Chelsea’s sour grapes
Money, it is often said, makes the world go around. That aphorism might or might not be entirely true, but one thing is for sure; it has most certainly turned Chelsea’s fortunes on its head.
From a club wallowing in debt and sliding precariously towards bankruptcy to one that now boasts a squad chock-full of superstars, Chelsea’s rise to prominence has been nothing if not meteoric. Much of this can be put down to Abramovich’s millions and the high-stakes game of Russian roulette he has put his money on.
Roman’s revolution meant that the stakes had just been raised, and most of the other big players at the table (read big clubs all over Europe) knew they could not match Chelsea’s newfound financial clout. Chelsea splashed the cash all over Europe like it was going out of fashion while other clubs looked on and cursed below their breath. Surely, a quick pinch would mean this dream (nightmare?) would come to an end?
Talk is cheap
This transfer window too has seen someone shake the money tree, only this time it’s not Chelsea. Manchester United’s sensational spending spree that saw them net Portuguese based starlets Anderson and Nani took a lot of surprise, but if it raised some eyebrows in the Chelsea camp, they certainly didn’t show it. Not until this priceless verbal salvo from Piet De Visser, Chelsea scout/mouthpiece found its way to the pages of the media.
“This boy is, as far as his skills are concerned, a super talent…but if you look at the European Championship in Portugal and the current tournament in the Netherlands – Nani has not shown any progress.
Therefore I think Manchester United have paid too much money for a player who has talent, but has not developed since last year.”
Now, if any club in England (bar Chelsea) had made such noises, it could have been shrugged off. But to see Chelsea cry foul only makes you laugh at the irony of it all. Fewer clubs in recent history have spent as much or as lavishly on players. To point out the inordinate excesses of others should then be heresy.
Two roads diverged in a wood…
Just as Chelsea’s approach to the game is in stark contrast to that of Manchester United, so too are their transfer policies. Chelsea craved instant success and to that end drafted in a slew of stars that could provide that instant gratification (pardon the inappropriate analogy). United took a contrarian approach and decided to invest in youth instead and nurture it, counting on the fact that the core of the team would grow together (Rooney, Ronaldo, Carrick, Vidic, and now Nani and Anderson).
The disparity in the ideology of these two heavyweights can be summed up quite simply; Kezman vs Van Nistelrooy, both of them goal-scoring phenoms in the Dutch League. That’s where the similarities begin and end. United took Ruud’s raw talent and elevated him into the pantheon of club legend and truly world-class striker. Kezman’s star has been on the wane ever since he headed over to Chelsea (and then out their doors in an unceremonious exit).
Duh-oh!
Undoubtedly, Manchester United have had their fair share of lemons and so has Chelsea, but for Chelsea to rack it up in such a short while definitely rankles. To then insinuate that United overspend on a particular player/s is (to trot out an aged cliché) to have the kettle calling the pot black.
Chelsea and their supporters should be the last to wax eloquent on this subject, and if they do so it is at the risk of great derision. So unless De Visser is scouting out a career change, he better stick to his job. For Manchester United, money has met mouth and whether the gamble pays off is anybody’s guess.
Until then, let the games (and subsequent mind-games) unfold.
Topics: Chelsea, Manchester United, Off The Record
Football News 24/7
slightly bias article perhaps…
why use van nistlerooy and kezman as a comparison?? One costs 19 million and the other cost 5 million (which was subsequently recovered in full). I guess if you’d used drogba as the example, then you wouldn’t have been able to make your point….
the fact of the matter is chelsea can’t win, can they? Either they spend money and get accused of buying the league or they start buying players on a free and get lambasted for trying to balance the books.
i guess you got the reaction you were hoping for…..
June 18th, 2007 @ 15:24Think you’ve conveniently missed the point. What gets up my nose is the gall of a Chelsea scout complaining about United paying over the odds for players. Pot Kettle and Black spring to mind!
If any team has paid over the odds for players and then discarded them when they don’t work out it’s Chelsea, since the Russian benefactor took over. Fair enough, but to then criticise another team for possibly doing the same thing is the last word in hypocrisy.
