Why Manchester United’s spending is NOT the same as Chelsea’s
With Manchester United’s recent summer buying, many non-United fans and pundits alike have come out saying that United are now the same as Chelsea in the transfer market - that United are attempting to “buy” success and that they are spending uncontrollably; much like Chelsea did. As a true United and football fan, I say “no, thats not true” and my argument is an unbiased one.
If you take a look at the Chelsea era pre-Abramovich compared to now, there is a revealing stat: Chelsea never spent as much, or even close to as much, as they are spending now. Since the Russian took control in the summer of 03, Chelsea have spent around ₤325m on transfers - that averages ₤81m peseason over the 4 years (I havent included 07 transfers yet). Over the same period they have received only ₤49.4m for players sold which means their net transfer expenditure is 275.6m (average of around ₤70m).
Manchester United, on the other hand, have spent ₤36m over the 2 seasons since the Glazers took over but more importantly, we have sold players to the value of ₤21.5m (again, not inclusive of 07 summer). This season, thus far, we have purchased Hargreaves (₤16m), Nani (₤14m), Anderson (₤18m), and Kuszczak (₤4m). The fees for Nani and Anderson, muck like that for Carrick, are not paid up front, but have clauses and sub-clauses attached but for the ease of simplicity, lets take the entirety of the fee. Thus far, that equates to ₤52m for the summer and with rumours of Tevez moving for around ₤20m, it is easy to see why people believe we are following in Chelsea’s footsteps.
But, there is a massive difference. Unlike Chelsea, who never spent that sort of money pre-Abramovich, Utd have always been able to spend and spend big. Driven by success on and off the field, Utd bought van Nistelrooy (₤19m), Veron (₤28m), Ferdinand (₤30m) and Rooney (₤27m) all for big money and all before the Glazers took over. Chelsea, on the other hand, bought no one for “mega bucks” before 03. Such has been Chelsea’s spending lately that it actually drove the club into all-time record losses.
Since the Glazers took over, it’s clear that the transfer kitty is dictated by how the club performs on the field. Performing well means that there is higher prize money and hence, a greater kitty used to re-invest into the club. If you look at a couple of seasons ago, we finished 3rd in the league, performed miserably in Europe and the overall result was less money available for transfers. This season was completely different. We won the league (₤20m), reached the semi finals of the CL (₤21m) and reached the final of the FA Cup (₤7.5m?). Thats close to ₤50m already in prize money. Add the ₤6m we are still owed in compensation for Mikel, ₤6m for Smith (who is likely to leave) and possibly another ₤5-6m for “dead-wood” players (Richardson, Silvestre etc etc) and you can see exactly where the money for our transfers has come from.
Unlike Chelsea, our transfer funds are self generated and not contributed by our owners. Looking into the future, if the investment does indeed pay-off and contributes to our on-field success, expect more big money transfers. League winners of the 07-08 season are expected to receive ₤50m in prize money - a record new - and when you add prize money from Europe and the local cups, you can see exactly why Utd have decided to spend their entire transfer kitty this summer: to drive the club forward in search of continued success; a kind of ‘ripple-effect’.
Note: all prize money is inclusive of TV deals.
Utd source for transfers: Soccerlens and Red11
Chelsea source: SoccerBase
Update: Jade writes:
For those of you who want to talk about the debt, you should at least apprehend how Debt Refinancing works:
There are two elements to the Man Utd debt, the hedge funds and the senior debt. The hedge funds have no security over the club and no influence over it either. Yes, they have to be repaid but that is something the Glazers will do from their own resources or refinancing plans in time.
Manchester United is supporting the senior debt, which is around £265million to £275million. People need to recognize the cost of servicing the interest on that debt is not in excess of the what Man Utd were previously paying in dividends and corporation tax as a publicly quoted company.
The core of the senior debt will be repaid when the Glazers resell a part of their shares. For that to be done Man Utd should have enough successful seasons to drive share prices through the roof and that has already started.
The company is liquid and solvable, its finances are far from being at risk, however as Shaheen said in his final paragraph this puts Man Utd in a spot where it needs constant on-field success to be able to keep up with Chelsea on the Transfer Market.
Also see:
Football Debt, Spiralling Wages and the future of European Football
Manchester United’s debt, analysed
Chelsea FC’s financial accounts and understanding Roman Abramovich
Great article Shaheen. You forgot the £2m we also got for Ruud and Beckham winning the league with Real Madrid.
You forget that Man Utds debt increased last year and they now several hundred £million on a ‘mortgage’ style loan. For all the stick Chelsea get, they’re not half as vulnerable as Utd financially.
Agree with steve,no offence but even though your earnings have increased you’ll have dug more into debt to get these tranfers done.Chelsea on the other hand are very stable.May be calculated risk;but nowhere near the stability of Chelsea.
This article has shown nothing we didnt know b4 i think u showd how u united arent like chelsea but prooved they r throughing out money on unproven players
Complete drivel. MU money is different money….hahahaha. MU multi million pound debts are football debts are they? Money is money is money. All premiere league clubs need to spend vast amounts of money to keep up, until the Sky TV money kicked in NOT ONE FOOTBALL CLUB in England made enough income from football activity alone to sustain themselves.
You are deluded…..I just hope you aren’t 18 an allowed to vote.
Another difference in United’s buying as opposed to Chelsea. United are buying young players, with long term in mind. Drogba, Ballack and Schevchenko are hardly for long term. So, united buying could prove very much more prudent. If these players of United fullfill their expected potential, the reds shouldn’t need to spend anymore for a good few years. But hey, it’s all if’s and but’s.
You forgot what matters the most - the forseeable future. In other words: the coming season. How much has United spent so far? How much has Chelsea (my team) spent so far? So who´s the big spender? We´re on track to be profitable by 2011. Who knows where United will be by then.
Im a chelsea Fan and i think that chelsea dont use the money well. Why do chelsea ought ballack having lampard essien makelele obi mikel and a lot of midfielders instead of buying some good strikers or some fast and skill players like robben. United use very well the money buying what they really need.
you must all consider yourself lucky then that it seems that way, that you havent taken chelseas year so far into the calculation,inc, youngsters chelsea have signed 6 players for…..under 1 million and that was compensation for the two youngsters we bought four 1st team players for ,,,,,NOTHING, glen johnson back for nothing and alex maybe on the way for 1 dollar, add to that malouda for maybe 13mil that makes 9 players for 14 million pounds and 1 dollar. thatll certainly even out the averages for you all.
