Matthew Syed Hits Out At Roman Abramovich

Funkyzeit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmCtci6cen8#at=181

Especially Loved Kirsty Gallaghers contribution to the debate.

greendom

At work so I can't view the video. Can someone summarise what was said ?

NukaCola

greendom wrote: »

At work so I can't view the video. Can someone summarise what was said ?

He hits out at Roman Abramovich.

Gringo180

Funkyzeit wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmCtci6cen8#at=181

Especially Loved Kirsty Gallaghers contribution to the debate.

He has put British football on the map :pac: What an absolute airhead she is!!

Interesting stuff all the same, I dont like the man personally there is just something shady about him.

Gringo180

greendom wrote: »

At work so I can't view the video. Can someone summarise what was said ?

He said Abramovich only bought Chelsea for his own protection as there was a risk of Putin coming after him as he had done with other Oligarchs for his role in some shady dealings with former president Boris Yeltzin.

extra gravy

greendom wrote: »

At work so I can't view the video. Can someone summarise what was said ?

Basically that Abramovich and a few other oligarchs gained their wealth through a rigged privatisation when Yeltsin was going for re-election. Yeltsin sold them the mineral rights of the Russian people in return for financial backing and advertising. Syed states that this "stolen money" has bankrolled Chelsea and that his investment in the club was a means of protecting himself from the Russian authorities by associating himself with a highly visible British asset.

Neil3030

Roman used British football to put himself on the map, via organisations like Sky, who are now claiming that he put British football on the map.

Circular trolling ftw.

Richard Hillman

Abramovich has been brilliant for English football and football in general. I don't give a toss about the people of Russia or what his motives were in buying the club.

My Saturdays, Sundays and Tuesday and Wednesdays are a lot more entertaining because of Roman, Sheikh Mansour and the Qatar operation.

GavRedKing

Roman is a very shady character and thats just dealing with the stuff we know.

Hes won a few cases against him for mass lumps of his fortunes and the people hes gone against, most recent case of the lawsuit by Berezovsky for 3 billion, the case was thrown out and a few months later Berezovsky was found dead in his home from suicide although there was initial question marks surronding his death.

Andersonisgod

Matthew's points may well be true, and it would be tough to argue that a big factor, if not the biggest factor, for Abramovich's decision to buy Chelsea was as a form of protection from Putin. Though equally Abramovich is hardly the first businessperson to take advantage of a situation in a country for his own means.

All of that being said, from a purely sporting point of view, I think Abramovich has been a huge success, not just for Chelsea where he took us to the next level and established the club among the elite of European football but also for the Premier League as a whole. Before Abramovich the league had turned into a two horse race, Abramovich arrived and changed the game, suddenly the standard of players in the Premier League improved, he was able to bring in so many top quality players and huge names, Man Utd and Arsenal had to raise their games accordingly, the success of Abramovich opened the door for a new wave of owners, including Man City which has made the league even more competitive. So from a quality standpoint, a competition standpoint, a financial standpoint and a marketability standpoint it's been and was the game changing moment of English football in the 21st century so far.

GTR63

Remember when that Shinawatra lad was in charge at City, jesus that lad was quite a character?
Sky were more disgusted at a bad tackle than some of the stuff he was up to.

Mitch Connor

GTR63 wrote: »

Remember when that Shinawatra lad was in charge at City, jesus that lad was quite a character?
Sky were more disgusted at a bad tackle than some of the stuff he was up to.

Sure it is the same with City now - have a look up for human rights violations in that part of the world. The press are still very silent on such matters on Qatar and Abu Dhabi, because it suits their bottom dollar to keep their mouths shut.

Zebra3

extra gravy wrote: »

Basically that Abramovich and a few other oligarchs gained their wealth through a rigged privatisation when Yeltsin was going for re-election. Yeltsin sold them the mineral rights of the Russian people in return for financial backing and advertising. Syed states that this "stolen money" has bankrolled Chelsea and that his investment in the club was a means of protecting himself from the Russian authorities by associating himself with a highly visible British asset.