June 18th, 2007 @ 15:38Hi Dan, thanks for commenting. I guess i’d pledge guilty to bias, but can any football lover claim otherwise?
I only used the Kezman and Van Nistelrooy comparison since
a) they both arrived from the Dutch League with huge reputations and
b) they were both scoring goals for fun in the eredivisie.
I didn’t even bother mentioning the transfer fees involved with the two players simply because there was a huge gulf in the fee they commanded and I honestly didn’t think it would strengthen my case. Drogba didn’t strike me as a point for my argument, but that’s not because it would have weakened my argument (which it probably might have)…I just don’t see it as a logical extension of my proposition.
And you can rest assured that while I would love to provoke debate, my intent wasn’t to rile you into an adverse reaction…let’s just say I wanted to put things in perspective. I don’t know how far I succeeded, but i’ll try and be more neutral next time around (though how neutrality can creep into football is beyond me!)
Cheers Dan, thanks for reading and letting me know what you think of it. See you around
June 18th, 2007 @ 15:39What a lot of nonsense. When Fergie arrived he used United’s wealth and power to attempt to buy instant success while simultaneously nurturing the academy. That’s exactly what Chelsea have done (except we got the first bit right). Why compare Kezman and RVN? You might as well compare Park and Robben. Laughable. Why no mention of players that Chelsea have turned into world-class talents – Robben, Essien, Cole, Carvalho, Terry, Drogba etc. What is your point?
This recasting of United as some great benevolent giant is quite eerie. Last year, one bunch of expensively acquired billionaires beat another bunch of expensively acquired billionaires – it’s not good versus evil, unless you are three years old.
And why is De Visser showing sour grapes? He’s simply saying that in his opinion, United have paid over the odds. Chelsea know all about that, so perhaps he should be listened to. However, De Visser also said that given the climate he’ll experience at United, he could well blossom as much as Ronaldo did. Why did you leave those quotes out?
June 18th, 2007 @ 16:00peter i agree with you. The reason for leaving the rest of the quote out was because, as more established tabloid hacks (and now bloggers) tend to do, it would not have suited the “opinion” he was providing.
Karan, it is true that both kezman and van nistlerooy were scoring goals for fun in holland before they came here but one cost almost four times as much as the other. If you had used drogba as a comparison (who also came from a weaker league where he was scoring goals for fun and cost a similar amount to Van Nistlerooy) you wouldn’t have been able to argue your point). Anyway, at least you admitted that was ballacks, eh?
June 18th, 2007 @ 16:15As a united fan, I simply cannot understand why a statement from a silly scout can have people pull up their fists. So what if we overpaid for Nani? …who cares? …if we paid less, how much of the money would have been posted back to us, the fans?
Maybe we paid too much, maybe not, only time will tell. Remember, the same was said about Rooney, Carrick, Ferdinand and Veron. Sometimes it works for us, sometimes not. Either way…why should we care about the price? (We’re not the owners)
June 18th, 2007 @ 16:26Man Ure were spending ridiculous amounts of money on players and inflating the transfer market about six years ago, long before Chelsea started to. Remember £29 million on Rio Ferdinand and £28.1 million on Veron. But nobody remembers that because, it seems, the Mancs can do no wrong.
June 18th, 2007 @ 16:26Peter, as for why i choose to compare Kezman and RVN…look to my previous post.
You want me to compare Park & Robben? I will in a nutshell…both are zippy wide players who came to England on relatively small fees after their talents were noticed all over europe, have been plagued by injuries ever since, and are very, very useful squad players or first-teamers. That help?
From the list you make (Robben, Essien, Cole, Carvalho, Terry, Drogba), only Terry has come through the ranks. And I’m not out to make this a battle of the youth systems, if you think I am then we’re on totally different wavelengths here. The closest I came was mentioning their approaches to transfers, with no mention of comparitive youth academy practices.
Me recasting United as a benevolent giant? Really? i obviously irked you enough into not reading, because towards the end I did mention this to be a case of kettle calling the pot black (in those exact words). I might be a football fanatic, but I’m not naive. Just for my sake though, tell me how I cast United as a benevolent giant because I don’t see it.