So your point is: “Manchester United aren’t like Chelsea because Chelsea were only able to buy the league once Abromovich joined, whereas Manchester United have always been able to buy the league”? Or have I misunderstood?
@ tel.
the reason I did NOT take into account this years spending for Chelsea is that it is not over yet. Firstly, Malouda will arrive for nothing less than 15m. Lyon rejected 2 bids - of 12m and 13m. Secondly, you guys are after a right back - believed to be Dani Alves or Chimbonda. Alves, again, will cost around 15m. Chimbonda around 10-12m.
Taking that into account:
Malouda - 15m
RB - 12m
other players - 1m
Overall, 353m over 5 seasons is 70.6m. How is that much different to 81m?
In any case, my argument is that our transfer funds are self generated and not contributed by our owners
@ mjc: ahahahah….not quite
the first time we won the league was with 5 “kids” from our youth setup…so no, unlike chelsea, we did NOT buy the league. And since then, we’ve genrated the funds to be successful. Unlike Chelsea.
@ STeve:
My post is not about the financial securities of either club
I am well aware that Utd are seriously in debt and thats becuase our owners arent half as rich as Abramovich and I accept that
Im just saying that we work for the players we bring in. The same cannot be said of Chelsea. Thats the simple truth
Very vaklid point there from SS where he points out the kids winning the league.. I’d like to see Chelski manage that using Sinclair, Ben Sahar and erm SWP?? Not happening. And United spending big bucks is nothing new, only this time round it’s a financial tight-rope which United signed up for the second it started operating as a PLC. Chelski spending big bucks=Chelski’s recent success. United spending big bucks or NOT (the ‘kids’ proving the point)=Premiership Masters. And yeh, I’m a United fan and what??
right on shaaheen i wud agree tat chelse are tryin to but the cup. tats cuz they tried in 06-07 season and te new commers failed wereas manutd utilize money an eg. christiano ronaldo and oter exiting young prospects and besides without lampard and drogba chelsea are nothing i repeat nothing
For those of you who want to talk about the debt, you should at least apprehend how Debt Refinancing works:
There are two elements to the Man Utd debt, the hedge funds and the senior debt. The hedge funds have no security over the club and no influence over it either. Yes, they have to be repaid but that is something the Glazers will do from their own resources or refinancing plans in time.
Manchester United is supporting the senior debt, which is around £265million to £275million. People need to recognize the cost of servicing the interest on that debt is not in excess of the what Man Utd were previously paying in dividends and corporation tax as a publicly quoted company.
The core of the senior debt will be repaid when the Glazers resell a part of their shares. For that to be done Man Utd should have enough successful seasons to drive share prices through the roof and that has already started.
The company is liquid and solvable, its finances are far from being at risk, however as Shaheen said in his final paragraph this puts Man Utd in a spot where it needs constant on-field success to be able to keep up with Chelsea on the Transfer Market.
Basically what you’re saying is that Man Utd have always brought success, but it’s wrong for someone else to do it.
how can anyone even suggest that the mancs are the same as Chelsea? If you look at how much Chelsea paid for example,for Shaun wright phillips( 21 million when arsene was apparently only willing to offer up to 15m) to eg, ronaldo (12m and now worth 30-40m). Same can be said for l’pool as well, spending 20m on Torres instead of the 27m that was believed to be the fee.
The thing with Man u, Arsenal, is that although there is a big difference between arsenal and Man u when it comes to paying for players, the players they buy are more likely to be worth more in the future or hold their value( arsnl-anelka, Henry, Fab/ Man u-ronaldo, anderson(new ronaldinho?),16m for hargreaves ).
Since Roman came in how many chelsea players brought in are likely to be worth the same or higher in the future? ( drogba is not worth 25m, shev was never worth 30m, and should i mention jiri jarosik?)
i reli cnt say how wrong ur facts r within this article nani was bpoutght for a maximum of 17.5 million u r sayin 14 with add- ons, i hav no idea wer u gt the figures for the otha 2 etha (anderson and kuzak as they r both undiscolosed as of yet) , saheeeen u make a gd argument based on finances however as usual ur article lacks u ahvnt talked bout the average age of player we r lkin at which is far mor important thn the finances wen it comes to bein on the pitch fr example dis yr all our players tht we brought r long term signings who will develop ova time and gro up togetha while chelski’s r lkin at immedaite success sheva balak so reli need to wrk on ur writin skils and facts in truth saheeen seeeedat
Another boring and wildly inaccurate article on Chelsea spending.
£325m spent????
Let’s not forget here, United have been the highest spending club on 7 of the last ten seasons.
United are now attempting to buy the league (there’s no difference to Chelsea’s spending).
Don’t try to justify your clubs spending. £800m+ in debt…where will it all end?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
May I remind all Chelsea fans that we won the double in 1996 despite selling Ince (£7m), Kanchelskis (£5m) and Hughes (£1,5m) in the summer of 1995. So that dispels the nonsensical theory that we always win the League by spending big.
Shera you crack me up man!
First of all get rid of the sms language on blogs. Makes your stuff more readable. Then you could start commenting on others’ writing skills.
[Shaheen]
Good article. Pretty much agree with that.
Shera…how can you even begin to comment on peoples writing skills? Yours is the worst on this page by far
Nice page Shaheen
@ Red Ranter:
Thanks man
@ Shera:
Yeah, what is up with that sms language. Its like trying to decode an encryption man
@ shera
Regarding the fees for Nani and Anderson, both are undisclosed. Most reports suggests that the entirety of both fees is 32m. The allocation of 14m and 18m respectively is just what I think. It doesnt really make a difference
There is another BIG difference between both team’s expenditures… MAN UTD have invested in starlets, young players that are expected to deliver big for the long, while they haven’t been proved at top level (Nani, 20; Anderson, 19; at their times Rooney,18; Ronaldo, 18; and posibly Tevez, 23). Chelsea one the other hand, have paid huge amounts of money for 28-32 y/o like Makelele not to say Shevchenko and Ballack, looking for inmediate success, looking for the short term.
If we play a little bit, mix a little finance with sports, and make a Net Present Value exercise, bringing the future value (including intangibles) of the players we have bought vs. the chelsea ones, we’ll realize what a good investment we have made.
