This is brilliant, thanks for posting. As much as I love Abramovich bashing, any video that makes Cascarino look like the idiot he is is very welcome (ie all of them). He's a bottom feeder of the worst kind.
As for 'I wouldn't complain if it was us', well that puts you in the same boat as Cascarino. Which says it all.
Er, no it doesn't! Cascarino in a poorly educated retired footballer who had no knowledge (I believe) of where the money came from of how Abramovich came to have it. I am not a retired footballer, I am well educated and I knew, exactly, where the money came from and what process led to so much of it belonging to one man!
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.
If you really know, exactly, then you know more than most journalists are ready to publish. However, assuming you know, just a bit, would you not agree with me that if Russia had a rule of law comparable to the UK, then what Abramovic did amounted to theft of assets which belonged to the Russian people? Assets which could have built sorely needed hospitals, schools, alcohol addiction centres...
And you think that would be alright, to instead use this money to fund your minor football club?
On the other hand, Richard Murray's company, Avesco, is a publicly quoted company, based in the UK and employing hundreds of UK citizens. It provides high level audio-visual equipment, for example for the opening ceremony of the London Olympics. In what way is the profit he made from this business "dubious"?
Syed is 100% correct. Many Russians who plundered the wealth from the wreck of the USSR have been welcomed to this country with open arms. Why ? .. who did they bribe, coerce or blackmail ? Arab dictators whose people live in poverty with no rights and little future have invested billions in the UK so that if/when 'their' people do revolt, the dictators can come to Britain and live the life of Reilly. We digress however from matters football. As I wrote above, Abramovich has been bad for the English game and should do one.
This is brilliant, thanks for posting. As much as I love Abramovich bashing, any video that makes Cascarino look like the idiot he is is very welcome (ie all of them). He's a bottom feeder of the worst kind.
As for 'I wouldn't complain if it was us', well that puts you in the same boat as Cascarino. Which says it all.
Er, no it doesn't! Cascarino in a poorly educated retired footballer who had no knowledge (I believe) of where the money came from of how Abramovich came to have it. I am not a retired footballer, I am well educated and I knew, exactly, where the money came from and what process led to so much of it belonging to one man!
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.
If you really know, exactly, then you know more than most journalists are ready to publish. However, assuming you know, just a bit, would you not agree with me that if Russia had a rule of law comparable to the UK, then what Abramovic did amounted to theft of assets which belonged to the Russian people? Assets which could have built sorely needed hospitals, schools, alcohol addiction centres...
And you think that would be alright, to instead use this money to fund your minor football club?
On the other hand, Richard Murray's company, Avesco, is a publicly quoted company, based in the UK and employing hundreds of UK citizens. It provides high level audio-visual equipment, for example for the opening ceremony of the London Olympics. In what way is the profit he made from this business "dubious"?
Alright is not quite how I described it but I'll confirm that I wouldn't be refusing to have his (or an equivalent) ' Business Man' fund ten years of success for us.
It's important to note that Chelsea didn't 'steal' the money and if he'd not put into their club he wouldn't have given it back.
Many of the super rich, the world over, have engaged in some kind of business practice that some would think unacceptable. There are many Socialists (and quite a few on here) that think that the very rich should give up some of their money to those with less and are very outspoken on the subject.
In it inconceivable for someone to go from little to billions without carrying out some kind of misdemeanour, even if it is just that they earn a lot while they have others working hard for less than they 'should be paid' according to some.
I never mentioned Richard Murray or his company. I was referring to the club's whole history but even though I'm not going to comment one way or the other, it is interesting to read that our current major shareholder has been in Court defending himself against an accusation that he 'misled' his friend into handing over £500k. I'm not aware of the outcome but I would think that the word dubious could be applied to that dealing.
I also question if dubious could be used to describe the current set up with no one knowing where the money is coming from.
I didn't think much of Chelsea before he got involved and think they pretty succinctly show a lot of what is wrong with football. Reading about them is like an episode of footballers wives but less believable.
And as far as not not knowing where Abramovich's money came from comes across as naivety at best.
Think of any chelsea fans you know and then think about the opinions they have on Rafael Benitiz because of things he said whilst in charge of a rival and ask them what they think about Abramovich and that will will usually give you a decent character assessment of he average chelsea fan
This is brilliant, thanks for posting. As much as I love Abramovich bashing, any video that makes Cascarino look like the idiot he is is very welcome (ie all of them). He's a bottom feeder of the worst kind.
