Roman Abramovich & the (T)rouble with Ch£l$ki
“Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo…� - H.G. Wells
What’s the problem with Chelsea? As we students of the backpages know only too well, they are many and multiple. But for those that live - Bin Laden-like - in a cave, I’ll summarise the main point vitriol of their critics as succinctly as I am able to:
- Their owner, Roman “Loadsaroubles� Abrahmovich, is an uncouth, noveau-riche oligarch who, using his (allegedly dubiously-acquired) fortune, first bought the football club then, outrageously, bought the Premiership title itself too
- Their manager, Jose “The Chosen One� Mourinho, is the world’s most ungracious loser and - put bluntly - a bit of a narcissistic ponce to boot
- The team are a motley crue of overpaid, overrated, preening prima donnas who – in between performing Olympic–grade dives following non-existent fouls - prance around most Saturday afternoons grinding out marginal wins against less-well-financed opposition
- Their methodology – many are of the opinion that Chelsea are prepared to use any means necessary – including gamesmanship and a fragrant disregard of laws that supposedly govern accepted conduct of a football club – in their single-minded pursuit of success
- The unjust nature of their status – as a new season begins, Chelsea are odds-on, stonewall, you-can-put-your-mortgage-on-it-pal favourites to win the EPL for the third time consecutively but, before the cash injection of Abrahmovich (and their previous moneyed-up patron, the late Matthew Harding), they were little more than an also-ran, dishwater-dull, south-west London football team with a pitifully low fan base.
That about sums up the most common complaints, doesn’t it? But, wait, isn’t this just another example of history repeating itself?
Those that know their footie history or are long enough in memory will recollect what Angelo Moratti did at Inter Milan in the 60’s and what Silvio Berlusconi did at AC Milan in the ’80s. They’ll remember how Bernard Tapie and Jesus Gil transformed Marseille and Atletico Madrid respectively in the ’90s.
And, lest we forget, this sort of thing is not even without example in England. In 1994, steel industry magnet, Jack Walker, was similarly accused of buying the title for his beloved Blackburn Rovers (An aside for any of you with an interest in inflationary nature of Western economies: The Team That Jack Built cost a paltry £28 million to assemble back in the day. Roman Abrahmovich spent close to eight times as much recreating the same feat just 12 years later).
Move along, please – there’s nothing new to see here.
Those that cast Abramovich as football’s anti-Christ are bogus and fraudalent. In reality, he is merely the latest in a long tradition of rich men who have used the beautiful game to create a sporting folly. That is all.
And, think about it, were the pre-Abrahmovich Premiership days really any better or are Chelsea-haters guilty of peering at the past through rose-tinted specs? It could be argued that Manchester United certainly would not have enjoyed their decade-and-a-half dominance of English football were it not for the fact they had - and willingly used – their wealth to buy advantage in the form of world class ability. The presence of Eric Cantona and Roy Keane in particular was absolutely crucial to their hey-day success.
So, those that ejected toys from pram in disgust when Chelsea added Michael Ballack and Andriy Shevchenko to their already-formidable, star-studded squad during close season, may do well to remind themselves that, just as recently as the summer of 2001, Man U spent the best part of fifty million quid on just TWO players – they paid Holland’s PSV £19 million for the services of Ruud Van Nisteroy and smashed the then-British transfer record when they parted with £28.1 million for the (ill-fated) signature of Argentine midfielder, Juan Sebastian Veron.
Truth is; in a world of famine, prisoners of conscience, and illegal wars do we really have any right to expect justice, fair play and parity in football?
Indeed, has a level playing field ever truly existed?
Whilst Chelsea football club undoubtedly owes its current good fortune to their owner’s HUGE fortune, Roman Abramovich’s background is far from privileged. His mother died of blood poisoning when he was just 18 months old and he was orphaned at four when his father was killed tragically in a building site accident. Thereafter, he was sent to live with relatives in Ukhta - a dismal oil industry town just outside the Arctic Circle. And there is where he would have stayed, destined to become - at very, very best - a £2000 a year middle manager, were it not for his ruthless exploitation following the coming of perestroika and the subsequent Russian gold rush it created.
According to the gold diggers bible, The Sunday Times Rich List, Abrahmovich is today the richest man in Britain. His estimated, (and totally incomprehensible) fortune of £7.5bn dwarfs even that of old money, land-owning toff, The Duke of Westminster, who has to struggle by – bless him - on a guesstimated £6bn.
But what on earth can you do with that amount of cash? I mean, once you possess all of the trappings that go hand-in-hand with one of those so-damned-elusive billionaire lifestyle’s – he’s got the lot: a town house in London’s exclusive Belgravia, a 220-acre pile in Sussex, a yacht the size of a small village, the ubiquitous private jet – how do you fill your time?
He could have done something a tad more noble, I suppose. He might have worked to eradicate world hunger or promote a greater understanding between humanities in the hope of achieving world peace. But he did not. Instead, he decided to play Fantasy Football – for real!