These are the correct figure
Anderson (FC Porto, initial £8m rising to £20.4m),
O Hargreaves (Bayern Munich, initial £16.8m rising to £20.2m), Nani (Sporting Lisbon, initial £8m rising to £17.3m),
T Kuszczak (West Bromwich Albion, undisclosed)
Trust me…these are right
Shaheen:”Firstly, Malouda will arrive for nothing less than 15m.”
Today, Chelsea confirm £13.5million deal agreed. See link;
http://www.chelseafc.com/page/NewsHomePage/0,,10268~1069221,00.html
Shaheen:”Secondly, you guys are after a right back - believed to be Dani Alves or Chimbonda. Alves, again, will cost around 15m. Chimbonda around 10-12m.”
Any number of links to Kenyon’s recent quotes will attest to the fact our spending is now over. Why are we believed to be after a right back? Because the press say so? Come on, you should know better than that.
So, wrong on both counts, and I must say, I always find it amusing that when someone claims their “argument is an unbiased one” - it blatantly isn’t. If it was unbiased it would show in the writing, you don’t need to say it.
It’s like someone saying ‘I don’t mean to be rude but…’ and then being rude. A diversionary tactic, or in your case, a complete lie.
As such, there’s no point arguing simple because you’re an unabashed United fan. There’s nothing wrong with that, it just means you’ll never be able to write objectively about United, in the same way I can’t write objectively about Chelsea.
It also means that I couldn’t convince you that spending money is spending money. Red, Blue earned or given. It’s exactly the same whether it’s Chelsea, United or indeed Cardiff City.
United may still be in a lot of debt but that is only the glazers fault! United have been a club of building up and bringing in young talent so they can build a good team for now and hopefully to get better for the future. As someone else mentioned Chelsea only seem to spend big on players of now (e.g. Ballack, Shevchenko) excluding this season where they have gone for more so free transfers but sidwell and pizarro to me aren’t realy ‘great’ players at the top of their game. So not taking into account this season then they have pretty much just “bought” the title whereas United have bought players gradualy and built up a great team. 20 out of 36 Chelsea players (squad on skysports) have been bought since Ambramovich took over of which most are in the starting line-up, so without the russian billionaire Chelsea would be a nothing club and only recently they got Ambramovich to buy them a new training ground and facilities so the football club would be able to cope if he was to leave(more money from their generous owner). Going back to there squad and how so many have been bought since the Ambramovich take over there has been an enoumous amount of players that they have spent big on and then just let go for sometimes half the price they paid as they haven’t been good enough after spending millions on them:
e.g. Scott Parker cost £10m and then to newcastle from chelsea £6.5m, Damien Duff £17m and to newcastle from chelsea £5m, Hernan Crespo £16.8m and although not actualy sold yet he has only played one full season since joining in 2003, Asier Del Horno cost £8m and sold for only £4.8m (i could name a few more) I think you get the point now though about the transfers lol. I think i wrote a bit too much but this is something i feel strongly about so i thought i would express my views
Saying that Man U’s spending isn’t like Chelsea’s is kind of like saying that one sin is not as bad as another. Sin is sin and big spending is BIG SPENDING! Stop trying to exonerate your team and accept the fact that Man U is paying hefty salaries to some new players. They don’t have to appologize for that. Until FIFA, UEFA, and the FA come up with some sort of salary caps or spending limits and rules, the best a fan of any club can do is pray that their team has spent the money well. Ballack and Sheva proved financial disasters last season. Will they make a turn for the better in 07-08? Will Man U’s BIG SPENDING pay off with another Prem and maybe the CL as well? Let’s just be patient and wait until the season starts.
All that needs to be said is look how much Manchester spent last season in compared to Chelsea. look how much we bought and sold. Who came out on top?
ppl - read Jade’s comment (#17)
Ahmed jade’s comment is #16 not 17. Mate put on ur glasses[:D]
People seem to be forgetting that Chelsea are bringing in a lot of young talent: Mikel, Kalou, SWP (!), and about another 6 players into the youth team. They’ve also invested heavily in their youth system, so that in the future they don’t need to rely upon spending big in the transfer market.
The last few years of Chelsea’s spending has pretty much been to catch up to the same sort of financial level as Man U (and other european sides). It was inevitable if they wanted to play on the big stage and drive global revenues.
Are Man U buying the title? I don’t think so, but i don’t think Chelsea ever did either. You need to enhance a squad, and once you get to a certain level, you generally need to spend big to do so..
Actually, there is no point in dishing Chelsea, ManYoo or even Liverpools spending spree; all wanting to get more success, and over the years, big teams have always done what was necessary to stayon the top, spend big!! Your article makes sense , however spending money is still spending money. To say that our spending is not the same as Chelsea is like pot calling the kettle black(or was is the other way around?!?). Both wanting to get ahead of each other.
Besides, when Chelsea bought Shevchenko, Essien, Drogba, SWP, Duff, and Ballack, they were buying quality, and quality cost. It’s just some didn’t turn out as good as the others. Remember Veron, Cisse, Jeffers? Actually, when they bought Sheva and Ballack, I seriously feared that they would dominate. Luckily enough, those two never discovered their form and also Gallas.
abt nani and anderson we will end up paying the combined 32 million only if they turn out to be world class players..and besides this mega investment is for the next 5 years or so..we wont have to spend more than 10-15 million in the next 5 years considering the quality and age of our squad.
@bored mind
“£800m+ in debt…where will it all end?”
dont venture into territories u know nothing abt..leave all tht to ppl who know something abt finance and economics..and read the post above urs to understand things better.
First of all,all those saying that chelsea’s spending isn’t the same as united,we can see united’s spending this season was to cover up last season’s misfortunes,when we didnt have a deeper bench so ask me and i’ll say we are stiil trying to buy the EPL and maybe the Champions league.
No united, arsenal or even liverpool fan can say that when chelsea brought in sheva, ballack and mikel we didn’t think they were going to completely dominate and eclipse the EPL or even europe for that matter, so the signings made alot of sense at the time.So after a year chelsea’s signing have not quite meeting their expectations, we judge them as bad investments.
What if nani,anderson, hargrieves dont make it in the EPL ,because as far as i’m concerned they are still unproven, will we still say they were worth it,remember Diego Forlan???