Which is spot on.

wandatowell

have Arsenal signed Higuaín yet?

Sir Gallagher

Quite refreshing to hear a knowledgeable journalist speak like this on SSN. You can tell the rest of them are completely out of their comfort zone.

And Kirsty..."you need to shut the fck up when grown folks is talkin'!"

Gringo180

wandatowell wrote: »

have Arsenal signed Higuaín yet?

:pac:

dfx-

When Syed is not on the 'Sunday Supplement' aka the Sky journalist support group or similar, his opinions are interesting.

LiamoSail

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Matthew's points may well be true, and it would be tough to argue that a big factor, if not the biggest factor, for Abramovich's decision to buy Chelsea was as a form of protection from Putin. Though equally Abramovich is hardly the first businessperson to take advantage of a situation in a country for his own means.

All of that being said, from a purely sporting point of view, I think Abramovich has been a huge success, not just for Chelsea where he took us to the next level and established the club among the elite of European football but also for the Premier League as a whole. Before Abramovich the league had turned into a two horse race, Abramovich arrived and changed the game, suddenly the standard of players in the Premier League improved, he was able to bring in so many top quality players and huge names, Man Utd and Arsenal had to raise their games accordingly, the success of Abramovich opened the door for a new wave of owners, including Man City which has made the league even more competitive. So from a quality standpoint, a competition standpoint, a financial standpoint and a marketability standpoint it's been and was the game changing moment of English football in the 21st century so far.

Still though, its not winning the right way

karma_

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Abramovich has been brilliant for English football and football in general. I don't give a toss about the people of Russia or what his motives were in buying the club.

My Saturdays, Sundays and Tuesday and Wednesdays are a lot more entertaining because of Roman, Sheikh Mansour and the Qatar operation.

I googled 'idiotic post' and ended up here.

greendom

greendom wrote: »

At work so I can't view the video. Can someone summarise what was said ?

Sky invented football and Kirsty invented maps.

Liam O

It's actually like a scientist talking to 3 cavemen who were just unfrozen 10 years ago.

GavRedKing

LiamoSail wrote: »

Still though, its not winning the right way

Which would be the right way?

Gbear

dfx- wrote: »

When Syed is not on the 'Sunday Supplement' aka the Sky journalist support group or similar, his opinions are interesting.

I'm supprised anyone who can even string a basic sentence together, much less bring an interesting and controversial opinion to the table (at least at that table) would fit in in the foetid pit of stupidity that is the Sunday Supplement.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Big statements from Syed. His well-explained opinions were a breath of fresh air. And what an interjection by Kirsty, top comment on YouTube:

Matthew Syed - Obtained first class honours in philosphy, politics and economics at Oxford University against Kirsty Gallacher who studied fashion that well known institute "The London College of Fashion" and only has a journalism career because she's quite attractive. Listen to the eloquence and clarity of what he says - then she counters the argument with something an 11 year old would say. Almost felt sorry for Syed for putting up with her. Must've been like talking to a brick wall with tits

Richard Hillman

karma_ wrote: »

I googled 'idiotic post' and ended up here.

Nice and constructive post. Thanks for coming out today. Your support means a lot to me and my party.

LiamoSail

GavRedKing wrote: »

Which would be the right way?

I was referencing the quoted posters proBarca right way argument

Leiva

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Quite refreshing to hear a knowledgeable journalist speak like this on SSN. You can tell the rest of them are completely out of their comfort zone.

And Kirsty..."you need to shut the fck up when grown folks is talkin'!"

Lol was thinking the same when I was watching it.

Poor Jim's face was like "Oh bollōx who let someone with brains onto the show"

And for Kirsty's question...jeez she has gone right down on my fapping list:pac:

MisterAnarchy

Kirsty

Abramovich has put British football on the map .
The reason the Premier League's standing as one of the most exciting football leagues in the world is surely because of Chelsea

Qed
:rolleyes:

Andersonisgod

LiamoSail wrote: »

I was referencing the quoted posters proBarca right way argument

To the best of my knowledge I've never commented on my opinions of Barcelona's ownership, nor have I stated that I believe that that particular type of ownership is the right way.