John, Paul, George and Ringo got it wrong; money can buy you love. It can also buy you power, fame, and glory in the shape of a safe pair of hands between the sticks, a solid back four, a creative midfield and a brace of clinical finishers up top…the one singular thing money can’t buy is Time.
And therein lies the key for those of you suffering from an acute case of Chelsea fatigue.
Question is: just how long will Abromovich remain entertained by his current muse?
If, as they should surely expect, the club wins the Champions League this coming term they will have reached the zenith of club football. The problem with a peak is it inevitably leads to a trough. The only way is down and it may be at this point that he grows wary of putting his hands in his bottomless pockets and looks elsewhere (there are rumours that he wishes to launch an F1 team) for a money-draining distraction to the tedium of his luxurious existence.
But, mark my words, even if it does happen, another money man will soon take his place. In fact, if the financial pledges made by the new Villa owner - the superbly-named, Randy Lerner – aren’t just new-love, starry-eyed, sweet talk, a new footie sugar-daddy may already be in place.
In the meantime, Chelsea-haters need to calm down, think about their blood pressure and rediscover a sense of perspective.
Many people assume the simpleton grin that seems to permanently adorn the Chelsea’s owner’s face is there because he is unlikely ever to be overdrawn at the bank. Perhaps it is but I suggest otherwise. Maybe Roman Abramovich sees a truth most fail to acknowledge - the furore that his entry into world football has caused is of constant amusement to him. Why?
Because he is, after all, a child of the formerly-Communist Mother Russia who has exposed the fatal flaw of free-market Capitalism:
Those that control the wealth can do, more or less, whatever they want and there is absolutely nothing the more financially-challenged amongst us can do to stop them.
Ironic, innit?
The 2008 Soccerlens Awards: Nominate Your Favourite Football Sites Here
The worst article ever on Soccerlens…..The Article has valid points but some r just plain wrong…First Of All MAN U used their youth to get to top..& then bought players from revenue generated by Tickets & Premiership….CHELSEA DIDNT WIN ANYTHING and dont hav the largest fan base……& they hav only 40000 seaters stadium compared to MANU’s 76000.
ANYwayz i want to know how long could this go ON???
Try to do a better effort in your articles…PLZ
I have two very simple questions for you;
1) Which team do you support?? and,
2) If Roman Abramovich took over your club, would you actually be moaning about him buying great players for your team??
I look forward to hearing your answers.
Chelsea Fan
Smashing article mate.
man u fanatic - ummm…you’re telling me that you’ve actually read all the 400+ articles ever published on this site (hey, if you can be overly nitpicky so can I)? I fail to see your point here, so maybe you could try to elaborate.
Paul - he’s not moaning about Roman spending too much money…did you read the article?
An interesting read drawing on the sillyness we’ve been fed on these last two years.
I loved the first comment, do these poeple know how to read & are they even aware of the history of their own clubs? hilarius!.
The balance of power has shifted from red to blue (& don’t count on it stayig blue this season) & will eventually shift again. So for all the jealous glory hunters out there. Stop bleating-on about the unfairness to your mega-club & spare a thought for the fans who have endured mediocrity all their lives, but still love their clubs.
I like the article, it’s well written without being too critical. (Although including the “common perceptions” might be feeding the fire. Let’s face it, if someone comes on this site to read about football, they know why to hate Chelsea :D)
If the common perception is that Roman is a ruthless businessman, why do people reckon he’s going to leave.
It’s clear that he’s looking to the future, and he wants to make the club self sufficient so that he is making money.
If there’s one way to garauntee an increased fanbase and increased revenue in football, it’s through the purchase of exciting players.
Of course, the papers support the general public and condemn the financial elite.
I genuinely believe that the “public perceptions” are just press fuelled ear candys for the footballing masses, based on their anti-elitist principles.
Other clubs have been spared such harsh judgement in the press. This is because the other successful clubs are in poorer areas than ours, and therefore, attacking the rich teams with the poor fanbase is pointless.
If you really think about it, Chelsea aren’t the ones the papers are attacking, it’s the fans.
We’re the ones who read the trash, and everyone now feels that they have to have a dig and verbally nullify any kind of satisfaction the Chelsea fans get from watching their club move from perennial contenders to all encompassing winners.
If you all feel so strongly, write a complaint to the club. Don’t tell us fans who have been supporting the club through thick and thin that we don’t deserve the success.
Ps. There aren’t the same “New Chelsea fans” who have “just popped up since we started winning” because we are the most hated club in the country. Why would anyone want to buy into this atmousphere where your club is indefensible due to a rich guy buying our club. Welcome to the real world people, clubs get bought because they are profitable. Roman bought Chelsea because he saw there was a solid base of players, a good international reputation and room for financial benefit and footballing success. FACT
didnt cantona only cost £1.2 million?