Point is as a united Fan i don’t care if we spend big,if we buy the EPL. all i want is to see us win it,and even win europe,i dont care if they dump all the kitty to ensure this,spend a 100 mil.a billion if you will, as long as the club is successfull…
@Johnarejr
no one said big spending is a sin
I agree that both Utd and Chelsea rely heavily on spending big to win the league.
The difference is that Chelsea spend too much (when was the last time someone came through the ranks? Terry is the only one I can think of) and also the fact that we earn our money
I don’t quite agree with this article.
My take on the matter:
ManU spent BIG exactly like Chelsea spent BIG previous years. How can we even try to hide or camouflage that fact?
ManU spent / spend big, becuase they know that spending big will help winning trophies. This does not mean that spending big hands you success. For this you need a great manager, a great management team, and the right players. (Same like Chelsea - I doubt they would have achieved the same without Mourinho and his backroom staff).
Chelsea spent big, becuase they had to “Announce themselves to the world as a force to be reckoned with”. They needed the big money and big signings in order to attract interest of people (and players) so that their youth development can get established. Now that everybody respect (and sometimes fear) them as such, things will settle down a bit.
If a club can spend big, let them. The management is bright enough - I hope - not to overspend.
To all fellow United fans, please don’t try to defend our big spending. The more we defend it, the worse it will seem. We did spend big, so what…we can afford it!
O Dear, think we should all just face it, FOOTBALL IS BIG BUSINESS. What big business do you know that doesn’t invest BIG to stay on top of the competition? I find it intrigue to see who is buying who, and for what systems of play, and like somebody else mentioned WHICH MANAGER/COACH is able to blend his formation to better all the others. I would like to say though, as a paying hard working fan, if I have to spend BIG BUCKS attending football matches, I ENJOY BEING ENTERTAINED BY FLAIR PLAYERS, and fast flowing edge of seat football. For these reasons, I enjoy watching my team Man U, but also Liverpool, Arsenal, and spurs. Chelsea games bore me - snooze football I don’t appreciate. I hate Chelsea/Man U games - cup final anybody!!!!!!!!!!!!! But hey, it’s horses for courses, whatever turns you on. So keep investing everyone, BUT BRING ON THE ENTERTAINERS. Yet in the end, no matter how much is spent, we all know it can come down to good ole lady luck!.
First things first, I think it is great that, in the same sentence, you say you are a Man U fan and that your argument is unbiased. Class. Secondly, you also say that Man U have always bought big, which means they have more of a tendency for “buying” success than Chelsea. Thirdly, alot of the money that Chelsea spent was wasted on flops (jarosik, maniche, khalid, veron, geremi, kezman, mutu, Crespo) so you can hardly say that was buying success if the players don’t succeed personally. And fourthly, you say that alot of Man U’s cash comes from success, as far as i know Chelsea have won 6 of the 12 domestic trophys in the last 3 years plus reached the CL semi’s three times in the last 4 years. But besides these points, a very valid article.
And by the way this is totally biased since I am a Chelsea fan.
United have been buying the league for a longer time than Chelsea….FACT
I keep trying to point out that, since I am a research scientist working in green technology and trying to combat climate change, my money is way better than that earned by people who work for car companies, petrol companies, cement manufacturers, etc.. However, the shops just won’t accept my argument.
PS Jade, it’s comprehend, not apprehend.
Whilst chelseas spending is obscene, man u fans trying to pretend that their team is somehow morally cleaner is just a joke. Man U are and have always bought the league since the premiership began. Man U just dont like being played at their own game.
Where to start…
Average spending: is that because £150m of Chelsea’s net £275m spending happened in the first 5 months and £50m of United’s spending occured in the last 5 weeks? Does it not include this season because Chelsea’s spending in 2006/7 is in profit (whether you include Malouda or not - think Duff, Gudjohnsen, Huth and Boulahrouz income of £20m).
Debt: Chelsea has none. Man Utd’s is in excess of £700m and increased by £70-80m in the last 12 months reported.
Buying older players: Chelsea’s academy has been reported as costing £30m. This was bought and building started nearly 4 years ago and is currently handling hundreds of kids through trials even before the academy is properly finished (two years still to go).
“As a true United and football fan, I say “no, thats not true” and my argument is an unbiased one.”
Why did I bother even reading the rest. Almost as much of an excuse-maker as the whining scousers.
Classic: “But, there is a massive difference. Unlike Chelsea, who never spent that sort of money pre-Abramovich, Utd have always been able to spend and spend big. Chelsea, on the other hand, bought no one for “mega bucks” before 03. ”
So that makes it ok then - Man U have always done it and Chelsea have never.
Daft.
well well spending is spending…i’m a man u fan and i will agree with karl that we must not try to justify our big spending…man u spending is nothing new…our first record signing was (if my memory’s good) Tommy Taylor back in 1953! after him there have been the likes of Denis Law, Lou Macari, Gordon Mc Queen, Joe Jordan, Ray Wilkins, Gary Birtles, Bryan Robson, Marc Hughes, Pallister, Keane, Cole, Stam, Yorke, Rio, Rooney and Veron! Manchester United have always been a glamorous team, with lots of stars comming (with various degree of success). so lets not dwell upon finances coz i think the club have professional economists and financial analysts to take care of that part. And Manchester United will never wind up under the weight of debts.
Funnily enuff most of the club’s greatest ever players (except Robson and Law) have been those from the youth system (Charlton, Edwards, Best, Giggs and Scholes.)
The point is actually Chelsea bought and changed again the whole new team with Roman rubble…
But Manchester uses money to built a team around their core of former youth & young players…
Arsenal & Liverpool buys lots of players too but they didn’t win the league so it won’t matter…
Every big club does invest a lot on player,but personally,i feel teams like Chelsea Inter & Madrid are teams that buy their league…
Simply because if u compared to their squad of few years back,its an almost entirely different set of players…
It’s far easier to forget how much was spent on players and look at the bigger picture which is how much the owners have spent on the clubs.
Pre Summer 2007:
Abravonich has spent £420m buying Chelsea, paying off debts and buying players.
Hicks & Gillett have spent £220m on buying Liverpool, paying off debts and have set aside £200m for players and a new stadium taking the total to £420m the same as Abravonich has spent.
Glazer’s spent £780m on Man United of which some of that money is debt.