As for your last question, I left those quotes out because I googled for the quotes and came across this part. I was (in all honesty) too lazy to search out the full text. So there you have it, my rebuttal. And for my final words, see my last para addressed to Dan. From one football lover to another, peace!
June 18th, 2007 @ 16:30To Dan again,
I left that bit of the quote out simply because I was too lazy to search for the entire thing. I got from the first link I found on Google (or was it the 2nd?)
When I sat down to right this, Kezman and RVN popped instantly to mind and I got to writing that bit, nothing more nothing less. I might not have been able to argue as well had I chosen Drogba, but I would have still given it a right royal go! Anyhow, nice to hear fro you again and I hope i’ve answered most of your questions. For a newbie, I’m sure getting lotsa love…not that I’d rather have it any other way!
June 18th, 2007 @ 16:45A Chelsea scout is asked if United overpaid for Nani. He says yes, and he’s right.
The same scout is asked if about Nani in the Euro championships, and he says that he hasn’t done anything spectacular. He’s right.
No one bothered to ask if Chelsea have ever overpaid for a player,or if they’ve brought in players who have bombed. Of course not, the point of the interview was to get material against united, and it succeeded.
June 18th, 2007 @ 17:20as a united fan i agree we paid well over the odds for carrick, hargreaves, nani and anderson. we paid £18.6m for carrick who in my view was only worth half of that but we won the league so it is fair to say that he was a good investment. and if we were to win the league and champions league next season who cares about how much we paid again it will be a brilliant investment and the profits will roll in the downside will be is nani, haregreaves or anderson have no effect for years to come then you could look at it as a bad investment. lets not get away from reality united are in debt but they do have plans to pay the debt over a period of time.
June 18th, 2007 @ 18:44The difference between Kezman and Van the Man can be seen in their price and promise alone. Ruud came as a first team player, with a hefty price tag, and Ferguson had been following him for well over a year. Kezman was brought in as change in the Robben deal.
Oh, and the comparison between Park and Robben also doesnt fly, Park is a useful squad player, Robben is an exceptionally talented dribbler. You can look at the impact both made when they joined their clubs to see what I’m talking about.
June 18th, 2007 @ 18:58De Visser isn’t a Chelsea mouthpiece. He doesn’t work for Chelsea. With that information, the article has nowhere to go and goes nowhere.
June 18th, 2007 @ 19:08I think all the possible critisisms have already come forward in the comments, but I would like to stick up for what you call Chelsea’s “lemons”
Clearly you are referring to players such as SWP and Sheva, yes? SWP will be sold at a loss, and qualifys, but I think we will see a different Sheva next year. It is definately too soon to call him a lemon. And even so, for all their purchasing to have only those two as potential misses is not too bad considering the hits (Essian, Drogba, Cech, etc.)
However, Manchester have made very nice purchases this offseason, bringing in high-potential replacements for their aging midfielders, and that’s bound to spark a little jealousy.
June 18th, 2007 @ 19:44United may in some people’s eyes paid too much for Nani but if he plays for them for the next 10-15 years then it will be shown as a good investment. Chelsea last season paid 30 million for Shevchenco and he will only play for 3 or 4 more years before he retires which would be a bad bad investment and what about John Obi Mikel who United bought for 4 million and Chelsea rushed in to hijack the deal and as for Park and Robben, first of all Chelsea stole Robben from United, but they are two different players as jasper says. And Keith you talk of United inflating the transfer market with buying Veron and Ferdinand. Ferdinand has been at the centre of our defense for 4 or 5 years now and he still has a few years to go before he goes. With Veron we thought we were getting one of the worlds best players the equivalent today of Gerrard or Lampard in that position but then he flopped and we got 15 million off Chelsea for him.
June 18th, 2007 @ 19:56I agree with karl. I understand what the article was trying to get at but this kind of argument is premature to say the least. Scouts will say whatever they want & i doubt they are taken too seriously in their prognostications. Every club takes risks on the transfer market no matter how big or small they are.