Actually it’s very odd to have a largely accurate article on Soccerlens, which this one is. Obviously not written by Ahmed. The only thing missing is that Abramovich has also apparently returned £1.1bn in the form of investment back into the Russian province he governs from what I read at more authoritative sites.
The comparison with Man U is unfortunate. They traded off the deaths in Munich for decades, sold themselves completely to the stock market, were the biggest benefactors from the Sky money and have now sold themselves out a second time to the monkey-man known as Glaser. Of course, at one point in the last half century they managed one crop of youngsters who benefitted from all this largesse, but it was only one and now they’re all nearing retirement Man U are looking worse and worse in spite of all the money they’ve tried to spend. It’s nice to see the Indian Summer of genuinely great players like Giggs and Scholes at the moment, but that’s all it is.
For bursting bubbles, I’d look there first.
Actually it’s very odd to have a largely accurate article on Soccerlens
Sid, glad to see that we’re finally catering to your illogical, rigid bias.
The rest of your comment is basically putting everything about Manchester United’s past in a negative light - something that this article berates and talks against.
You’re standing up against one set of prejudiced notions in order to champion your own. Keep it up, you’re doing an excellent job of it.
Wow. Really, excellent. Sid? Take a breather, will ya?
Hello all: As the author of this piece, I will just say one thing: I am glad that my debut on Soccerlens provoked such extreme reactions because, after all, if it hadn’t there would be v. little point for this excellent site’s existence.
Man U Fanatic: Especially loved your comment. Say what you mean and say it MEAN, bro.
Soupdragon, the Fact Kingdom has told all of its border patrols to shoot you on sight.
Chelsea = Room for financial benefit?
You lot were nearly bankrupt and in debt that didn’t look like it’d be paid of any time soon. Chelsea was one of the worst run clubs in England in 2003.
The reason Abramovich bought into the club was because it was borderline top-level and had qualified for the Champions League. Even with Abramovich’s money, you lot aren’t breaking even for the next 15 years.
Chelsea had an international reputation before the Russian took over? Haha.
“Welcome to the real world people, clubs get bought because they are profitable. Roman bought Chelsea because he saw there was a solid base of players, a good international reputation and room for financial benefit and footballing success. FACT”
This was meant as a joke right???
Do your homework mate… just how profitable are football clubs? Tell me how many clubs in England are actually making money, nevermind being an attractive investment!!!
Solid base of players? Yeah, right. Compared to whom?
Good international reputation? You’re having a laugh! I doubt your dad was there to see chelsea win their last pre-abramovich title, and considering your non-performance in Europe, just what exactly do you think Chelsea have an international reputation for?
Room for financial benefit and footballing success? Just how deluded are you? He bought chelsea because it was on the brink (and therefore cheap with a motivated seller) and is a London club.
Be glad he rescued you and enjoy the success while it lasts, but don’t be so deluded as to think that it was somehow Chelsea’s reputation, potential, fanbase, playing staff or *snigger* history that convinced him to buy.
“FACT” Bloody JOKE more like!
Rocky
“Soupdragon, the Fact Kingdom has told all of its border patrols to shoot you on sight.
Chelsea = Room for financial benefit?
You lot were nearly bankrupt and in debt that didn’t look like it’d be paid of any time soon. Chelsea was one of the worst run clubs in England in 2003.
The reason Abramovich bought into the club was because it was borderline top-level and had qualified for the Champions League. Even with Abramovich’s money, you lot aren’t breaking even for the next 15 years.
Chelsea had an international reputation before the Russian took over? Haha.”
—————–
Our progress in Europe, with notable victories over teams like Barcelona, AC Milan and Real Madrid (European cup winners cup) over the 7-8 years prior meant that we were a well known European club in the years leading up to Roman’s investment. (Pop quiz, How many other british clubs have beaten Milan at the San Siro in the history of football?).
We’d also beaten Manchester United 5-0, which was their largest loss since the premiership begun and consistantly tested the top teams, making it into 3rd and 4th place. We also won the FA cup and the UEFA cup.
Hoddle was one of the best known British footballers in our league during his playing career, and that’s why he managed to bring in Ruud Gullit initially, which started the new era at Stamford Bridge.
Players like Gianfranco Zola, Poyet, Marcel Desailly, Vialli, Hasselbaink, Gullit, Di Matteo, Petit, Mark Hughes, Gudjohnsen, Weah, Petrescu, Ferrer, Lampard and Laudrup etc. came because the club had a reputation for attractive football and class. I do admit that I miss the personality of the old team, but it’s an indictment of football today. I can’t name another top club in the premiership that has retained an English core and has real personality any more than Chelsea.
Roman’s a billionaire for a reason, unlike you armchair economists. I wouldn’t doubt a Russian oligarch’s business sense.
We were in a dire state financially in 2003, and Roman’s money saved the club. Do you hate all the other clubs that have been taken over and saved from liquidation?