Which ever way you look at it the Glazer’s have bought success and I’m sure Abravonich, Hicks & Guillett actually feel they’ve got bargains compared to the Glazer’s.
Elliot
Right, you all seem to have got a rather deluded view of what football is all about! When the premiership started, there were no big money signings about, and they’re were no big money owners, thats for sure. Manchester United went and won the league through having a team capable of winning the league, not through buying any multi-million pound superstars!
Now, THE KIDS, this bunch of genius’ were the pivotal moment in the Premier League’s development. You never win anything with kids said Mr Hansen, but United did, and thats when the spending started. By this point Man United had grasped enough of a chokehold on the title, that big name players, from overseas included, wanted to play for them, the european challenge loomed large, United needed these big name, experienced players for this reason only, the league was almost a foregone conclusion. Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, the Neville brothers combined with the likes of Mark Hughes generated Manchester United’s cash, by continued success on the field. With this success started the biggest commercial jugenaught of the century. United became a global phenomenon and this is where the revenue really built up. With all of this came expectation, United’s european challenge became uppermost in Sir Alex’s thoughts, this required international talent, and from here on in, commence the really big spending!
In all, Manchester United started all this, but through success, Chelsea had no success at all before summer 03′, and for 2 years it looked as if Abramovich’s spending had won the day, the answer is it hasnt though, football is winning again, Fergusons tactical mind is winning, and long may that continue
Jonathan, red at heart
This bloke talks like Chelsea havnt ever generated prize money!What does he think two league titles,two Carling Cups,an FA cup and three Champs league semis are then?!As much as Roman got us started anything we’ve spent in the last few seasons we’ve earnt,just the same as Man Utds one good season has earnt them!
You have not really explained why man u’s spending is different to chelsea’s. All you,ve said is that chelsea only spent that money after abramovich came, while man u have always spent that kind of money. In theory, based on your argument, you could say that man u have bought all their titles.
To Elliot - How do you make that out mate? The Glazers have been offered double their money from 2 or 3 consortiums who would snatch their hands off to buy up United. Why is that do you think? Because Man Utd are a lean, mean, money making machine. The Glazers knew exactly what they were doing, dummy’s they are not.
Money is money, plain and simple, and if the checks say Manchester United or Chelsea FC or whatever club name on them, it really doesn’t matter where that money originated.
The point is, Manchester United has now recognized Chelsea as a financial threat, and MU has finally decided to pull out the stops and start spending the money in order to compete. If any Manchester United fans know their football worth, they won’t bitch ever again about Chelsea spending money because Manchester United, has done exactly the same thing now in an effort to retain the title.
To Craig:
Chelsea are not buying youngsters?
Mikel - 20 years old now
Robben - 23 now
Essien - 25 now
Cech - 22 wheh he signed
Get your shit straight if you’re going to comment.
To Bob
“Manchester uses money to built a team around their core of former youth & young players” So Van de Saar, Heinze, Ferdinande, Vidic, Carrick, Saha are all from your youth setup? Or did you just mean that Man U are different because of the youth of som of their star players (Rooney, Ronaldo) or that they depend on some of the old geezers (Neville, Giggs, Scholes…thats 3). Well Lets look at the age of Cech, robben, Essien, SWP, Kalou, Diarra, Essien, Cole, Mikel. Old buggers all of them. You are right we don’t have anyone other than JT from our youth setup but thats because ours was crap. Remember Ferguson was at Man U for about 8 years before you were seeing som of the players from the youth ranks establish them selves in the team that won the treble in ‘99. Give Mourinho that time and we will see the same thing.
I really agree with this article. Excellent job @ Shaheen Seedat.
However, I admit although Sir Alex does overpay sometimes, but u have to pay this much money nowadays to be able to buy good quality players..
As regards, Chelsea’s spending: like one chelsea fan above pointed out, they do RELY on bringing big names to the club to attract interest and not their own success. Manchester united still initially attracted “interest” of fans etc through their success in the 90s.
However, I think finally Chelsea is spending very sensibly this season around. You never needed good first-team players and only backup players and thts exactly what you’re doing.
As regards, Man utd’s spending this season. That also is very justfied in my opinion, since we need quite a few players in these positions
1) Anderson as a replacement for Scholes
2) Nani as a replacement for Giggs
3) Hargreaves as a defensive midfielder (we havent had a natural defensive midfielder after Keane)
4) Tevez as a top quality striker (to partner Rooney)
So I believe, with this season, both chelsea and man utd are somewhat sensible in the transfer market, buying players only that are required.
As regards the respective youth systems of both clubs, Man utds youth system appears to be slightly on the decline. There havent realy been exceptional players coming in, you know the sort like Neville, Giggs and Scholes…
Chelsea’s youth system was never that impressive, so that puts both clubs at well, almost the same wavelength now.
@ bluto: same thing bro
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apprehend
ap·pre·hend: To grasp mentally; understand
a candidate who apprehends the significance of geopolitical issues.
BRIAN W, if thse four signings of man u dont work out, it will be a financial disaster. If it was chelsea messing up one, two or even three big money moves, it wouldn’t matter nearly as much ps. that is not to say that they would not care.(think crespo, Sheva and ferreira, maybe duff). The differences between the two clubs are that chelsea are owned by a youngish billionaire who is worth about three or four times what the mid 70’s Glazer is worth (glazer also runs a big american football franchise, ambramovich is focused on chelski) . I am not a man u fan but i am annoyed to say that over the course of Romans time in charge, mu will not be able to compete with them in the transfer market without annual success in the comp’s.
Chelsea can spend alot more to get it right, and to be honest i cannot see them not winning the majority of trophies. its not do or die for man u, but it could be a major kick in the teeth.
CHELSEA FANS SEEM TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN OR HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR EVERYTHING, WHY CANT THEY JUST ACCEPT THAT THEY WOULD BE IN LEAGUE TWO BUT FOR ABRAMOVICH. THERE IS NO SHAME IN SPENDING MORE, THEY SIMPLY HAVE MORE MONEY.
@ Jonathan Hambleton
“Chelsea had no success at all before summer 03″
FA Cup 97, League Cup 98, European Cup Winners Cup 98, European Super Cup winners: 1998, FA Cup 2000…
Not to mention top six finishes for the past ten years, quite a few of them before Roman arrived.