As for 'I wouldn't complain if it was us', well that puts you in the same boat as Cascarino. Which says it all.
The difference is that I am willing to accept funding from sources that would not pass the most ethical scrutiny.
This may reflect the feelings of a lot of fans.
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.
Mate, that's way, way beyond we're talking about here. Have a word.
I'll confirm that I wouldn't be refusing to have his (or an equivalent) ' Business Man' fund ten years of success for us.
It's important to note that Chelsea didn't 'steal' the money and if he'd not put into their club he wouldn't have given it back.
That's all right then...
Personally I don't know if Syed's other allegation (that RA invested in Chelsea to give himself a profile that would prevent Putin from coming after) him is true or not and I think it might be a tad fanciful. After all he lives outside Russia and is personally out of Putin's grasp (although his business interests aren't) and it's equally likely that buying Chelsea was about ego and wanting the ultimate rich man's toy. But it's clear that he didn't acquire that wealth wholly ethically. Personally I wouldn't want him wrecking Charlton and if that means we stay a Championship club and never play in the CL final then so be it.
Re. Matthew Syed - an excellent journalist who wrote a great book called "bounce" - explores the difference between talent and success in his own sport and many, many others... give it a read - very informative and convincing. I actually think that while Cascarino struggled to catch up he did actually come back with some valid comments about Marseille and owners of footy clubs at all levels. Overall a fascinating point from Syed about the political attractions of buying football clubs... So once again the question: Do CAFC fans want to sit back and wait for someone to come in and do it all for them - with the associated risks re. morality and actual competence OR do fans want to club together and do something to make a difference?
Re. Matthew Syed - an excellent journalist who wrote a great book called "bounce" - explores the difference between talent and success in his own sport and many, many others... give it a read - very informative and convincing. I actually think that while Cascarino struggled to catch up he did actually come back with some valid comments about Marseille and owners of footy clubs at all levels. Overall a fascinating point from Syed about the political attractions of buying football clubs... So once again the question: Do CAFC fans want to sit back and wait for someone to come in and do it all for them - with the associated risks re. morality and actual competence OR do fans want to club together and do something to make a difference?
I assume that your last sentence is referencing the Trust? I hope that the Trust goes from strength to strength, and that those involved are able to do things to help the club.
However, the club are losing in excess of £7m a year, I doubt the trust could raise £7m in ten years. In order for football clubs to be financed at our level (with no debt at all - never mind the fact that we owe over £30m and are borrowing, in some form or other, c. £7m a year) they need to be bankrolled by many, many multiples of the subscriptions you receive.
Ultimately the Trust will never, in my opinion, be able to make the debate about new owners redundant, because the Trust will never, realistically, be able to own the club. As Airman Brown has alluded to elsewhere, the banks that the club owes money to will ultimately decide who is and who isn't allowed to own the club, and a group of fans that pay £5 a year are just not going to cut it.
I think the Trusts work (especially from volunteers) is more than admiral, and there is, now, real reward in that the club (well Richard Murray, at least) is involving them in things. Fund raising, however, is not easy. I have done a lot of it for a Charity, and it takes more than just great 'concepts' and ideas. I struggle, to be honest, to see how the Trust can do much better at raising money for the club when the club has always had access to resources like ticket promotions, a club shop, players that they can have attend events, branding, bricks at The Valley etc. I also think we need to bear in mind that as keen and as competent as the Trust members are they are not employed like Airman Brown and his team were, they do not have access to all sorts of resources at the club and, despite his getting some stick on here recently, I can't imagine that there are many people more intelligent, more focused, and more knowledgeable about fund raising and promotions for the club than he is. There is also no question, at all, to his dedication to Charlton.
In short, I am not convinced that every problem the club has can be solved by the Trust having more members, and at times many of the posts on here make those involved look desperate in their attempt to add some.
Sorry if my opinion is unpopular, but as much as safety in numbers is valid, I believe that without a war chest with millions and millions of pounds in it, there is no alternative to 'waiting for someone else to come in and do it all for them.!
This is a great discussion. Personally, I think Abramovich is as crooked as they come (that should be obvious to anyone with a brain) and have long believed that buying Chelsea was as much part of trying to make himself high profile enough not to get bumped off a la Litvinenko as it was a vanity project. Witness Lebedev doing pretty much the same thing with the SubStandard.
