Mad Dog: a disgrace to the game or the inevitable role model of the future game?

I disagree. Considering the original post i think they've all been rational apart from Roo's and yours

 

Has Abramovich been good for the game? Impossible to answer.

He hasn't been good for Arsenal fans because its seen us arguably usurp Arsenal as the major force in London and taken us even further ahead of Spurs on and off the pitch. It certainly hasn't been good for United as it has allowed a challenger to emerge with even more financial muscle than them. Abramovich also hasn't been good for the old G14 as he's provided a challenge for them in Europe.

Abramovich's money and calibre of players he has brought to the league has helped the Premier League as a brand and up until a few years ago it was arguably the strongest league in Europe. The main criticism that can be aimed at Abramovich is the huge inflation of wages. Not necessarily his fault but wages spiralled out of control following his emergence.

In my view, Abramovich has been good for Chelsea and good for the Premier League as a brand, but he hasn't necessarily been good for football. I don't see what Barnet, Plymouth Argyle or Southend gain from him being at Chelsea, it's not as if the money trickles down.

What benefits Chelsea/Arsenal/United etc, doesn't necessarily benefit the game as a whole.

 

In my view, Roo is the only one that looked at from the point of view of a football fan rather than a Spurs/Arsenal/United fan.

What Spurs fan would think Abramovich was good for English football and what Chelsea fan would think he wasn't?

The only way to assess it rationally is if you remove club allegiance from the equation, which is very difficult to do.

 

to me a favour, we're all Spurs fans, including you

 

"Is the Mad Dog a complete and utter disgrace, or has he merely signaled how football will be dictated in the future (a future where a manager will be sacked if he does not deliver the impossible, ie. instant success)?"

Near-instant (or near-repeatable) success seems to be the pattern
for the PL Sugga Daddy FCs.

Oligarsky does seem to have too much of a hair-trigger response at the first
moment he suspects Chelsky are slipping away from whatever mental expectations
he has for the club in a particular season.

 

Speak for yourself, I'm more of a Miami Heat fan

 

They now have a lucky loser lottery involving the bottom teams to preclude just such chicanery.

But before they created one, the answer to your question was yes, depending to some extent on who was at stake. It happened especially in basketball, where since you only have five players, having the best one can be the difference between a title and losing most of your games. I never saw more than one team a year absolutely mail it in, but that would be one too many if you had season tickets.


The real fun would be to have a playoff for the worst team at the end of the year. It would be a normal game, except they'd be shooting at each other's baskets.

 

Managers have a shorter time to turn things around than ever - fans are equally to blame as some of the owners - it's the "want it now" society that we live in

 

Nail on head re: Immediate gratification.

 

Oi!

What was wrong with mine

IMO, I hate the foreign takeovers. But it is the way it is and I don't want to get involved in something that will end up becoming very wummy. - subjects like this always do, and people end up insulting one another.

However, regardless of money, my point was mainly that footballers are not robots. They aren't machines in a factory that can just spit out an end product.
As humans, there are always too many variables in just about anything in life. We aren't programmed to deliver something consistently 100% of the time. - so just because tonnes and tonnes of money is involved, it doesn't change the characteristics or capabilities of the human. - especially instantly.
I guess it's what makes football amazing. At the end of the day, it's still 11 v 11 and nothing is 100% certain. - the FA cup shows us this just about every season!

 

He has spoiled the game.

Teams think success should be bought not earned because of Romans millions. All the small clubs are desperately fishing for new owners so they can try and become the new Chelsea or City.

Ask yourself, can you name ONE good thing he has brought to the game? Competition would be wrong as there were as many if not more teams competing in the 90's.

 

Can`t really buy into this, he has done no more than Madrid or Barca have been doing for years, the "galactico`s" did not go to Real for the love of the club, it was for hugh transfer fees and wages. Now we here all the time that it was a players dream to play for one of these clubs but i bet none of them would go there for 50k a week.

 

It does not happen.

 

I was told (by my Chelsea supporting mate) that he used to flip burgers before he met an American billionaire oil magnate who needed some simple-simon Russian/English speaker to clinch a deal for him.

Bang!

Mad Dog is suddenly doing oil deals, and, 20 years later, is running CFC and English football (although not actually creating any English talent).

 

...except for when we finished above you.

 

Insignificant seeing as we won the CL.

 

The biggest and best are the ones that spend the most money.

That's football, business and life unfortunately.

 

The only aspect that you are ahead of us off the field is your large fan-base, which is not something I would shout about, having a majority fan-base of nouveau glory-hunters. Our finances are more sustainable than yours, our training facilities are better than yours, we will have a new (larger than yours) stadium in the next few years. I really don't see how you are ahead of us off the field...

 

The only thing wrong with it was that DL liked it and i was being a child

 

We are less detested off the field