If you can’t get your facts right sonny, it makes the rest of what you say lacking in credibility. Comments such as; “you all seem to have got a rather deluded view of what football is all about” - are quite humorous, as you seem to feel you are the only one here with any sense of what football is about. Ho hum.
“Now, THE KIDS, this bunch of genius’ were the pivotal moment in the Premier League’s development. You never win anything with kids said Mr Hansen, but United did, and thats when the spending started.”
Of course the kids were quite impressive, but then they had a certain number of highly priced players around them too, didn’t they? Surely you’ve not forgotten a certain Mr Cantona already? At the time, the price paid for him certainly wasn’t cheap, was it?
I could continue to take you to pieces Mr ‘Jonathan, red at heart’. However feel that it would be folly to do so because you are also Mr ‘Jonathan, shit for brains’.
I see no-one challenged my earlier post here (I must have been spot on) and I expect no-one to challenge this one either, because unlike Jonathan, I make sure I have my facts straight before jumping in. Saves looking like a pillock later in the day.
Thank you and good night.
This article is really a crop of sh*t. Man U supporters go off on Chelsea for spending gobs of money, and when their club does the same thing, the natural inclination is to deny it by saying “the money they spend is differently.”
Chelsea had to revamp their entire club, whereas Man U already had pieces in place to compete. So it cost Chelsea a lot, big deal. If Man U had spent all that money that was contributed to the club by ten Roman-like figures rather than one, they wouldn’t even care.
One of the real points here is that Man U finally sees Chelsea as a threat. After hereing many supporters here and there saying over the last several years that CFC isn’t a true rival, we finally see the truth: CFC is getting under the Mancunians’ skin, and Manchester United, in an effort to stay on top, has pulled out its wallet like Chelsea did in order to ensure success.
This article is a pile of bunk and should be discarded in the scrap heap. If anyone had noticed, Chelsea constructed their starting 11 and now have moved to cheaper, alternative ways to keep the immense depth of talent fresh at the club. They are not these continous banking stalwarts insistent on buying the best player in the open market; if that was true, we would have signed Torres and would have signed other players already, like Alves, just out of the will to deny their services to other clubs.
If you are going to write a piece of substantial and respected journalism on this website, you owe it to all of the readers here, regardless of club affiliation, to collect as many of the facts at hand using relaible sources. What you should not do is push a subjective agenda with a catchy title and attempt to credibly “defend” it by throwing around a bunch of monetary figures that you yourself cannot probably make sense of. Any of those figures are so subjective, depending on how they are used, that they are complete crap in any piece of respectable article. To cap it off, do not even explain your club affiliation and then try to overwhelm us with statements of how you are unbiased when in the whole article you try to define that Manchester United money (British pounds, by the way) are somehow different and superior than Chelsea money (British pounds, by the way.) Chelsea has won more trophies and prize money over the last several years than Man U, more thane nough to account for a good share of its spending, so don’t go on a jealous streak trying to defend your club’s reputation. NO MATTER WHAT CHELSEA DOES, MANCHESTER UNITED’S REPUTATION AND LEGACY WILL ALWAYS REMAIN INTACT! There is absolutely no negative effects on Man U if Chelsea finds success, so stop being a baby and admit that your club has been forced by the football amrket to adapt to spending large amounts of money to compete.
BRIAN W,
same old chelsea fan, have to find an excuse for everything. firstly torres had offers from other teams but said to his agent to only listen to l’pool. secondly, when talking about spending, the majority of evidence is going to be in monetary figures. thirdly, what pool of youth talent? how many players under 21, play for chelsea at least five times in a season( an 18 yr old gunner(Denilson) walked all over lampard in the carling cup). Although i do agree with you that chelsea had to spend alot more in a shorter time because their team was always alot worse(de lucas)than mu’s, therefore their spending is obviously going to be different. Finally Chelsea is one of the reasons why manu and indeed any club has to spend big as you always pay over the odds for players for players like sheva. Barca have proven my point, how can shevchenko be worth 30m when two of europe’s biggest clubs are exchanging a player who is just as good, thierry henry, who is the same age as shev was a year ago?
Get a life BRIAN!
This article has obviously struck a chord with you!!
Maybe because its true?
Man Utd built itself up from an average club in the eighties to the worlds greatest club at the moment! And we did it with a great manager and a great youth system.Thats all! Thanks to this we are able to now SPEND BIG! Not because of our millionaire owners.
WE HAVE EARNED THE RIGHT TO SPEND BIG. NOT BOUGHT IT LIKE CHELSEA!
Thats the truth…
Brian W:
Relax.
If you are going to write a piece of substantial and respected journalism on this website, you owe it to all of the readers here, regardless of club affiliation, to collect as many of the facts at hand using relaible sources.
It’s touching that you care this much about SL. I do read the articles that come through, you know, and as much as I let united fans show their bias I also let other fans show their bias (I remember you blowing a gasket over at BC’s post too).
Bottom line - it was a good topic for debate, and I thing we got two things out of it.
1) Chelsea and Manchester United both have the means to spend big, something that has been made necessary by market forces.
2) Debt or Abramovich, I assure you both clubs are stable. Randomly quoting debt figures without understanding fully how the debt is handled or throwing around the idea that Roman will bail out soon is pointless. Yes, the Glazer takeover put Man Utd in serious debt, but we’re here, we’ve got to deal with it.
And one more thing - United are NOT spending 50m up front. And they have 25m from last year to spend, plus player sales haven’t happened. In short, even if the Tevez transfer takes it to 70m that money will be staggered in annual payments and we’re essentially spending last year’s money plus this year’s transfer money allocated within our budget with minimal results (3rd place league, 2nd round CL) in mind.
Please don’t bash authors here - they take tremendous amounts of abuse from commenters who couldn’t be arsed to talk seriously for one minute.
If anyone here is that knowledgeable, do your own fuckin writeup and email it or put it up on your blog. THEN you have a write to insult others.
Sorry if this is harsh, but I’m growing tired of seeing this trend on all sites of brainless author bashing.
BW - nothing personal bro, you know I love you
Get it straight Shaheen…u’ll couldnt afford this years intrest on your senior debt(leave alone reimbruising them) and have gone deeper into it for your big signings(its an official statement,check it if you want);its a risk but lets see..your club’s stratergists and managers are not fools;they know what they are doing.Its an investment.And will repay later;but only if your club has sucess on pitch(like you rightly ponted out).