However, KHA makes a very valid point. We (like every other club in the championship) are losing money hand over fist every year. In order to 'compete', we need owners with cash - and the vast majority of them will have acquired that cash via dubious means.
Personally, I would rather we were a non-league team that represented our community, had players who gave a shit about the club and paid all our creditors on time than be bankrolled by a far eastern betting syndicate, Russian oligarch or middle eastern Sheikh - but then, I always was a bit of an idealist
Nothing like a positive mental attitude! If the Trust committee thought that a fiver a head made a direct difference to the losses then one would be right to question their arithmetic and their sanity! Whether your opinion is unpopular or not it is shared by many. Fortunately some 25 years ago, a group of people chose not to take this stance... this cop out saying what can I do? Instead Airman Brown, Prague and many others ran a campaign to get the club back to the Valley... and without personally raising millions to buy the ground or build the new stands. There are answers to the financial questions which the fans can rally around...different times, different challenges and different solutions... So time to think outside the box!
Matthew Syed is an excellent and thought provoking journalist and recommend his column to all. Shame it's taken so long for someone to publicly air the view that many of us expressed at the time he took over.
Mathew Syed is an excellent and thought provoking journalist and recommend his column to all. Shame it's taken so long for someone to publicly air the view that many of us expressed at the time he took over.
Agreed. Thanks to Lookie and this thread for introducing me to him
Of course Cascarino was confused. This is a man that didn't know what country he was from!
Abramovich and his wealth is a Russian problem. Thankfully they are 1000's of miles away.
Tell that to the widow of Alexander Litvinenko, or the guy who was gunned down in Canary Wharf
Exactly. Anyone who thinks that the Russians are only a problem in their own country clearly hasn't paid enough attention to what Lebedev is doing to our press...
Sorry Leroy, but having been blinded by Murdoch and his press style, what is Lebedev doing? Feel free to PM rather than divert this thread (or ignore). Thanks.
Lebedev owns the Independent and Evening Standard (I think 50% of the latter).
Back in Russia he owns an anti-Putin newspaper he was recently convicted of battery after a fight on a TV show. He claims that the charges were politically motivated.
You may have heard about Pussy Riot, a feminist/punk Russian band several members of which were jailed after being public in their criticism of Putin and the Russian state. The crime for which they were jailed was "hooliganism" after they performed anti-Putin/Orthodox Russian church song in a church.
There have been quite a few cases of Russian businessmen who were opponents of Putin and other activists in the media receiving death threats and having strange accidents not just in the UK but pretty much across the globe.
Also significant was the timing of the purchase of Chelsea who were on the brink of bankruptcy when purchased. Sky , as they do in this piece, continually present the fact that so much money is spent in the Prem on wages and transfer fees as some kind of clever thing without ever acknowleging the fact that the operating losses of clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City is unsustainable long term and has caused wage and fee inflation throughout the league structure, but then it is in their interests to talk the Prem up. Bringing the issue back to Charlton, it makes our length of stay in the Prem all the more remarkable given the financial clout of the teams we were playing against on what was not a level playing field - our success during those years following the uncertainty of what went before, leaving and then returning to the Valley and the progress made after returining to the Valley season on season to then reach the Prem was nothing short of amazing and the result of a lot of hard work by many people all pulling together for the cause. Some of these people post on here and are not treated by all with the respect they deserve. Finally, it is a source of sadness to me that despite the Club overachieving and reaching these dizzy heights that some "fans" were vocal on message boards and radio phone ins stating that mid table in the Prem under Curbs wasnt good enough. These comments were embarrassing and made the media tar all Charlton fans with the same brush so that when we were relegated to the Championship I saw Sky comment on more than one occassion that they bet Charlton fans wished they were mid table in the Prem now. I acknowledge that it is likely that those who made these comments were probably band wagon jumpers and are probably long gone but they were not speaking for me and I resented having their comments thrown back at me.
Also significant was the timing of the purchase of Chelsea who were on the brink of bankruptcy when purchased. Sky
At the time thanks to Chelsea's/Ken Bates's lunatic plan to redevelop Stamford Bridge and over-spend on Chelsea's squad they were £99m in debt and days away from defaulting on a Euroloan. The rumour was that RA wanted to buy Liverpool, but they had imploded at the end of the season and missed out on a CL football place which went to Chelsea instead.