In my point of view Chelsea’s big money buys are useless without Mourinho at the helm to handle all the egos, the pressure & the tactical placements required to harness each player to their full potential. Doubtless this is a fact which might have arisen in Abramovich’s mind when he renewed the manager’s contract. He probably remembered Real Madrid & their Galacticos policy & realised if you have a crap coach you lose anyway.
As for Man Utd & their shopping spree, knowing Fergie some will work out & some won’t but my guess is if anyone can harness Nani into an awesome player its him. Just look at Ronaldo.
June 18th, 2007 @ 20:27As soon as United show an interest in a player, the price will automatically jump several million quid compared to what another club might be quoted. Carrick was supposedly over priced at £18mil, despite the fact his actual price was £14mil, with add ons and league titles and champions league success it could amount to £18mil. That has proved to be good business. Now £17mil for Nani, if that is the figure we paid. Yes, thats a shed load of money, but at the end of the day, thats what it costs United to be the best. Thats the nature of the area of the tranfer market that United operate in. Potential costs these days, and to buy the best you gotta pay top whack. At the end of the day it pales into insignificance (spelling!) compared to what was paid for the like of Sheva, Ballack (huge signing on fee no doubt), Essien (at £27mil was much more over priced, despite being quality), SWP (how many games did he play?) even what Liverpool paid for Bellamy and Pennant was too dear in my mind. Gerrard and Carraghers new fully loaded deals could be seen as obscene spending. In short, United have been spending big and spending their own money for years, if we want to continue being the best we need to continue to invest in the best.
June 18th, 2007 @ 20:31The quoted comments are not the best from De Visser. He had said earlier that Nani was talented but would not be suited to the Prem: too much driblling and his crossing is suspect. The man added that in these aspects he’s like the Ronaldo of four years ago. Would love to know if he thinks Ronaldo was a bad signing or that he’s not suited to the Prem!
June 18th, 2007 @ 20:40Piet De Visser, Chelsea scout/mouthpiece
June 18th, 2007 @ 23:34But he is not actually a Chelsea employee is he – or didn’t you check.
bob…the last time i checked sarcasm was still in vogue
June 19th, 2007 @ 12:25De Vissier’s comments should be taken as a warning and not just sour grapes. Just as with Chelsea if Man United start paying over the odds for players unproven in the premiership, will they not then be expected to start paying over the odds for proven Premiership players? Blackburn’s Bennie McCarthy came from same league as Nani and yet only now after proving himself in the Premiership is he valued the same as Nani. If United were in need of a striker (fortunately not the case) how much would they then be expected to pay for his services? It’s time for an independent valuation committee to put an end to over the odds spending. Maybe then instead of buying young talent, clubs will start cultivating young talent. But then again “Young players are a little bit like melons. Only when you open and taste the melon are you 100 per cent sure that the melon is good” Mourinho
June 19th, 2007 @ 18:34United may have invested big money in the team this summer, but it also leaves a team well settled for the next 5-6 years. Of course few positions need to be changed (can only really think of Neville with no long term cover right now), so we should only expect minor investment in the team next summer – if any at all. If the youngsters (Rossi, Pique, Evans, Foster, Nani, Anderson) break through as their talents suggest, there won’t be much need for spending big in quite a while.
This has obviously been SAF’s goal, and obviously Chelsea comment on that, and of course they’re not too impressed. That’s the way of the media. But he did say that Nani has what it takes, as long as he can get his **** together, which obviously he will at OT as so many youngsters have done before him. He’s at the perfect club for a player of his talent, and so is Anderson (who no one doubts btw).