But please stop sayin that u’ll earn your money.u’ll dont.Get it into oyur head!!!
This article seems like a whole lot of justification. People harshed on Chelsea for spending so much when they won, and now Man U fans are afraid they will have to eat their words because their club is spending just as much. Who cares?
They both buy players so they can have some of the best teams in the world. Fine. But lets not try to say there’s such a difference between buying yourself a new iPhone and having your mom buy you a new iPhone. You’re still that jerk with a new iPhone.
When Roman came in to the Bridge, the direction of the club was altered to the point that they had three main objectives:
1. Chelsea was to immediately field a competitive team using Roman’s money by buying some of the best players available. This was accomplished and is largely the reason behind the current success of the Blues, which has translated into unparalleled revenue, support and pitch results for the entire club.
2. Chelsea was to set itself on a course that the youth development system, lacking very far behind other Premiership clubs, would eventually become the biggest driving force behind the club’s success. That direction has recently culmianted in the new youth training facility at Cobham.
http://www.chelseafc.com/page/NewsHomePage/0,,10268~1068488,00.html
3. Chelsea would set itself financially on a course to break even in several years, with the intended goal that Roman’s money dump was a one-off occurence and that the club would be self-sustaining AND competitive in the near future. This sustenance would derive from smart fiscal operations and a dependence on the youth system in the future, so that record transfer fees would become a rare occurence. To compliment Man United, they are most likely the best model of what this change in direction would look like.
The point here is that there is a realistic and true vision behind the money spending maddness. Several posters here claim that Man United waits to win until they spend their money. However, they still spend it, regardless of whether or not they win. On the other hand, Chelsea spent the money up front, like a credit card, over the course of several years and is NOW making it back, by winning cups and trophies and placing well in the league while still taking in revenue because of the ability to compose a competitive club. Does it really matter about the timeline in which they spent it? No. Both clubs have spent the money and it really doesn’t matter how they did it. Chelsea is now balancing the books while Man United kept them balanced. Different philosphy and they have both worked, so far.
To address gooner10, although I take offense at being labeled “same old Chelsea fan,” (unfair stereotype for all Blues) you are a much smarter football fan than Fred will ever be: Chelsea is not the sole reason Man United has had to spend money to keep winning. However, Mancunians would like to think so because it morally keeps themselves feeling better at night by placing the blame on hated Chelsea. They do not want to recognize the overnight transformation at the Bridge as a legitimate, serious threat to their title chances, and it shows in this article: the Man United fans are now forces to defend themselves to critics who point out Mancunians were the first to bash the free-spending ways of the Blues.
However, you make a good point about Henry and Shevchenko’s fees. But, the difference is this: Henry is going to be 30 years old when the season commences, and is coming off an injured campaign with doubt about how his form will be. Shevchenko, at the time of transfer, was 29. Same age, so it doesnt matter much. The issue is this: At their respective times of transer, Shevcehnko was undoubtedly worth more thos his club, Milan, than Henry was to Arsenal, but STRICTLY on the pitch; otherwise, Henry beats down Sheva because of his overall value to the club. Arsenal had been bracing themselves for Henry leaving for over a year, and their up and coming talents were more than Milans in terms of replacements. Shevchenko was coming off a successful campaign and his demand at the time was higher than demand for Henry now. Of course, I believe Chelsea overpaid, but the exact figure has never been released, so we won’t know by how much.
Fred: You are the reason that stupid football fans exist around the world. That is because people like you breed and never become more intelligent.
-This article only strikes a chord with me because I cannot stand idiots pushing subjective jorunalistic agendas, particularly in an effort to defend their own club’s way. I point out ALL idiots here; in fact, bluechampion, a regularly contributing writer who is a supporter of Chelsea, has consistently been one of my biggest targets for what I feel is his overt ignorance of journalistic truth and biased writing. So to imply that my distaste for this piece of written rubbish is simply because I think it is true is both false and shows that you lack much common sense to interpret any of the real meanings behind my argument.
-Second of all, you are blind and retarded claiming that Manchester United has some divine right to spend money because they have been so successful. If your pitiful theory hold true, all Premiership teams would be handed one euro for transfers, except Manchester United, who gets as much as they want because they have won in the past.
And actually, because of your billionaire owners, who all of you Mancunians (at least 99%) hated up until this year when Manchester United won the title, you do have the ability to buy big. If lousy, cheap, retarded bastards such as yourself all owned shares of the club, you would never be able to pay off the debt, and your transfer money would be used to pay off bills and not acquire new talent.
SInce whena re you graced with some ability to spend big? Oh, I forgot, I guess it comes from what the fans think. So when you say it is OK for your club to spend big and others not to, that is a real accurate description of how clubs should be able to operate in the football market. I’m jsut glad most football fans are complete dumbshits like you, because what you said makes absolutely no sense at all.
I hope nobody takes anything too persoanlly in what I say. The only time I am justifiably mad with people’s comments here are those who comment on the articles.
It takes a lot to write one of these, and it is much easier to sit back and nitpick one than to actually write it, so I do not claim to do better. It took Shaheen some massive guts to write this here (although it would have taken more at a Blues website - haha) and I give him props for that. My criticism of him should not be taken as angry rage, because I hold none there. My main criticism of the article is that anyone knows that numbers can be used to justify any argument, depending on how they are compared - and here, I feel they are unfairly compared in order to somehow prove Man United is justified in spending, when the truth is that any club rightly can do so.
The thing that pisses me off, for those of you whom I call out in the comments and have known me to do so in other topics, is the stupid comments that a selct few of you leave without justifying any of your thoughts. Particularly in this topic is the issue of double standard - Man United fans claiming that they have earned some right to spend big while Chelsea has not.
That is simply not true: money is money and Manchester United’s success is not some divine right to spend whatever you want, wheneve you want. Did you really think other clubs would just sit back and let the Reds beat them down year after year? Take Chelsea’s spending with a grain of salt: imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, so pucker up and be happy that your model is being copied by everyone else because it has worked so well.
Just remember: because you are the model for everyone still doesn’t mean you have a right to make stupid comments like “Man United have earned the right to spend big - Chelsea haven’t.”