However thank you for your entirely unjustified and irrelevant dig at me, I wont be commenting further on it as it has nothing to do with this topic and is a cheap attempt to goad me into an argument, however great contribution to the thread, it really made us all think. Scintillating.

extra gravy

All she's doing with stupid ignorant comments like that is undermining other women who are actually knowledgeable about the game.

CSF

extra gravy wrote: »

All she's doing with stupid ignorant comments like that is undermining other women who are actually knowledgeable about the game.

Hardly fair, lots of clueless men out there too. Lets judge everyone on their individual merits

LiamoSail

Andersonisgod wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge I've never commented on my opinions of Barcelona's ownership, nor have I stated that I believe that that particular type of ownership is the right way.

However thank you for your entirely unjustified and irrelevant dig at me, I wont be commenting further on it as it has nothing to do with this topic and is a cheap attempt to goad me into an argument, however great contribution to the thread, it really made us all think. Scintillating.

Relax ffs, it was a light hearted comment that was neither a dig nor an attempt to goad anyone into an argument

eagle eye

LiamoSail wrote: »

Relax ffs, it was a light hearted comment that was neither a dig nor an attempt to goad anyone into an argument

Its funny the amount of people that do this when a poster makes them look foolish.

Cienciano

I remember when sky sports got rid of Gray and Keys, people mentioned the Sky Sports news presenters always happened to be good looking with big boobs. Sky said that any of their presenters have gotten where they were purely on their abilities as a journalist.
I think Kirsty has just blown that argument out of the water.

And in fairness, Cas wasn't much better.

A_Sober_Paddy

Everything said about Roman by Syed, I was told about 2 years ago on a bus to Finn Harps...

Very refreshing to see someone in the public's eye say it

Hidalgo

Cas really has his serious 'I know exactly what's being talked about here' face on

circadian

THFC wrote: »

Big statements from Syed. His well-explained opinions were a breath of fresh air. And what an interjection by Kirsty, top comment on YouTube:

Matthew Syed - Obtained first class honours in philosphy, politics and economics at Oxford University against Kirsty Gallacher who studied fashion that well known institute "The London College of Fashion" and only has a journalism career because she's quite attractive. Listen to the eloquence and clarity of what he says - then she counters the argument with something an 11 year old would say. Almost felt sorry for Syed for putting up with her. Must've been like talking to a brick wall with tits

Best wall ever.

S28382

RA out :pac:

K.T.B.F.F.

Red Crow

Anybody who thinks that Roman Abramovich has been good for English football needs their head checked. I'd argue strongly that if a strong Liverpool and Manchester United could of co-existed over a longer period then the Premier League would have expanded far more quickly than it has.

There are two teams who have "put English football on the map" and they're Manchester United and Liverpool.

Football is adjusting to the likes of Abramovich and his cronies financially. The cost of football is increasing year-on-year. Eventually the bubble will burst and then we will see the white handkerchiefs.

Zebra3

Eli Manning wrote: »

Football is adjusting to the likes of Abramovich and his cronies financially.

It's not adjusting, it's overstretching.

LiamoSail

eagle eye wrote: »

Its funny the amount of people that do this when a poster makes them look foolish.

Do what? The dogs on the street could see it was a light hearted comment

amiable

The reaction to this in the Chelsea thread is hilarious.

Mitch Connor

Think Kirsty is getting a hard time over this, that she doesn't deserve.

Yes, the arguement she put forward was shallow and stupid, but I reckon if you were able to listed real close you would hear a producer in her ear screaming at her (and Jim) to interject with exactly that argument.

The press know all about RA and his motives, same with the owners at City, PSG and Malaga, and they keep stum on it for a reason.

If anything is a shock here, it is that they had Syed on, knowing this is a route he was likely to go. The presenter response to it is toeing the party line, and I'd be shocked if they weren't words put in their mouths. I'd say the presenters know full well Syed is right, and that their arguments against him are vapid, but they are carrying out the orders of their bosses, I would say.

