, Abramovich, along with fellow oligarchs, gained access to the mineral wealth of Russia at a fraction of the true price in return for handing over a $100 million (£61.5 million) loan to President Yeltsin and giving him access to television channels for propaganda. The deal worked: Yeltsin stormed to victory in the 1996 election, while the oligarchs binged on private yachts, huge mansions and other trophy assets, including Chelsea FC. The Russian people, for their part, came close to mass starvation.
I am not suggesting that Chelsea are a terrible team. They played beautifully against Swansea on Saturday. Diego Costa is a poacher in the grand style, Eden Hazard has Fred Astaire feet and John Terry remains a stalwart at the heart of defence (he looked suitably distraught after conceding the opening goal). José Mourinho, their manager, has a formidable track record and I would not be at all surprised if he leads the club to another leading trophy.
But every now and again it is worth reminding ourselves of the wider context. Paul Gregory, in Forbes magazine, wrote at the time of the Berezovsky-Abramovich trial that “the corruption was worse than even jaded observers suspected”. Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader, described Abramovich as a symbol of Russia’s “rich debauchery”. Shocking revelations about the carve-up of state assets emerge every month. Meanwhile, in football’s fantasy land, Abramovich is the bloke with the charming beard and fit wife.
The rehabilitation of Abramovich is, in many ways, one of the most sordid episodes in recent sporting history. He is indulged by the great and good, flattered at social functions and genuflected to by those within the game. His carefully sanitised image as a sporting benefactor brooks almost no opposition. Bruce Buck, his avuncular sidekick (who advised the oligarch on many of his business acquisitions), was even emboldened to state that Abramovich’s ambition is to: “build an institution that will provide everlasting joy and pride to Chelsea fans”.
It shows just how far football has become detached from reality that only a few people laughed.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/football/article4206708.ece
Roman Abramovich’s binge at the Bridge really is no laughing matter
The rehabilitation of Abramovich is one of the most sordid episodes in recent sporting history
Alex Livesey/Getty
Share via
The rehabilitation of Abramovich is one of the most sordid episodes in recent sporting history Alex Livesey/Getty
Matthew Syed
Last updated at 12:01AM, September 15 2014
As the second goal went in for Chelsea on Saturday, the cameras wheeled around to Roman Abramovich, who was clapping and grinning. It is a picture we have seen a hundred times over the years and the response of the commentator was equally familiar. “That will make the owner happy,” he said. There is nothing wrong with this. Nothing wrong with an owner taking pleasure in his team’s success. Nothing wrong with a TV camera picking up on the moment. Indeed, this is the stuff of football. How many times have you heard it before: “Abramovich will be celebrating tonight!”; “That’s put a smile on Roman’s face!”; “Even the owner is dancing a jig!”
It is not what is said that troubles me, however; it is what is not said. You see, I am not sure I have heard a commentator offer a word about where the money that has funded the 11-year binge at Stamford Bridge came from. I have rarely heard pundits, who are happy to talk ad nauseum about Chelsea’s transfer dealings, relate that Abramovich’s billions were gained in an episode described as “the largest single heist in corporate history”. This is not just an elephant in the room; it is a festering pile of manure.
I have had a large mailbox from Chelsea fans over the years. A significant minority accept that the money bankrolling their club was corruptly gained (how could they deny it?). They say that they love the club, but bitterly regret the identity of the owner. This is a principled and dignified stance.
The majority, however, get irate about any mention of Abramovich’s corruption. They argue that other owners in football have dubious histories, as if this offers any kind of mitigation. They offer the observation that there was much chicanery during the Yeltsin era in Russia, as if that excuses the industrial-scale theft from the Russian people.
The most common justification offered by Chelsea fans, however, is also the most egregious. It goes something like this: “I watch football to switch off from the real life. It is an escape. I don’t want to get bogged down in thinking about politics.” This is offensive because it goes to the heart of a wider malaise in football. It is the idea that football is subject to a different set of rules to everything else.
This double standard explains so much of the ugliness in the game. It is presumption that infects owners, administrators and, in the case of Sepp Blatter, the head of Fifa. And it culminates in the grotesque charade of a top London club being bankrolled by funny money while those within the sport collude in the surrealist fantasy that the owner is merely an eccentric rich bloke with a charming grin. “Oh, I say, even Abramovich is jumping up and down after that goal!”
The deafening silence surrounding Abramovich would be understandable if people lived in fear of libel action. That is the reason why many who are alleged to have indulged in dubious behaviour are spared scrutiny in the media. In the case of Abramovich, however, there should be no such fears. The facts about his past emerged from his own lips or, at least, those of his designated representative. It was in that astonishing trial in London in 2012 pitting Abramovich against his former friend Boris Berezovsky — who subsequently committed suicide — that we gained definitive insight into the money that helped to transform English football. Jonathan Sumption, the QC who delayed his ascent to the Supreme Court to represent Abramovich, admitted that the auction of assets that delivered the Chelsea owner his riches was “corrupt”. There was “an agreement to sell media support to the president of Russia in return for privileged access to state-owned assets”, Sumption revealed.
He later described the auction procedure as “easy to rig and was in fact rigged”. In essence, Abramovich, along with fellow oligarchs, gained access to the mineral wealth of Russia at a fraction of the true price in return for handing over a $100 million (£61.5 million) loan to President Yeltsin and giving him access to television channels for propaganda. The deal worked: Yeltsin stormed to victory in the 1996 election, while the oligarchs binged on private yachts, huge mansions and other trophy assets, including Chelsea FC. The Russian people, for their part, came close to mass starvation.
I am not suggesting that Chelsea are a terrible team. They played beautifully against Swansea on Saturday. Diego Costa is a poacher in the grand style, Eden Hazard has Fred Astaire feet and John Terry remains a stalwart at the heart of defence (he looked suitably distraught after conceding the opening goal). José Mourinho, their manager, has a formidable track record and I would not be at all surprised if he leads the club to another leading trophy.
But every now and again it is worth reminding ourselves of the wider context. Paul Gregory, in Forbes magazine, wrote at the time of the Berezovsky-Abramovich trial that “the corruption was worse than even jaded observers suspected”. Mikhail Gorbachev, the former Soviet leader, described Abramovich as a symbol of Russia’s “rich debauchery”. Shocking revelations about the carve-up of state assets emerge every month. Meanwhile, in football’s fantasy land, Abramovich is the bloke with the charming beard and fit wife.
The rehabilitation of Abramovich is, in many ways, one of the most sordid episodes in recent sporting history. He is indulged by the great and good, flattered at social functions and genuflected to by those within the game. His carefully sanitised image as a sporting benefactor brooks almost no opposition. Bruce Buck, his avuncular sidekick (who advised the oligarch on many of his business acquisitions), was even emboldened to state that Abramovich’s ambition is to: “build an institution that will provide everlasting joy and pride to Chelsea fans”.
It shows just how far football has become detached from reality that only a few people laughed.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/football/article4206708.ece
someone shoot those presenters please.
What Macca said.
Russia, China, Africa and most of South America and Asia .. corruption is endemic and hardly something you can raise a crooked eyebrow at. Nobody with power or money in those places achieved it without indulgence. Probably most (all) of the World's major business is corrupt, it's just finessed in Europe and the USA.
- Status