Very interesting contribution from Matthew Syed on Abramovich's role at Chelsea and impact on English football. Not sure that Sky understood quite what he would say going into it, and not sure the presenters and Cascarino followed his line of thinking throughout (You can see the gears in Cascarino's head turning!). It's interesting in terms of our own owners, the recent Russian flirts and the state of the football economy. Well worth the few minutes of your time:
http://youtu.be/GmCtci6cen8 
Comments
:-)
Shows the level of a lot of modern media that they look to turn away from a very interesting debate and 'get back to football', missing the point completely.
Apparently most of those loans have been paid back and only a small amount is owing to Abramovich but not sure how that can be verified, I assume Chelsea don't have to release full financials.
I support Charlton for the long run, I don't kneed us to get into bed with some shady characters for a couple of seasons in the sun before the inevitable financial meltdown.
Just shuffling the debt around - £166m of the debt was turned into equity and Chelsea made good money out of winning the CL. Abramovich has simply transferred his debt to the holding company rather than the club. But since he's the sole shareholder of the holding company is there any difference?
As for 'I wouldn't complain if it was us', well that puts you in the same boat as Cascarino. Which says it all.
As others have said, they have not paid back the debt merely transferred it to a different company.
Cannot stand Abrahmovich or Chelsea, they both make my skin crawl, if you want to see Abrahmovich properly ripped to shreds check out Taki in The Spectator who destroys him and his dreadful ilk in most issues.
One day Vlad The Impaler will catch up with dear old Roman and Chelsea will drift back to mediocrity.
He must have felt like that bloke on BBC news a few years back. The delivery man who was flung on screen to talk about financial news and tried hard, but clearly had no idea what they were going on about!
The broadcast I was referring to was on 5lives Monday Night Club on the 17th and they said that "not much" was still owed to RA - of course this wasn't qualified in anyway, I'm merely pointing out what was said.
And nobody should ever, ever feel sorry for Cascarino being put into a position of having to know what he's talking about, when he's consistently paid large amounts of money for doing precisely the opposite. He has no qualifications for the kind of job he has. None.
The difference is that I am willing to accept funding from sources that would not pass the most ethical scrutiny.
It would be naive to believe that none of the money that has funded our club over the years has come from a dubious practice.
I'd, really, love to see a list of the desired qualifications you expect?
A degree in Media Studies? An MBA perhaps? A PhD in Economics maybe?
It does make me smile that you've written so much in defence of the man. You'd LOVE to see the list?! Really? You'd love to? I think it's well funny how riled you can get by a passing comment on a footy forum!
Is there a line you would not cross? If, say, IG Farben had offered to plough fortunes into the club in 1943, to make us the best team in the world, would you have accepted their money?
Regarding football commentators, in my opinion, no qualifications are needed. However, if you are getting paid to talk about a football, you really should have knowledge, an opinion that you are prepared to share, and the ability to express yourself as a minimum.
Similarly, you wouldn't expect a former player to make a meaningful contribution to a discussion about the finances of football, and the moral aspects of the money and where it came from. Indeed virtually all players turned pundits stick up for current salary levels and transfer fees
"It's a short career"
"It's not his fault xxxx paid £25m for him"
"If Club A wasn't willing to pay £200k a week, then Club B would do instead"
etc
The bigger picture is rarely considered.
I was most riles by your suggestion that I am a bottom feeder of the worst kind, to be honest.
I would hazard a total guess that a large amount of football fans would much prefer listening to people who can do better than 'Cas'. I'd like to think the football fan is being underestimated on that front.
The bottom feeder comment was regarding how Cascarino makes a living. One the one hand I've read or heard him denounce football agents as money-grabbers, taking millions out of the game. Meanwhile he gets paid indirectly from the same well, for doing a job I personally believe he's utterly useless at.
Retired footballers are ten a penny, he'd be very lucky to be getting a couple of hundred quid per appearance, if that.
He does it because it keeps him in the public eye which, in turn, helps him to make better money from after dinner speaking etc.