You all say Roman’s a ruthless evil businessman, so treat him like one and accept that he bought Chelsea because of our reputation and because of our potential as a club financially (without those factors, a club is useless to the owner). Remember, he didn’t buy us on the cheap, he had to pay the equivalent amount of money he would have for another premiership side to pay off the debts.
The English league was stale, now our top 4 teams are considered amongst Europes elite. (Man Utd were anyway to be fair.)
Chelsea’s improvement has had a positive impact on the premiership, and English football in general. The teams are all so much better than they were before Chelsea’s improvement.
Did you guys really enjoy the premier league more when Man United and Arsenal were stonking your teams by 6 goals every week?
Your arguments are pure cliched tabloid spite that’s been set in stone by bitter ex-players and biased pundits.
If you believe it, you are a moron. I don’t have anything against any other clubs, and I’m sure in 10 years when all the clubs are bought out by billionaires, everyone will accept it for what it is.
And whoever said football isn’t profitable. Don’t forget the money from sponsors, tickets, tv deals, foreign markets and winning competitions. Football is a wealthy sport that’s getting wealthier.
When someone buys Liverpool and Arsenal out, no-one will cry and complain. It’ll be a “reflection of modern football”. (Do you think the main investor in the Ashburton Grove project should be castigated? Should he have his personal business scrutinised? Maybe that’s why he’s a PRIVATE investor)
ps. My dad was born in the year when chelsea won the league and therefore wasn\’t quite able to walk to the ground. I\’m sure it\’s important to ask about my father\’s involvement with the club.
He attended the 1970 cup final replay where Chelsea beat Leeds (at the time Leeds were one of the best teams in Europe and reached the European cup final around that time)
when he was 15 by bunking school and travelling up by train.
Does that make my opinions more or less valid?
Sid.
Thanks for pissing on the graves of the dead. Brilliant.
Also, kudos on totally negating ManU’s bold gamble of going becoming a PLC when they needed money, as opposed to finding a big owner and tapping into his personal wealth.
And atop the premiership, playing gorgeous football [as much as it hurts us Liv/Chelsea/Man City/Everton etc supporters to admit]… you’re right… It’s an ‘Indian Summer’. Just like that old fag Cantona’s Indian summers.
You’re right. The comparison is Man u is unfortunate. They have had to do it the hard way. Spending *earned* money when clearly there was no Mr MoneyBags around, and had they underperformed, shareprices would’ve plummeted etc. etc. And the club didn’t ’sell out’. Do you know about ‘Hostile takeovers’? I don’t know a lot, but I bet it’s something to do with buying out a majority stake even when the majority of the stakeholders won’t sell.
And this coming from a Liverpool fan. Guess what’ll happen when a Man U fanatic comes along!
The article itself was succintly put, Tony, except the ending. Something can be done about it.
Remember the chequebook champions? They got beat. Bad. Remember Forest and Wimbledon? this isn’t 1984 and Peteroman AbramourinhoKenyovich isn’t The Party. Or would you say it is?
No 13: Firstly, calm y’self! Secondly, some things I will add: a) I am NOT a chelski fan b) but I do believe that blaming Cheski for every-single-thing in modern football(as some seem to…) displays a wilful ignorance of the past and, finally, c) the ending wasn’t to your liking? I apologise and will try HARDER in future. Promise (Memo to Self: Sort out article endings forthwith…)
Opps…Sorry, that should read “b) but I do believe that blaming Cheski for every-single-thing THAT IS WRONG in modern football (as some seem to…) displays a wilful ignorance of the past…”
(Additional Memo to Self: Proof read replies to comments whilst you’re at it too…)
This article is really drawing out the drama queens.
Cum on luvvies, get a perspective like.
Get over the change from the appallingly boring duopoly of the last dynasty & embrace the challenge of a more competitive league.
Or as the, ahem, ‘history’ poster unknowingly reminds us, there will be outrage at the change of supremacy.
Just ask any fan who watched the historic Wimbledon v Liverpool match if the victory of the unpedigreed was good for the sport.
I can tell you I was ecstatic when Blackburn won the league in Man-u/Liverpool fashion - ie spending to win. And when the Geordies screwed up soon afterwards I was sickened at the sight of the same old faces lifting the trophy.
To talk of domination after just paltry 3 championships in 100 yrs is proof of the unbelievable stupidity of some commentators.
Informed Villa fans - who generally know when to keep counsel - can boast a good share of success, without trying to cluster bomb everybody with it , like some failed pub bore.
Just let us enjoy our moment of joy. Most of us support our club because of what ever reason we had as kids to follow a team which was not the most succesful - not because they had massive dominating success.
So before you make the ‘history snigger’ remark. Just remember what an unqualified gloryhunter that phrase betrays you to be.
Soupdragon,
Ashburton Grove is a self-financed project whose loans are underwritten by a group of banks that includes the Bank of Scotland among others. There’s no secret sneaky private investor.
Sorry.
