WI: Roman Abramovich bought Manchester United in 2003?

[British Republic]

In 2003 a Russian Businessman watched Manchester United play Real Madrid, that game was one in which Real defeated United and within a few months of that game David Beckham moved from Manchester United to Real Madrid.

Meanwhile that Russian Businessman began to take an interest in the English Game and look to buy a football club. That Russian Businessman was Roman Abramovich and eventually as we all know he bought Chelsea after its previous owner was unable to deal with its large debts and Manchester United was bought by the Glazer Family in 2005.

But what if Roman Abramovich decided to buy the team he watched on that day? What if he bought Manchester United Football Club? Remember at the time the club was listed on the LSE and during this time there had been previous attempts at takeover bids for the club and Abramovich certainly had more than enough money to buy it lock stock and barrel or at least gain a majority shareholding.

Likewise one might say he bought into English Football partly at least for PR reasons (how many people in the UK knew about him before he bought Chelsea FC?) and thus what better way of doing that by buying one of the most well know football clubs and for that matter brands in the world?

Now what I want to know if that if Roman Abramovich took control of the club before the 2003-2004 season began and invested as much as he did in Chelsea in OTL into Manchester United (Nearly £200 million in the first 2 years of his ownership and over £2 billion to date), remember at the time the 2 dominant clubs in England since the formation of the Premier League were Manchester United and Arsenal* and this also applied in the FA Cup as well and that in the 2003-2004 Season Arsenal would not only win the EPL but also go on a season long unbeaten run while reaching the Semi-Finals of the FA Cup (United would win it and come 3rd, they also won the 2002-2003 EPL title as well).

Remember also that in their first 2 years Chelsea came 2nd in the EPL and reach the Champions League Semi-Finals in 2003-2004 and winning the EPL and League Cup in 2004-2005 thanks to the huge amount of investment.

So what I am thinking is how well would United do if they got that level of investment in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Would they be able win the 2003-2004 EPL, the FA Cup and do better in the Champions League than the Knockout Stage or would they win the Treble yet again? Could they become even more dominant in the English Game than they where in OTL and win more Champions League's?

Likewise would this mean that Arsenal would not have their unbeaten run and that they fall behind Manchester United in the Domestic Game? Of course that would still mean they would finish in the Top-4 short of something really bad happening to them.

Lastly how would it affect Chelsea** and the English and European Games in general?

*At the time only Blackburn won the EPL (apart from Arsenal and Mancheste United that is) and that took a huge amount of investment (at the time) to get that far and a short lived on at that, Liverpool could have more than matched them but sadly they did not.

**At the time they were suffering from large debts (Leeds United began their long decline because of this issue), likewise unless someone else invests that levels of money then Chelsea are going to be less sucessful than OTL, in other words (unless I am mistaken) they would be one of the better teams in the EPL and FA Cup but still behind Manchester United and Arsenal...

 

[Derek Pullem]

Manchester is not London.

Manchester does not have the other opportunities for a Russian oligarch(property investment) neither does it have direct flights to Moscow (apart from Easyjet - really!???)

 

[British Republic]

Manchester is not London.

Manchester does not have the other opportunities for a Russian oligarch(property investment) neither does it have direct flights to Moscow (apart from Easyjet - really!???)

To be honest the only British Airlines serving Russia from London are British Airways and Easyjet, so in terms of carriers there is little difference from the UK perspective, of course no Russian Carrier serves Manchester (Despite the fact Aeroflot is currently a sponsor of Manchester United).

Anyway (and this is from a Londoner) while Manchester is not exactly in the same league as a "major international city" as London it is close than pretty much any city in the UK. Likewise there are some nice houses to the South of Manchester and even if that was not the case, I don't think Roman would buy a football club just because it is close to where he lives in the UK (he considered Tottenham as well) unless I am mistaken.

 

[betrayor]

Abramovich wouldn't do that,
he wanted to show his greatness,take a small club and transform it into a giant,
Man U couldn't do that they were allready the most succesfull team of the last decade, except for Chelsea the other choices for what he wanted would probably be Tottenhman and maybe Everton....

 

[Derek Pullem]

To be honest the only British Airlines serving Russia from London are British Airways and Easyjet, so in terms of carriers there is little difference from the UK perspective, of course no Russian Carrier serves Manchester (Despite the fact Aeroflot is currently a sponsor of Manchester United).

Anyway (and this is from a Londoner) while Manchester is not exactly in the same league as a "major international city" as London it is close than pretty much any city in the UK. Likewise there are some nice houses to the South of Manchester and even if that was not the case, I don't think Roman would buy a football club just because it is close to where he lives in the UK (he considered Tottenham as well) unless I am mistaken.