The galling thing was that Charlton had completed the double over Chelsea that year and clearly were competing in the premiership by a combination of canny acquisitions and the youth policy. RA however came in and started hosing money at the club and other teams followed suit. The purchase of Scott Parker six months later for example took our best player away and the gap grew between teams like Chelsea that were being run on the whim of their owner and the rest of the league.
When he came in I fully exploded the supernova to go off in a couple of years. While they may or may not be ruined when he finally steps away they've had a decent run. I'd be happy to have a couple of seasons of lunatic investment, they've had a couple of champions league finals and numerous domestic pots.
When he came in I fully exploded the supernova to go off in a couple of years. While they may or may not be ruined when he finally steps away they've had a decent run. I'd be happy to have a couple of seasons of lunatic investment, they've had a couple of champions league finals and numerous domestic pots.
Maybe, but they've done it with zero class. All style, no substance. I doubt that I'd still be supporting Charlton (or at least not to the same extent) if we'd taken that route.
Personally I'm quite happy that players like John Terry and Ashley Cole do not wear a Charlton shirt and that we don't have players arriving and departing on the whim of an owner on an ego trip.
Sorry Leroy, but having been blinded by Murdoch and his press style, what is Lebedev doing? Feel free to PM rather than divert this thread (or ignore). Thanks.
I'm interested in this too Leroy. I was worried when he bought the business, but my impression (perhaps from a distance) was that it's working out better than I hoped. I don't think he has tampered with the Indy's editorial line too much, has he? And when his son appeared on Andrew Marr show, I must say I was really impressed.
Back in Russia he owns an anti-Putin newspaper he was recently convicted of battery after a fight on a TV show. He claims that the charges were politically motivated.
This was the case where the 'victim', after years(?) of shouting about the assualt, at the last minute turned around and claimed it wasn't assault at all and called for the charges to be dropped wasn't it?
Sounds feasible and perfectly straightforward to me...
Comments
And you think that would be alright, to instead use this money to fund your minor football club?
On the other hand, Richard Murray's company, Avesco, is a publicly quoted company, based in the UK and employing hundreds of UK citizens. It provides high level audio-visual equipment, for example for the opening ceremony of the London Olympics. In what way is the profit he made from this business "dubious"?
Arab dictators whose people live in poverty with no rights and little future have invested billions in the UK so that if/when 'their' people do revolt, the dictators can come to Britain and live the life of Reilly.
We digress however from matters football. As I wrote above, Abramovich has been bad for the English game and should do one.
It's important to note that Chelsea didn't 'steal' the money and if he'd not put into their club he wouldn't have given it back.
Many of the super rich, the world over, have engaged in some kind of business practice that some would think unacceptable. There are many Socialists (and quite a few on here) that think that the very rich should give up some of their money to those with less and are very outspoken on the subject.
In it inconceivable for someone to go from little to billions without carrying out some kind of misdemeanour, even if it is just that they earn a lot while they have others working hard for less than they 'should be paid' according to some.
I never mentioned Richard Murray or his company. I was referring to the club's whole history but even though I'm not going to comment one way or the other, it is interesting to read that our current major shareholder has been in Court defending himself against an accusation that he 'misled' his friend into handing over £500k. I'm not aware of the outcome but I would think that the word dubious could be applied to that dealing.
I also question if dubious could be used to describe the current set up with no one knowing where the money is coming from.
And as far as not not knowing where Abramovich's money came from comes across as naivety at best.
Think of any chelsea fans you know and then think about the opinions they have on Rafael Benitiz because of things he said whilst in charge of a rival and ask them what they think about Abramovich and that will will usually give you a decent character assessment of he average chelsea fan
It's important to note that Chelsea didn't 'steal' the money and if he'd not put into their club he wouldn't have given it back.
That's all right then...
Personally I don't know if Syed's other allegation (that RA invested in Chelsea to give himself a profile that would prevent Putin from coming after) him is true or not and I think it might be a tad fanciful. After all he lives outside Russia and is personally out of Putin's grasp (although his business interests aren't) and it's equally likely that buying Chelsea was about ego and wanting the ultimate rich man's toy. But it's clear that he didn't acquire that wealth wholly ethically. Personally I wouldn't want him wrecking Charlton and if that means we stay a Championship club and never play in the CL final then so be it.
I actually think that while Cascarino struggled to catch up he did actually come back with some valid comments about Marseille and owners of footy clubs at all levels.
