Roman Abromavich good or bad for the game?

Answer 1

thank god for Ramon. he has brought some of the best players in the world to the prem, and the most important thing is that he has put the GUNNERS UP THE GOONERS ARSENALS.

good or bad for the game?
I SAY FANTASTIC FOR THE GAME.

Answer 2

In some ways, both. He's good because his cash has built a quality Chelsea team. One which has broken the duopoly of Arsenal and Manchester United, breathed life into a predictable title race, and means quality company for top-class English players.

He's also bad because Chelsea now have too much money and have been getting too far ahead. They can just buy in whoever they like. I always like it when the top teams have the odd weakness which gives the chasing pack a chance. With Chelsea, they can just wave the chequebook and plug the leak. They can also buy in players and then not play them, just so other teams can't buy them.

The fact that they have been haemorraging vast sums on players (ie Crespo) also encourages wastefulness and profligancy at boardroom level. Clubs feel the need to buy success rather than build a long-lasting legacy through youth team development. This is why Man Utd have had sustained success over the past 20 years, whilst Blackburn were one-season wonders. One built their team on solid foundations, the other on sand.

Clubs hear that Chelsea are in the market for their players, they demand their pound of flesh. There is a price for Chelsea, and a price for all other clubs. This is coming at a time when common sense was just starting to return to the transfer market. Remember those crazy few years when Lazio spent huge sums and 'bought' the Scudetto, or when Real signed a galactico for huge money each summer? I thought those days were going.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Chelsea and would love to see them win the Champions League. I also don't mind if they win the Premiership this season, as long as the race is exciting and competetive; but we don't want to go back to the bad old days when teams won the league by 16 points. That's not good for the game in any country.

Success though is cyclical. Liverpool in the 70s and then with Everton in the 80s, Man Utd and Arsenal in the 90s and now, and Chelsea in the Noughties. How long will Roman Abramovic stay at Chelsea and will they have a long lasting legacy built on youth team development?

Answer 3

How on earth can it be good? Chelsea are millions in debt, allowed only because his money backs it up on paper. Most companies would have been put into liquidation a long time ago with such debts. There is no competition for top players, look what they did to Shawn Wright Phillips! A man worth no more than 10 Million pounds, but because Arsenal wanted him Chelsea paid 21 Million and he's stayed stuck to their bench since, a forgotten man, Money talks and Chelsea are shouting out loud, for now! He is atrocious for the game you dumbwits who say he's good.

Answer 4

Not good at all.
His money has changed the Premiership and even the whole game of football from a game into a moneymaking scheme. And even wages are getting ridiculous now aswell. If Abramovich hadn't brought his money into the club then half of their players wouldn't be earning enough to buy 5 new houses a year. They get paid nearly 110k just to play 90minutes at most and twice a week. They should get paid but not as much as they are. Michael Ballack has done well for himself, earning more than 10 million in his career, but now he's older he decides he doesn't want to earn as much as younger greedier stars so settles for 50k a year which is still quite a lot but hey who cares lol.

Answer 5

I'd have to say it's bad for football as Chelsea can simply outbid any team in the world by a few million. I like the man because he is quiet and unassuming and attends every game and seems to be knowledgeable enough. But I also have to say Chelsea did not turn the sport into a business - Man Utd began that a few years back with Ferguson and co.

Answer 6

Only a chelsea could see this as a good thing as they will win everything, but is it fair that other clubs put themselves into debt trying to keep up, i think in the last 3 seasons they have spent more than Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool combined, thats not competition and all it will do is make more clubs look to get taken over by billionaire Americans, Russian or iranian which just takes the culture and traditions out of clubs

Answer 7

Bad for the game, if you try to buy someone, Chelsea seem to come in with a bigger offer for a player, and buy them, but never play them, just ask Shaun Wright-Phillips, Wayne Bridge, Glen Johnson.

Answer 8

Very bad for everyone but Chelsea. It seems that they buy emerging players just because they can and to stop other teams getting them. They have ruined Wright Phillips.

Answer 9

Great for me
Pays good wages and always on time in the bank
Michael Ballack is complaing though ,he said he cant live on the 140,000 pounds a week that he gets

Answer 10

Even with the money he has he can only play 11 players, and money atracts people like Ballak who have no sense of loyalty and honor. I think he is ok because he loves the game and he made other teams raise their standarts. Can't be always ManU or Real.
But lets face it the best football manager is Arsene Wenger and even with all his money he can't atract people like him, cos those people like challenges. And loyalty is not something you can buy!!!