Tony,
don’t listen to the armchair critics - the article is fine mate
the ending is actually quite powerful and makes an excellent point.
rocky - never got to hear your arguments on why chelsea are bad for football (or something similar). mind sharing?
The distortion of the football market. It’s fine if a benefactor/investor is underwriting loans, but a hundred million pounds in deficit and spending 60 million every close season without a penny in profit is not healthy business. It scuppers the business models that other clubs have been following, and like a Bayern exec commented, it’s one club with unlimited funds and no harsh choices to make against other clubs who do.
Whether supporters of Chelsea like to admit it or not, Manchester United during their heavy spending days were still bound by rules that applied to every other club. Rules that required a club to maintain some sanity in spending and try to generate revenues. This was exactly why they went public and made the hard choice of being vulnerable to a takeover, which finally did happen. Now they’re being governed by the circumstances that takeover’s brought with it, such as a massive debt.
And I refuse to buy the “there was no upward mobility for lesser clubs before either” argument. Arsenal tried to compete, successfully on three occasions, with United based on limited funds and a medium/low capacity stadium. Spurs have spent more than us but haven’t managed it as well as we did, they’re trying to do something like that now with stable management.
Yeah sure, Leeds United borrowed and spent and got to the Champions League semi, but their downfall came simply because they were susceptible to the rules of the game.
Chelsea aren’t, and that’s bad for the league as well as the transfer market. They may be an indicator of what’s to come in the future of this sport that I’m sure we all love, but I don’t have to like it. Chelsea should be forced to operate as a business like every other club.
Does a company with the money to make a solid financial base for the future operate under the same financial restraints as poorer companies?
Of course Chelsea\’s rich investor can pump the club full of cash until he\’s blue in the face (no pun intended) but the high spending will come to an end soon.
To be honest, to create the team that had the potential to win every competition necessitated the insane spending over the last 2-3 seasons. Chelsea had been spending poorly in the transfer market prior to Roman\’s arrival and we were on a downward spiral.
Other clubs have spent similar money over a 10 year period and haven\’t been able to sustain their success.
A direct reflection of the business strategy Chelsea\’s owner has employed is in the Adidas deal. Buying Umbro\’s shirt deal out was expensive in the short term, but will prove to be more profitable long term.
It makes sense for Abramovich to come in, buy everything the club needs to be successful in the short and long term, then sit back and watch the club grow.
These signings aren\’t for the short term.
Cech - 22
Huth - 21 or so.
Diarra - 21
Mikel - 19
Kalou - 20 or so.
Johnson - 22ish
Essien - 22/23
J.Cole - 25
J.Terry - 26
Bouhlarouz - 25
(Those 2 kids we nicked off Leeds)
Robben - 22
Wright-Phillips - 23
(these are ballpark figures, feel free to amend them)
Under the watchful eye of Mourinho, these youngsters can thrive, and assumedly when the time comes, older players will leave and fund the purchase of new players.
Since when did the average fan give a shit about the \”distortion\” of the transfer market. It\’s always been distorted in favour of the big clubs, except now the big clubs can\’t rip off the small clubs by enticing the youngsters and making a token bid. They have to pay through the neck, which is probably fair.
The smaller clubs also get cut price players in the current financial climate, and sell on their players with potential for massively inflated prices.
The redistribution of wealth suits every club in the premiership apart from Man United, Liverpool and Arsenal who have been the benefactors of a distorted market since the premiership begun.(although Man United and Liverpool may find themselves with opportunities to buy some top players from around the world who want to play in the best league in the world for a rich title contender with a great history)
Sure Theo went to Arsenal, if Chelsea had really thought the lad was worth a punt, they would have upped the bid another 3 million for the long term benefits. Yes, it\’s painful for the top clubs to compete for certain players in the short term. This inflation will settle down next year as Chelsea will be quite content with the squad the have amassed.
In the long term, when the market settles down and Chelsea\’s inevitable dominance continues, Chelsea won\’t need the financial muscle to bring in top players. Players will come for the chance to play for our club alongside the best youngsters in Europe. (Arguably already happening, Ballack would have been offered similar tax-free money by Real Madrid. Shevchenko could have continued in the Italian league. Mikel, Robben and Essien could have gone to Man Utd.
To Arsenal fans, your safety blanket of Chelsea hatred and supposed \’attractive\’ football will be taken away soon, and then we\’ll see whether Wengers shrewd use of young players will keep you from falling into mid-table obscurity.
You barely qualified for the Champions League last year, and your team hasn\’t strengthened. The youngsters are underachieving (with the exception of Eboue and Fabregas) and a few key players to Arsenal\’s future are leaving or have looked like leaving in recent years.
Fantastic article, good sir.
Well researched and a lot of pertinent points. It really got me thinking.
Looking forward to more of the same.
AT
Ahmed: Taking it all on the chin with a :o)
Benners: “This article is really drawing out the drama queens. Cum on luvvies, get a perspective like…” Love it!
