Chelsea fans must tell Abramovich to butt out

I would. Even Ken Bates had been getting us to finals for some years before Abramovic arrived. Now Chelsea is just a billionaire's plaything to do with as he pleases. All those managers sacked one after another? Compare that to clubs like Man Utd and Arsenal. Any Chelsea fan who thinks his club is viewed as anything other than a bit of a joke by the rest of the football world is highly delusional. We've developed about two players in the last 10 years (Terry and Bertrand) because it's easier to spend millions on underperforming 'superstars' bought on the owner's egotistical whim. Please, Roman, go. Maybe the cupboard will be bare for a while but if the club can be built on a more solid foundation rather than a foreigner's ill-gotten gains, I will celebrate.

It's an interesting discussion...and obviously, one model doesn't necessarily fit all others. My original point was merely that private ownership is part n parcel of European football. Part of the trade off for that "security" that private funds brings, is that the fans (and often the club itself) are held to ransom by the whims of their billionaire owners. That's what we've seen from Chelsea, Man Utd etc. I actually didn't mention the AFL system, Fussball did, in his typical sarcastic derision. I merely pointed out that it's the most democratic system available (IMO) and that whilst clubs like Chelsea can "buy" trophies via the deep pockets of their owners, that model has obvious pitfalls.

AR Your argument with private V public ownership models is worth exploring. Crowds … Would who owns the club have any effect on crowds in the AFL? Would the entry price ne any different depending on who owns the club? Media…. Would who owns a club determine the media deal? Does ownership affect the type of media you receive? Competition…. Does ownership have any effect on selling a product i.e. locally, internationally? Does ownership have any effect on expansion of a sport? Belly Up…. If a team goes belly up, and let’s assume it is a considerable amount of money say the team needs ten million per year…. What model will likely find the money? Does size matter…. i.e. does one size fit all .. The AFL has according to the ABS 250K players… Football has 380 million.. The AFL has say 50 professional and semi-professional clubs… Football has 150 professional leagues with many league have a number of divisions. Can a model developed for a single country where it is the dominate sport with 48% of the population be used across 150 professional leagues? Discussion ... My take AR is you make an error in applying what works in AFL by assuming the norms of the southern Australian states apply to the world at large. While I agree the AFL has world’s best crowds figures and has been very well managed for the past 100 odd years … it is still only a local game and has no real world pressures.

The issue here (and point of the article) is private ownership and, in particular, Ambramovic and Chelsea. Instead of debating the *issue*, you throw barbs at the AFL. Talk about desperate spinning. And to clarify for others...the Giants are 1 year old. The AFL obviously supported that club in its infancy. When ready, it will be entirely member-owned like the others. South Melb? Fitzroy? are you really digging back to 1981? And somehow Footscray's lack of flags is relevant to this discussion? Das spinnen ist Ihr leben

Hazard didn't kick the 17yo he merely tried to kick The ball from under him. Ideally yes he should have stood there and wait for the Swansea supporter/ ball boy/ Swansea shareholder kid to give the ball back but he has a job to do, play football and win the game. I would add one match max to Hazard already three-match ban. Anything above that would be too harsh IMO as there was no deliberate violence.The good bollocking the ball boy already got from his dad + having to wear tracksuit pants on match day is already a harsh enough penalty.

"Every AFL club is owned by its members" And, I laughed & I laughed. So, are you suggesting that GWS's 6k members - paying $200-$300/yr - own the Club? They're responsible for raising capital? They voted in the Board? When South Melbourne AFL club was liquidated, are you saying the Members made that decision? When Fitzroy was liquidated, when Brisbane Bears were merged & had their name changed ... are you saying the members were involved in these decisions? Footscray hasn't won a Grand Final for 60 years. I guess the owners/members must be pretty content because they don't do anything to alter the situation. Even when you say "members vote in the Board" that's NOT true for ALL clubs & all Members. ONLY fully paid Adult members have a vote. Concession members, junior members, pet members have ZERO voting rights. All spin & no substance.