On that we differ.

There seems to be a distinct lack of Russian Oligarchs investing in Northern clubs

Aside from Roman we have

Arsenal : Usmanov - homes in London (£48 million) and Surrey
Bournemouth : Demin - bought an exclusive £5 million home in Sandbanks and then demolished it to build a new one.
Reading : ex-owner Zingarevich - went to college close to club so Daddy bought it for him.

They really don't like it "oop North"

 

[British Republic]

Abramovich wouldn't do that,
he wanted to show his greatness,take a small club and transform it into a giant,
Man U couldn't do that they were allready the most succesfull team of the last decade, except for Chelsea the other choices for what he wanted would probably be Tottenhman and maybe Everton....

Manchester United have not been that sucessful in Europe compared to other major clubs in Europe (although better than other English Clubs). Likewise in terms of PR and getting yourself known in the world, you can't get better than Manchester United.

I would admit you are correct on that point though...

 

[British Republic]

On that we differ.

There seems to be a distinct lack of Russian Oligarchs investing in Northern clubs

Aside from Roman we have

Arsenal : Usmanov - homes in London (£48 million) and Surrey
Bournemouth : Demin - bought an exclusive £5 million home in Sandbanks and then demolished it to build a new one.
Reading : ex-owner Zingarevich - went to college close to club so Daddy bought it for him.

They really don't like it "oop North"

The Americans and Arabs (and beyond that) seem to have less of a issue though, I wonder why, maybe parts of the North remind them of industrial areas of Russia?

 

[oldironside]

Well, it would be another reason to hate Man U, and it would have stopped my cousin polluting Facebook with endless posts about sodding Chelsea. So, it would have all been positive.

 

[British Republic]

Well, it would be another reason to hate Man U, and it would have stopped my cousin polluting Facebook with endless posts about sodding Chelsea. So, it would have all been positive.

How well could have Chelsea done without Romans investment in the club? Remember that they came 4th in 2002-2003 but they were burdened with debt?

Likewise what would Arsenal do in response to Roman investing hugely into Man U?

 

[oldironside]

How well could have Chelsea done without Romans investment in the club? Remember that they came 4th in 2002-2003 but they were burdened with debt?

Likewise what would Arsenal do in response to Roman investing hugely into Man U?

Well, as for Chelsea, I'm old enough to remember when they had a team of hod carriers. Taxi!

I'm sure the debt would have dragged them back down to their natural level and they'd have been reduced to scouring various London building sites for a new squad.

What would Arsenal do? Well, if they were going to panic and revert to type they'd sack Wenger, hire Allardyce and play 8-1-1.

 

[Scotty]

Chelsea would have went bang without Roman buying them, and to be honest i'm not sure buy Man Utd would have made good business sense

what did he get Chelsea for - £1 then spent £200 million getting them out of debt

what did the Glazers spend on Man Utd - £500M to put them £500M in debt...

 

[oldironside]

what did the Glazers spend on Man Utd - £500M to put them £500M in debt...

You raise an important point. While I would be happy to see Abramovich and Mansour get lost and take their filthy money with them, the Glazers should never have been allowed within a thousand miles of owning a Premier League club.

Much as I hate Man U, this vile family milking the club to pay their own debts is nothing short of a national scandal.

 

[mudhead]

Without the scores of millions being taken out by the Glazers, Man Utd would probably be in an impregnable position: Abramovich wouldn't need to provide the enormous subsidies necessary at Stamford Bridge.

OTOH, the Glazers have been smart enough to keep their noses out of the football side of things, and keep Fergie onside.

Would Roman do this at Man Utd? At Chelsea, he undermined Mourinho(1) by bringing in a past-it Shevchenko, and then repeated the error, foisting Torres on Ancelotti.

If he'd tried this on Shur Alex...

 

[GeorgeUK]

Abramovich's main two options were Tottenham and Chelsea, but Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy wouldn't speak to him. Success-wise, Chelsea had been considerably more successful in recent seasons; FA Cup in 1997, Cup Winners' Cup and League Cup in 1998, title challenge and CL qualification in 1999 (they only eventually missed out on the league by four points), FA Cup and CL quarter-finals in 2000, and CL qualification (along with a title challenge until January). In fact, the then England manager, Sven-Goran Ericsson, advised him to choose Chelsea.

The club were in advanced talks with Bernie Ecclestone until Abramovich swooped in, but under him they wouldn't have been anywhere near successful; it would most likely have been a "steady the ship" job.