> Thanks for pissing on the graves of the dead.
A lesson in comprehension might tell you I’m berating Man U for trading off that tragedy. I think it was appalling. The sympathy that lasted to the 1968 European Cup win was capitalised ruthlessly and sticks in the craw. But Man U virtually collapsed by the early 70s when they got relegated. The times of Frank Farrell onwards were largely failure after failure with only occasional cup wins to keep them going. Even Fergie was on the brink of the push before he got lucky. If you really are a Liverpool fan you’d be very aware of that, unless you’re about 15.
True fans of Man U didn’t think it was a bold move to sell the club out to the stock market. Most now say they should have created FCUM back then when it was really needed. That’s when its soul was sold in the eyes of the true Man U fan. Don’t you even know that? Profits went to shareholders and dividends went out of the club and out of football. Please keep up.
> And the club didn’t ’sell out’. Do you know about ‘Hostile takeovers’? I don’t know a lot…
Clearly. What a mong. What part of getting a stock market listing and all the money pumped into them for that was earned money then? That point was about as dopey as the first poster who came out with:
> The worst article ever on Soccerlens… The Article has valid points but…
So, it had valid points then, before the excuses start. Well it did, actually, yes.
Andy> …and considering your non-performance in Europe
I think they won the Cup Winners Cup in 1998 and the Super Cup against Real Madrid, didn’t they? Didn’t Vialli win 3 titles in a year round about then after they dumped Gullit? Is everyone on this site under 10 or something? I didn’t even have to look that up!
> You lot were nearly bankrupt and in debt that didn’t look like it’d be paid of any time soon.
I may have to start supporting Chelsea at this rate. This is a bit stupid. Isn’t the value of Stamford Bridge supposed to be 4 or 5 times their debt at the time? I wish my house was 4 or 5 times the size of my mortgage. I’d be landed!
And isn’t Ashburton Grove being “a self-financed project whose loans are underwritten by a group of banks” equivalent to being in hock to the banks to the tune of several hundred million?
If there’s some kind of age limit you have to be *under* to get onto this site, I have to declare I’m probably over age. Or maybe it’s just a mental age because none of you seem to know squat about the history of football in this country. You go around pontificating about this and that and have very little background to your understanding. Buy a book.
Sid. I’m a 2 year old from Azerbaijan who doesn’t have cable TV and my internet connection is really a rope connecting an old remington to a Black and White TV set and it goes underground after that. Since I have a candle, I think it’s an optical fibre link.
Tony. hee haw. I said I disagreed with your ending. “there is absolutely nothing the more financially-challenged amongst us can do to stop them.” Well the financially challenged can do something.
I’d hoped that… oh sod it. Rational Discussions aren’t for the intarweb I guess. I think I’ll play inside this pram now.
PS: What if all Chelsea need is a PR Team?
The value of Stamford Bridge was between 170 and 220 million pounds in 2003. Chelsea had a 75 million pound bond, and they were barely making interest payments on it. According to one analyst, “every penny” that was earned by playing Champions League football in 1999 and other prize money was allotted to interest payments, and Chelsea constantly had to borrow more to just finance their operating costs. Effective debt (borrowing/borrowed plus interest) came to about a hundred million. Had Stamford Bridge actually been 4 to 5 times the value of their debt, “debt-encumbered” won’t have been the adjective most used with respect to Chelsea. Good luck with your mortgage.
As for the Ashburton Grove comment, the loans were taken out under a newly formed holding company so that the project would be kept separate from the running of the club. Had the Ashburton Grove project gone bust, Arsenal won’t have been any closer to financial trouble than they were before the project. Big difference in getting a great credit rating from the Bank of Scotland and building a stadium on time (take note, Wembley), and having a debt that you can barely service interest on. I hope the point about Chelsea’s financial health is clearer now.
Rocky
“Soupdragon, the Fact Kingdom has told all of its border patrols to shoot you on sight.
Chelsea = Room for financial benefit?
You lot were nearly bankrupt and in debt that didn’t look like it’d be paid of any time soon. Chelsea was one of the worst run clubs in England in 2003.
The reason Abramovich bought into the club was because it was borderline top-level and had qualified for the Champions League. Even with Abramovich’s money, you lot aren’t breaking even for the next 15 years.
Chelsea had an international reputation before the Russian took over? Haha.”
I went some way toward disproving your original statements, yet you don’t seem to want to argue those points anymore (a familiar pattern). It seems you’ve become bogged down with the only argument you can win. Yes, Ashburton Grove is a result of the lovely relationship Arsenal have with the banks, and yes Chelsea’s stadium was the source of financial chaos before Abramovich.
How about reading the other replies I gave in response to your sweeping statements (I know you hate those) in regard to Chelsea’s reputation, and the long-term financial forecast. You didn’t seem to consider some key factors in your original argument so why don’t you consider them now and get back to me.