It was 2 big kids fighting over a ball like two little kids. The bigger kid kicked the little kid for not giving him the ball. The big kid, cause he is a professional, cant do it, even if the little smart alec deserved a kick up the back side. The big kid should get 6 weeks for being a dope, and the little punk should never be allowed to be a ball boy again and have to give back all of his free tracksuits.

Much as Abramovich is the owner and source of funds, his club cant do without suppoters.Their role goes along way in motivating players, adding up to the match day collections and their goowill to the club keeps the name selling.Their role is significant they should be heard.

Every AFL club is owned by its members. All members have voting rights - meaning they vote in the Board...who, in turn, appoint the football department (which includes the coach, fitness staff and recruiters). It's not a system silly enough to give members a direct say in coaches or players (as you cynically infer)...but what it does do, is ensure that the people at the top are accountable for their performance - stuff up, and you're out. It's better than being at the whim of a corrupt Russian oligarch...and without being perfect, probably as democratic a model as you'll find in sport. I know which one I prefer. ...and I bet I know some Rangers fans who would agree...and some Man Utd fans...and some CGU fans...and some...

@AR Which AFL team do you support? When your last coach was appointed, how much input did you have in the decision-making process? How about the players your team drafted this year & sacked last season - how much input did you have in those decisions? I'm keen to understand just if the public ownership model is truly democratic & egalitarian .... or just more spin without substance.

It seems this article should be titled: "The problem with private ownership". Ambramovic is simply exercising the rights (and whims) for which he has paid billions. That's the system.

The ball boy deserved a proper hiding for what he did!!!! Ok, A player should never touch anyone on and off the pitch (bar king Eric of course) but Hazard's reaction was pretty mild IMO. All in all, just a funny moment, nothing malicious really although the young chubby prat had his moment of glory. Still laughing.

Based on that flawed logic Abramovich shouldn't bother hiring a manager and just manage the team himself. Having a massive ego and sticking your nose in areas that you have no expertise just because you write the cheque's is a recipe for a dysfunctional team. It's interesting I recall Mick Malthouse saying that at Collingwood the culture there was one of knowing your role, doing it well and not going beyond that. Just because you bring in money doesn't mean you know how to do anything.

Hahaha! I also saw a lot of people suggesting it was on par with Cantona's Kung Fu lesson; talk about blowing this situation out of proportion! How dare people liken Hazard with Dieu! :)

He's lucky it wasn't Cantona let me tell ya!

Agreed Brick, disgraceful action by the ballboy, unbelievable that kids can interfere in a game like that at this level. Imagine ballkids at the tennis doing similar things. Hazard had every right to try and get the ball off him.........though to be honest the boy deserved a good kicking.

Yeah its not great look but blown out proportion completeley.You would think Hazard was laying the boots into him the way people carry on,he was trying to get the ball out from underneath and the ball boy had a nice puffy jacket on and didn't look short of a few extra pounds either,he wouldn't of felt a thing.

I found a lot of comments on the matter to be rather silly, at least regarding the defense of the ball boy and suggesting it was wrong of a 'man' to attack a 'boy'. Hazard is only 21 and the ball boy is 17, he deserved a right slapping. I think the issue revolves more around professionality, not age. In regards to this article, I can certainly understand the premise of the argument. It's kind of a rock and a hard place scenario, unfortunately for Chelsea fans, evidently they can't have their cake and eat it too. It would be interesting to see how well they could hold onto any sort of form or continued success if Abramovich was to relinquish ownership. Surely at this stage there would be interested parties that would take more of a relaxed, back seat role to the actual team structure and purchasing of players considering the assets the club now possesses?

Speaking of Chelsea what are peoples thoughts on the Hazard incident?,that punk ball boy(he was 17 by the way)deserved it in my eyes!