Zebra3

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Think Kirsty is getting a hard time over this, that she doesn't deserve.

Yes, the arguement she put forward was shallow and stupid, but I reckon if you were able to listed real close you would hear a producer in her ear screaming at her (and Jim) to interject with exactly that argument.

The press know all about RA and his motives, same with the owners at City, PSG and Malaga, and they keep stum on it for a reason.

These so-called journos on SSN are a disgrace and deserve all the abuse they get for conforming to the media's omerta on a major criminal.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If anything is a shock here, it is that they had Syed on, knowing this is a route he was likely to go. The presenter response to it is toeing the party line, and I'd be shocked if they weren't words put in their mouths. I'd say the presenters know full well Syed is right, and that their arguments against him are vapid, but they are carrying out the orders of their bosses, I would say.

Yeah, couldn't believe they had somebody on who wasn't gonna go along with their propaganda.

Mitch Connor

Zebra3 wrote: »

These so-called journos on SSN are a disgrace and deserve all the abuse they get for conforming to the media's omerta on a major criminal.

Then blame Sky Sports as an organization.

I simply think the abuse Kirsty is getting here is unwarranted, and a lot of it is based on the fact she has tits. Any presenter would have got abuse over that argument, but if it was a male that said it his appearance wouldn't have been used as a stick to beat him with, imo.

These are presenters we are talking about also - not investigative journalists, so you have to view and critique them in that context. They are there to present the news, sports news, not drive political discourse or hammer immoral arguments. I wish they were, I wish football and sporting people were properly called on their BS all the time, but that isn't the way the sports media works - it simply wouldn't work if it did. Just look at the way investigative journo's have been treated within cycling over the last number of years, outcast and destroyed.

Zebra3

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Then blame Sky Sports as an organization.

I simply think the abuse Kirsty is getting here is unwarranted, and a lot of it is based on the fact she has tits. Any presenter would have got abuse over that argument, but if it was a male that said it his appearance wouldn't have been used as a stick to beat him with, imo.

These are presenters we are talking about also - not investigative journalists, so you have to view and critique them in that context. They are there to present the news, sports news, not drive political discourse or hammer immoral arguments. I wish they were, I wish football and sporting people were properly called on their BS all the time, but that isn't the way the sports media works - it simply wouldn't work if it did. Just look at the way investigative journo's have been treated within cycling over the last number of years, outcast and destroyed.

If you work on tv and are sympathetic to mafiosi, expect abuse.

Mitch Connor

Zebra3 wrote: »

If you work on tv and are sympathetic to mafiosi, expect abuse.

About your cup size?

Zebra3

Mitch Connor wrote: »

About your cup size?

Where did this happen?

Mitch Connor

Zebra3 wrote: »

Where did this happen?

In this thread - many comments regarding her only having the job cause she is attractive and is female.

Don't get me wrong, her argument was stupid, but no worse than the arguments put forward by Jim or Cas, yet she gets the brunt of the abuse.

The issue should be with the way sports media operates in the first place, not Kirsty herself who was very likely only following orders of the producers who wouldn't want to be seen as leading a campaign against owner of Chelsea FC, as it could/would have a big impact in their ability to report on and cover chelsea in the way the vast majority of the their viewship cares - from a purely on the pitch perspective.

Cienciano

Mitch Connor wrote: »

In this thread - many comments regarding her only having the job cause she is attractive and is female.

Don't get me wrong, her argument was stupid, but no worse than the arguments put forward by Jim or Cas, yet she gets the brunt of the abuse.

The issue should be with the way sports media operates in the first place, not Kirsty herself who was very likely only following orders of the producers who wouldn't want to be seen as leading a campaign against owner of Chelsea FC, as it could/would have a big impact in their ability to report on and cover chelsea in the way the vast majority of the their viewship cares - from a purely on the pitch perspective.

Don't make me godwin this thread

jem

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I simply think the abuse Kirsty is getting here is unwarranted, and a lot of it is based on the fact she has tits. .

And dam nice ones at that.
Seriously though.
She is like many news readers , there to do a job, brains not realy required