Your response the supposedly floored my comment did not show to me how Chelsea are, in any way, heading towards breaking even. Even in the next ten years. Peter Kenyon’s utopian vision of breaking even is looking ridiculous after yet another year of gargantuan deficits.
If Chelsea do indeed have an international reputation (nothing compared to Man United and Real Madrid, who have REAL international reputation), then they shouldn’t have had a problem recovering from the financial mess they were in before Abramovich took over. Abramovich, had he seen this as a business, would’ve exploited Chelsea’s potential to be a successful properly-run club, no?
However, Abramovich admitted from day one that Chelsea would be his toy. He did not buy Chelsea to turn it into a profitable, well-run club. He said to the BBC:
“…it’s not about making money. I have many much less risky ways of making money than this. I don’t want to throw my money away, but it’s really about having fun and that means success and trophies.”
Therefore, it’s not even an issue at the club! As a result, buying everything required to win will take precedence over a long-term strategy to run Chelsea like any other club for as long as Abramovich is in charge. The policies at Chelsea reflect that.
Arsenal were not benefactors of any transfer market distortion as we could never afford to pay the kind of money the likes of Madrid, Juventus and Man United paid for players. Inaccurate statement as far as that is concerned.
As far as United’s benefits from transfer market distortion are concerned, they are balanced out on the other side where United shares are being traded. Dud buys like Seba Veron harm United’s shareprice and the shareprice was even more dependent on United’s success on the pitch. A Champions League exit would affect them even more than a club in the same competition that was not being traded on the stock exchange. Therefore, it evened out because United weren’t sucking off an unlimited flow of cash like Chelsea are.
Your assertion that the transfer market will settle is not new. Many said this would happen in 2006 as well, however, Chelsea have again exceeded the 50 million mark in transfer spending. And will continue to do so simply because winning at any cost is the motto at the club right now, as reflected by Abramovich’s vision. You’re basing your assertion on a hope that it might, I based my pessimism on actual trends.
As for Walcott, Chelsea had a higher bid than Arsenal accepted but Walcott was only ever going to Arsenal. We actually did get him for less than Chelsea’s bid, reported to be between 15 and 17 million in a structured deal.
Also, John Terry wasn’t ’signed’, he came through the youth ranks.
Chelsea will continue to spend simply because money is a luring factor for the really big signings you lot are making right now. Weren’t Shevchenko and Ballack already playing at seriously big clubs? This will result in a continuation of their dominance in competitions, and that’s fine. But please call a spade a spade and don’t argue that Chelsea have breaking even and smoothing operations at the top of their priority list. If they did, they’d have used the international reputation and awesome business potential that exists at the club.
Not liking what Chelsea are doing is not a “safety blanket” for Arsenal fans, another inaccurate statement. I speak for myself, and if you look at my reports and articles, you won’t see me blaming Chelsea for any of our ills right now, would you? I didn’t respond to your comment because you got carried away and I’d rather this doesn’t get personal. However, I stand by my original statement and have provided further evidence to the effect in this comment. Sweeping statements, hardly so.
I’ll reply later. Got things to do
I said we’ve suffered massive short term losses to reap the benefits in the medium to long term. 10 years is Kenyon’s public prediction and he’s the man with the information. Again, feel free to question the business sense of the man involved in turning Manchester United into the richest sporting brand in the world.
Big companies with international reputations collapse sometimes, and none are garaunteed to stay afloat. We overspent and ended up in a state. I don’t know what you are talking about REAL reputations for, we were a good European side that had beaten the best teams in Europe in recent years. We were contenders at the top consistantly for years, and won alot of domestic honours as well as bringing in some great continental players. (If Chelsea weren’t real contenders by coming 3rd and 4th in the league in recent years, then you have to admit Arsenal and Liverpool aren’t real contenders at the moment.)
I’m not saying that we were bigger than Barcelona, Real Madrid or Manchester United. I’m saying we’re a well known and well respected European club that has come to the fore after massive financial investment and restructuring.
How can you quote a sentence where Roman says “i don’t want to throw my money away” and then say that he’s happy to throw his money away.
Chairman usually buy a club to enjoy the experience and have their influence to try and improve a club, it’s not insane for him to mention that he wants to have fun.
A ‘ruthless’ billionaire who has put 1.1 billion pounds into charities in his home nation will usually keep his cards to his chest. Kenyon was happy to forecast a bright future for the club without detailing the intricacies of the business plan.
We now have 2 players for every position (nearly) and a host of great young players. The spending will relax soon, and you guys haven’t seen ANYTHING if you think Chelsea are dominating the league currently. The players sold by Chelsea have all been sold because they aren’t key to the future of the club (although Tiago, Duff and Parker deserve honourable mentions as players that Mourinho thought he needed but had to sell in their best interests.)
Arsenal were benefactors of the distortion of the transfer market, they benefitted from their club’s pulling power which NECESSITATED smaller clubs releasing players for less than they were worth. Now Arsenal can’t abuse their reputation and under-pay smaller clubs for the star players because TOP players cost TOP dollar. Chelsea have paid ridiculous amounts to buy the players they need to succeed long and short term.