Overall a fascinating point from Syed about the political attractions of buying football clubs... So once again the question: Do CAFC fans want to sit back and wait for someone to come in and do it all for them - with the associated risks re. morality and actual competence OR do fans want to club together and do something to make a difference?
However, the club are losing in excess of £7m a year, I doubt the trust could raise £7m in ten years. In order for football clubs to be financed at our level (with no debt at all - never mind the fact that we owe over £30m and are borrowing, in some form or other, c. £7m a year) they need to be bankrolled by many, many multiples of the subscriptions you receive.
Ultimately the Trust will never, in my opinion, be able to make the debate about new owners redundant, because the Trust will never, realistically, be able to own the club. As Airman Brown has alluded to elsewhere, the banks that the club owes money to will ultimately decide who is and who isn't allowed to own the club, and a group of fans that pay £5 a year are just not going to cut it.
I think the Trusts work (especially from volunteers) is more than admiral, and there is, now, real reward in that the club (well Richard Murray, at least) is involving them in things. Fund raising, however, is not easy. I have done a lot of it for a Charity, and it takes more than just great 'concepts' and ideas. I struggle, to be honest, to see how the Trust can do much better at raising money for the club when the club has always had access to resources like ticket promotions, a club shop, players that they can have attend events, branding, bricks at The Valley etc. I also think we need to bear in mind that as keen and as competent as the Trust members are they are not employed like Airman Brown and his team were, they do not have access to all sorts of resources at the club and, despite his getting some stick on here recently, I can't imagine that there are many people more intelligent, more focused, and more knowledgeable about fund raising and promotions for the club than he is. There is also no question, at all, to his dedication to Charlton.
In short, I am not convinced that every problem the club has can be solved by the Trust having more members, and at times many of the posts on here make those involved look desperate in their attempt to add some.
Sorry if my opinion is unpopular, but as much as safety in numbers is valid, I believe that without a war chest with millions and millions of pounds in it, there is no alternative to 'waiting for someone else to come in and do it all for them.!
However, KHA makes a very valid point. We (like every other club in the championship) are losing money hand over fist every year. In order to 'compete', we need owners with cash - and the vast majority of them will have acquired that cash via dubious means.
Personally, I would rather we were a non-league team that represented our community, had players who gave a shit about the club and paid all our creditors on time than be bankrolled by a far eastern betting syndicate, Russian oligarch or middle eastern Sheikh - but then, I always was a bit of an idealist
Whether your opinion is unpopular or not it is shared by many. Fortunately some 25 years ago, a group of people chose not to take this stance... this cop out saying what can I do? Instead Airman Brown, Prague and many others ran a campaign to get the club back to the Valley... and without personally raising millions to buy the ground or build the new stands.
There are answers to the financial questions which the fans can rally around...different times, different challenges and different solutions...
So time to think outside the box!
He certainly couldn't give a flyin f*** where the lolly's coming from. :-)
Abramovich and his wealth is a Russian problem. Thankfully they are 1000's of miles away.
Lebedev owns the Independent and Evening Standard (I think 50% of the latter).
Back in Russia he owns an anti-Putin newspaper he was recently convicted of battery after a fight on a TV show. He claims that the charges were politically motivated.
You may have heard about Pussy Riot, a feminist/punk Russian band several members of which were jailed after being public in their criticism of Putin and the Russian state. The crime for which they were jailed was "hooliganism" after they performed anti-Putin/Orthodox Russian church song in a church.
There have been quite a few cases of Russian businessmen who were opponents of Putin and other activists in the media receiving death threats and having strange accidents not just in the UK but pretty much across the globe.
At the time thanks to Chelsea's/Ken Bates's lunatic plan to redevelop Stamford Bridge and over-spend on Chelsea's squad they were £99m in debt and days away from defaulting on a Euroloan. The rumour was that RA wanted to buy Liverpool, but they had imploded at the end of the season and missed out on a CL football place which went to Chelsea instead.
The galling thing was that Charlton had completed the double over Chelsea that year and clearly were competing in the premiership by a combination of canny acquisitions and the youth policy. RA however came in and started hosing money at the club and other teams followed suit. The purchase of Scott Parker six months later for example took our best player away and the gap grew between teams like Chelsea that were being run on the whim of their owner and the rest of the league.
Personally I'm quite happy that players like John Terry and Ashley Cole do not wear a Charlton shirt and that we don't have players arriving and departing on the whim of an owner on an ego trip.
Sounds feasible and perfectly straightforward to me...