 

[Geordie]

Those who say it's got to be a London club are pretty bang on. Of the London clubs, I'm pretty sure Arsenal back then wouldn't have given Abramovich the time of day, so the other two obvious choices to look at are Spurs and Chelsea. As George says above, Levy wouldn't even speak to Abramovich, so Stamford Bridge is the next logical choice. The debts mean they're available for a song, and he's got the cash to make the debts negligible very quickly.

If, for reasons that I can't possibly imagine, Chelsea (was it still Bates?) wouldn't deal with Abramovich - maybe Bernie Eccleston wraps things up before Roman starts looking - I wonder where he'd go next. Would he look to turn another London club into a powerhouse of English football? West Ham? Fulham? Charlton were back in the top flight too...

If he's going outside of London, then it could probably be anybody. Everton, Liverpool and Man City are still probably all better choices than Man U though. The latter might be stronger, but the lower price tags at especially the two in blue give him more cash to splash in the first couple of seasons.

 

[British Republic]

Chelsea would have went bang without Roman buying them, and to be honest i'm not sure buy Man Utd would have made good business sense

To be honest buying a football club at all does not make good financial sense, mainly because many of them are running at a loss or a bare profit while the ones that are profitable need to continue to invest to maintain their position...

what did he get Chelsea for - £1 then spent £200 million getting them out of debt

Actually he has spent £2 billion from the moment he agreed to buy the club and pay off its debts.

what did the Glazers spend on Man Utd - £500M to put them £500M in debt...

Shame really, imagine what Man U could have done with far less of that money...

Without the scores of millions being taken out by the Glazers, Man Utd would probably be in an impregnable position: Abramovich wouldn't need to provide the enormous subsidies necessary at Stamford Bridge.

Well thanks to no debts, a lot of revenue and the money Roman has, Manchester United could afford to by any player Fergie would have wanted or to make sure that Manchester United won the European Cup on a relatively frequent basis.

OTOH, the Glazers have been smart enough to keep their noses out of the football side of things, and keep Fergie onside.

I think I recall reading that despite the huge debts that have resulted from the takeover, he was said to prefer dealing with the Glazers than dealing with the club when it was a PLC.

Would Roman do this at Man Utd? At Chelsea, he undermined Mourinho(1) by bringing in a past-it Shevchenko, and then repeated the error, foisting Torres on Ancelotti.

If he'd tried this on Shur Alex...

If Roman tried to dump players on Sir Alex I don't think it would have ended well...

Abramovich's main two options were Tottenham and Chelsea, but Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy wouldn't speak to him.

Has Levy ever commented on why he never spoke to him?

Success-wise, Chelsea had been considerably more successful in recent seasons; FA Cup in 1997, Cup Winners' Cup and League Cup in 1998, title challenge and CL qualification in 1999 (they only eventually missed out on the league by four points), FA Cup and CL quarter-finals in 2000, and CL qualification (along with a title challenge until January).

They also had a rather good 2002-2003 EPL Campaign as well...

The club were in advanced talks with Bernie Ecclestone until Abramovich swooped in, but under him they wouldn't have been anywhere near successful; it would most likely have been a "steady the ship" job.

Bernie Ecclestone you say? I never heard about this, I knew Chelsea was in financial trouble and needed additional investment but I did not know Bernie was interested at the time. Would he have paid off the debts at least? That would have been enough for Chelsea to be a reasonably strong team...

If, for reasons that I can't possibly imagine, Chelsea (was it still Bates?) wouldn't deal with Abramovich

It was still the case that Ken Bates still ran Chelsea, he eventually fell out with Roman after he sold the club to him.

I wonder where he'd go next. Would he look to turn another London club into a powerhouse of English football? West Ham? Fulham? Charlton were back in the top flight too...

West Ham had just been relegated from the EPL so I do wonder if Roman would be interested (although it would be interesting if he did end up buying my local club), Al Fayed was uninterested in selling but Charlton would have been an interesting choice.

If he's going outside of London, then it could probably be anybody. Everton, Liverpool and Man City are still probably all better choices than Man U though. The latter might be stronger, but the lower price tags at especially the two in blue give him more cash to splash in the first couple of seasons.

Manchester City at the time was about to move into their now current stadium, the one which has said to be one of the main reasons why Abu Dhabi bought them. Buying Liverpool would have been an interesting choice, mainly because Liverpool the main challenger to the then dominance of Manchester United and Arsenal, if they had the sort of investment Chelsea had they would likely return to their glory days and get a new or upgraded home ground...