Maybe your clubs just aren’t as well respected as you thought they were. Real Madrid and Barcelona seem to be doing fine at the moment.
You are guessing about the Chelsea bid for Walcott, there was no official bid.
John Terry had an opportunity to join Manchester United (he met with Alex Ferguson when he was younger) and turned them down because he felt Chelsea were moving in the right direction and treated him like a real professional. He signed professional terms at the usual time every promising youth player does. Whatever, i’m not going to argue the validity of the word signing, he was not brought through the youth team AFTER SIGNING FOR THE CLUB in consideration of the short term. (Huth came through the youth training system as well dead-eye.)
I agree you are a pesimist in regard to Chelsea. You aren’t being particularly pessimistic about Arsenal’s future.
Ballack could have gone to Real for tax free wages and would have made similar money. He came to Chelsea because at the time (before Juventus fell apart) we looked like the better side. Have you forgotten that we were joint favourites with Barcelona to win the champion’s league last year? People like winning that trophy i hear.
It has been Wenger’s and Benitez’ safety blanket in the league for 3 years. They both have complained constantly about Chelsea’s money, which has subconsciously made it okay for them to underperform domestically and undermined the success of Chelsea’s unbelievable team. Sounds like an excuse to cop-out, and I wouldn’t be happy if I was an Arsenal or Liverpool fan turning up to my own stadium and watching a team of lightweight European players tapping the ball around like it’s a warm up for the knock out competitions.
Interesting then that both of those sides underperformed in the league and tried to pick away at the other big clubs in the Champions League. Why do you think both of those teams were so vunerable in the league and undefeatable in their respective Champions League runs? More heart? More desire? Hardly, they are just fitter because they have an excuse not to try in the league.
What do you think Rocky? Do you think the dogged determination of players like Igor Biscan and Flamini has been the reason they did well in the Champions League, or the fact that both teams relax in the league and save their strength for the knock-out competition so they can play on the break?
Simplistic drivel that nicely circumvents the issue of how Abramovich (and his mates) “made” the money in the first place, which is to be expected as most Englishmen have very little or no idea about Russia’s post-1991 economic development and the role of the oligarchs (Berezovsky, Abramovich and co) in the said economic perfomance and politics. As a Russian, I now despise Chavski and all that they stand due to the nature of Roman’s billions, due to the fact that the country’s economic progress was stunted by these tw*ts, who perpetuated the economic woes (and contributed to the various crises including the 1998 one), for years siphoned off the cash off the enterprises they were basically given for Yeltsin’s re-election in 1996. Those who are trying to argue for some phantom “business” sense in the Chelsea acquisition - are you for real??? Chavski is no more than a PR exercise to enable money laundering on a much grander scale than a few piffing hundreds of millions spent on the club.
Pata: Point taken and extremely well made. Please don’t believe that all Brit’s are blissfully ignorant of what you’re saying. With all due respect, I did at least reference the charge that Abramovich’s many billions were (allegedly) dubiously acquired. However, I choose NOT to expand on account this is a football site…
Pata, may I first congratulate you on your perfect English - I’m sure Roman himself would be envious of your command of the language.
However it seems strange to me that you use the POLISH ’ski’ instead of your Russian ’skov’. Curious.
Tony, I don’t believe that ALL are ignorant but the vast majority are/don’t give a sh*t, which in a way is understandable; however, I cannot look at Chavski and ignore that side of things be it a football site or not.
Benners, it’s only a slight adaptation of Chelski - blame the British press for the tendency to add “-ski” to anything Russian-related.
Anyway, today’s events at West Ham have made my eyes pop out somewhat even though in hindsight it’s just part of the grander scheme of Abramovich, Berezovsky and friends using the world of footy for their dirty little purposes:
http://www.playthegame.org/upload/rafael_maranhao_-_the_boom_of_a_brazilian_club.pdf
OK, could someone explain to me what is wrong with this:
http://jesternix.net/pipermail/chelsea_jesternix.net/2006-May/018960.html
?
interesting articles mate. dropping links to them in one place is fine
medium to long term benefits?
chelsea just poach(oops)buy everyone elses players
many dodgy dealings have chelsea been up to?
its ok having a rant at people but when your club have tapped up players from leeds,lyon, charlton, man u, arsenal and thats just the ones that have gone through so not forgetting spurs, leeds again, barca, newcastle and thats the ones we have heard about.
lets face it chelsea are a disease.
the gunners may moan a lot and man u may think they are far better then they are but at least they don’t buy players just to weaken other teams and for that there is no excuse
and southampton’s managing director stated on numerous occasions the reason he was unhappy about walcott joining arsenal was they were not offering as much money as chelsea, kenyon even stated on sky news that chelsea had more financial muscle but because of the contract situation it was down to the player