June 19th, 2007 @ 20:12chelsea sour grapes this can be redefined as the premiership title race begins in june with the mind games starting up…but i think it really shows how a club like chelsea and its coach mourinho is….last season when chelsa was splashing cash just to break EPL TRANSFER RECORDS
June 19th, 2007 @ 20:45CONTINUES
UTD never commented ..they proved they were the best in the field thats where a great club is differentiated from a club which achieved greatness through overnight money and no hardwork…utd is known to develop great young guns..chelsea is a suicide for so many players….we reigned in the EPL throughout 90s through bunch of kids who became footballing legends….we gave new life to king eric…(brilliant footballing brain from the great sir alex)..unlike chelsea who bought success through hijacking players ,utd executives,….by paying huge cash….some ridiculous spending such as 21mill for SWP,24mill for drogba(miserable for 3 years),27 mill for essein (man utd find),12mill for mikel and 15mill for veron spoiled and ruined duff,kezman,gudjhonsen,etc…utd also flopped with veron..becoz he could not find place in utds first team thats all,forlon the same problem,about kleberson he was considered to bet the best for brazil..infact before chelsea going for african and south american players it was united which started bringing these players into EPL,kleberson could not adapt and he did not prove to be a loss,…..in the case of anderson who unlike kleberson has european experience with porto and a great talent nani has been an exceptional talent and it seems a great investment becoz they are here not to create instant success but history (take note of that chelsea)….chelsea cannot groom any world beaters…they can just hijack players..so they have to be very cautious about commenting infact im not bothered about them because…barking dogs seldom bite..the way they are having mind games like their boss their scout all having a dig on man utd itself suggest that they more than their football skills believe in all these cheap mind games which is a symtom of surrender,and reconfirms my staunch belief that no matter how many roman come and invest billions in chelsea, they cannot dethrown united who are the kings of ENGLISH FOOTBALL( through hardwork,adeptness and moreover through footballing ethics).
June 19th, 2007 @ 21:03okay, first off I’m a United fan. Secondly, Chelsea & United are guilty of the same thing- big bucks on big chumps & champs(Champs- RVN and The Drog; oh and come on, don’t even think about going there with Drogba [who is a colossal footballer I'd like to add] being better than Da Ruud, on a par maybe, but not better. Chumps-Veron & Sheva [hurts me to write that, really does] fitting the bill perfectly). Thirdly- who gives a crap about some cub, sorry club, scout who may or may not be masking his and his employer’s envy with double entendres? Nani and anderson both cost a lot of money, crucially both are very young- both fit the mould of what the club in question want and need which is raw talent bloodied over a couple of seasons to devastating effect (Cris Ron anyone?). Now back to sour grapes- let’s not deny the nature of this game, it’s all sour grapes be it from united or mourinho fc.
June 20th, 2007 @ 22:52Nuff Sed.
Scouts sit just behind agents in the category of ‘idiots who forget that their comments represent the people they work for’.
June 21st, 2007 @ 19:55Any team that spends mega millions like Chelsea and Manchester United as of late are guranteed to buy players that do not work out as well in the end. Since Chelsea has bought more players as of late, it is only logical to assume that more failures will be a result.
Furthermore, your argument regarding RVD’s success is severly flawed. You claim RVD was brought in and turned into a star, whereas Chelsea failed
to make Kezman a household name. You claim this is representative of the entire argument. However…
the real argument exists where Chelsea does not believe Nani has a good reputation before being bought for that much money. Whereas the RVD/Kezman debate is based on how the clubs coached or did not coach them into stars, the question of Nani is totally different: Chelsea believes Man Utd overpaid, Man Utd believes Nani will be a stud.
Therefore, erally, your entire argument is flawed based n an example that doesn’t even hold merit with the point of the article. A club’s ability to turn RVD into quality or destroy Kezman’s career has no ties to wheter or not a club feels a pleyer was overpaid for or not.
I suggest that before you pen your enxt baised article, you actually take the time to find an example to your argument apprpriate enough to highlight your thoughts, rather than grasping for straws in an attempt to pin the tail on Chelsea as the root of all evil in buying expensive players.
June 21st, 2007 @ 20:19DBeech – with players right in front of the agents, forgetting that what they say / do reflects on the fans and the club?
I wonder why we care in the first place
Overall, Karan, hope you write again mate, although picking a more neutral topic next time would at least get the bias accusations out of the way (which really take the conversation no where, as do Sid’s comments, who only comments here to bitch, not to add to the discussion).
June 22nd, 2007 @ 01:42As Schwarzenegger said in one of my favorite movies, “I’ll be back”.
This is my first stab at web journalism, and I really like the feel of it so you can rest assured I will most certainly write again. And I will definitely add a generous dollop of neutrality next time around too. See you guys when I see you
June 22nd, 2007 @ 10:02