 

[TinyTartar]

With the amount of money he could pump into the club, I'd assume Manchester United would go on the same kind of international superstar spree that their intercity rivals did when the Sheik came to town.

One interesting side effect might be that with the amount of money they have, they do not see a need to cash in on young prospects that are a bit of risk and have Fergie develop them rather than just spending on stars.

I can see it very possible that they do NOT buy Wayne Rooney in 2004 as they could be putting that money somewhere else, preferably in taking some big names. This might lead to Everton being much more successful in the coming years and carving out a spot for themselves in Europe as long as they keep Rooney and let Moyes find the talent he wants to.

 

[British Republic]

With the amount of money he could pump into the club, I'd assume Manchester United would go on the same kind of international superstar spree that their intercity rivals did when the Sheik came to town.

Who do you think Fergie would want in his squad to be able to win the Treble on a more frequent basis or at least improve their European Record.

One interesting side effect might be that with the amount of money they have, they do not see a need to cash in on young prospects that are a bit of risk and have Fergie develop them rather than just spending on stars.

That would depend on if Fergie agrees to it though, but if so it would mean that it could butterfly their purchase of Cristiano Ronaldo in the 2003-2004 season, although Fergie might be still interested in him (it was his players who wanted him to sign him after playing against his then club).

I can see it very possible that they do NOT buy Wayne Rooney in 2004 as they could be putting that money somewhere else, preferably in taking some big names. This might lead to Everton being much more successful in the coming years and carving out a spot for themselves in Europe as long as they keep Rooney and let Moyes find the talent he wants to.

Rooney did make a transfer request though and he had issues with Moyes, so if he is to stay then you need to find a way of getting him to do such a thing even if Manchester United do not make a bid for him.

 

[TinyTartar]

Rooney did make a transfer request though and he had issues with Moyes, so if he is to stay then you need to find a way of getting him to do such a thing even if Manchester United do not make a bid for him.

I would imagine that Rooney making a transfer request was not done spur of the moment but rather with precise knowledge of what he could be getting. The guy was really impetuous and way too young to be in that kind of position, but he had his people probably working on it.

I doubt that other clubs would have taken the risk on him that Fergie did. He pulled in a lot more money than anyone thought was reasonable, but it paid off as he has turned into a productive machine over the years and now is his club and country's Captain.

Rooney's issues with Moyes stemmed from the clear regression that the club had from his first to second seasons, something that could have been remedied with a little bit of luck and more aggression in the transfer window, but what it really came down to is money, as Rooney was being paid like an academy player and the club was willing to offer 50K/week, which was probably below him.

You might be right that Rooney at some point leaves Everton, and I'd say that it means SOMEONE is going to get him. But it won't be Liverpool, as some things really can't be overcome with just money if it involves what he would likely see as high treason, and Chelsea without Abramovich won't have the money to go after him, and if United doesn't, who does that leave? I doubt he'd go abroad, his game isn't tailored for that, and he can hardly speak one language as it is. It might be Arsenal, but I'd think it most likely would be Tottenham.

 

[British Republic]

I would imagine that Rooney making a transfer request was not done spur of the moment but rather with precise knowledge of what he could be getting. The guy was really impetuous and way too young to be in that kind of position, but he had his people probably working on it.

I doubt that other clubs would have taken the risk on him that Fergie did. He pulled in a lot more money than anyone thought was reasonable, but it paid off as he has turned into a productive machine over the years and now is his club and country's Captain.

Fergie had to go direct to the Board of Directors to get them to agree to the transfer, which at the time was a record for a teenager.

Rooney's issues with Moyes stemmed from the clear regression that the club had from his first to second seasons, something that could have been remedied with a little bit of luck and more aggression in the transfer window, but what it really came down to is money, as Rooney was being paid like an academy player and the club was willing to offer 50K/week, which was probably below him.

So basically the POD would have to be Everton willing to offer Rooney a higher salary and to upgrade the squared. Both of which would have happened if Roman did buy Everton for sure.

You might be right that Rooney at some point leaves Everton, and I'd say that it means SOMEONE is going to get him. But it won't be Liverpool, as some things really can't be overcome with just money if it involves what he would likely see as high treason, and Chelsea without Abramovich won't have the money to go after him, and if United doesn't, who does that leave? I doubt he'd go abroad, his game isn't tailored for that, and he can hardly speak one language as it is. It might be Arsenal, but I'd think it most likely would be Tottenham.

Wenger might be interested in him as a long term replacement for one of his strikers, after all he scored his first goal against them and wreaked their then unbeaten run (something which he will do again in a United Shirt).