Gooners 10- take your petty Sinicism back to your club. Your comment regarding Chelsea is one of the reasons why Man U and indeed any club bla, bla… FYI Man Utd spent 30M & 28M pounds respectively for Rio Ferdinand, and Sebastian Veron, before RA’s era! Get your fact straight.
Sorry BRIAN W, if the ’same old chelsea fan remark’ offended you. its just that with Jose always making excuses, which sometimes, frankly, is absolute rubbish, abuse of his position even. When reading BLUECHAMPION’S article on what went wrong for you last season, his comments, along with many other blues fans annoyed me. to be honest chelsea are my most hated team, not because they are more successful than arsenal, or wealthier. the reasons are:
- they massively inflate player’s transfer value
- have a manager with a huge ego, and players(drogba)
- try to present everything as a struggle
- jose’s reported falling out with roman over transfers, many chelsea fans support jose over this but when does he reach into his own pockets
- play boring football alot of the time
- and finally,they tapped up cashley cole
ps. you are losing your battle here if you criticise man u here, the amount of manc supporters that go on these things are incredible. i remember RVN’S goal against fulham where he fouled about three players starting from halfway before scoring. it won goal of the season on sky sports over thierry’s run from halfway inside his own half against spurs and pires’s 35yd lob against southampton. The amount of Man u fans that go on vites or discussions is immense, they dont want a bad thing said about them.
So no bugger questioned my posts then (29 & 63 in case you missed them!) - so I was right, and I have to agree with Brian W, sort of.
It doesn’t take guts to write something like this, it takes any idiot and a keyboard, that’s one of the downsides to the Internet; every one has a voice, not many warrant being listened to, hence you get many comments from people who are justifiably angry at what was originally ‘written’.
Also, why is ’soccerlens’ talking about United and Chelsea, I thought Lens was a French team?
Gooner10
Before I stop laughing, can I just point out;
‘Its just that with Jose always making excuses’
Not like Arsene ‘I never saw it, we didn’t do it, they didn’t let us play etc etc ad nauseum’ Wenger never makes excuses, does he?
“to be honest chelsea are my most hated team”
Good, because I fu*king hate Arsenal almost as much as I do Liverpool.
“- they massively inflate player’s transfer value”
Surely thats the selling club, and how is it a problem for anyone except Chelsea?
“- have a manager with a huge ego, and players(drogba)”
So Henry didn’t have an ego did he? Oh and Gallas! What’s he been saying lately… not looking good at Cashburden Grave is it?
“- try to present everything as a struggle”
You mean like playing against Bolton as Wenger does? Or fighting the establishment as Fergie does? OR indeed mentioning injuries we had, which were undeniable.
“- jose’s reported falling out with roman over transfers, many chelsea fans support jose over this but when does he reach into his own pockets”
What are you on about you retard? How many times has Wenger reached into his pockets? He has them lined actually, remember the Beveren case? Wenger moves African footballers there and then profits ‘personally’ on their sales. Hmm…
“- play boring football alot of the time”
Trophies are not boring. Arsenal bored me to tears in the FA and Euro finals they played, 4-5-1. The philosophy suits you when it suits you, but when needed, Arsenal play boring.
“- and finally,they tapped up cashley cole”
And Arsenal have never, ever done anything so bad have they? Also, if you remember rightly, Cole approached US, because he was so fed up of the frenchie dressing room pandering to Titi’s ego.
“ps. you are losing your battle here if you criticise man u here, the amount of manc supporters that go on these things are incredible.”
Arse kisser, no backup to be found tho pal, you’re all alone and floundering. The rest of your post was intelligible nonsense, so off you go now, it’s past your bedtime.
stupid article which has no point!
what’s the matter with money contributed by owner, money gained from loan, self generated money, whatsoever..
let’s pull back over a decade ago, let’s count who have spent more on transfer fee, united or chelsea??
It doesn’t take guts to write something like this, it takes any idiot and a keyboard, that’s one of the downsides to the Internet; every one has a voice, not many warrant being listened to, hence you get many comments from people who are justifiably angry at what was originally ‘written’.
Freddy Bloggers - and every asshole thinks their opinions don’t stink. You’re right about everything else though.
Read #67, applies to you too.
HELLO MY CHILDREN…THIS IS GOD AGAIN!
GOD GIVES YOU OUR TEAM FOR THIS YEAR……
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z122/manutd310/ManUtd07-08.jpg
ENJOY
The reason u havent taken into account 07 spendings is because they have been very limited!!!
Chelsea have snapped up 3 free transfers… compared to man uniteds over 50m for 3 players!!! enough said!
@Brian W
That was some deep shit there (I mean shit in a good way). It felt like I was smoking a joint while reading it.
All 2 pages of it…
For what its worth, I agree with you. And you’re right, ManU fans have no divine right above others to ’spend big’. Everybody has the same right. I don’t like to see it as ‘buying the league’, I like to see it as ‘do what is necessary to win the league’. Same as Chelsea, Liverpoole, Arsenal (even though they don’t have money
,etc).
However, cheer up a bit…surfing the internet should be fun
:-) 
Well, when I set down to write this article, I seriously did NOT expect a response like this.
I honestly did not mean to attack Chelsea/Chelsea fans - the way some people are making it out to be.
Everyone has their own opinion and thats fine.
I still stand by my opinions. Firstly, that Utd EARNED and are now still EARNING the right to spend big. Anyone that can tell me otherwise, please do so.
Secondly, that Chelsea have not earned this right. You cannot tell me that now they have earned it because the money that allowed them to buy big in the first place was not earned. Again, anyone that can tell me otherwise, Im listening.
@ VJ - how the hell can you say that we have gone into further debt with these signings. Read the article and then comment. We’ve won the money that weve spent
All the Man U fans here just appear to be obssesed with thinking there spending is different to Chelsea’s. It seriously isn’t, the only difference is that they had there millions before Chelsea. That does not mean that somehow the spending is different, it’s exactly the same! Man U spend lots of money and lots of players, and then have the cheek to go round saying Chelsea buys the premiership. That is extremely hypocritical and plain stupid. The fact is that Chelsea are spending big, and Man U are spending big. There’s nothing else to it.
Freddy Bloggers
You said & I quote:
What are you on about you retard? How many times has Wenger reached into his pockets? He has them lined actually, remember the Beveren case? Wenger moves African footballers there and then profits ‘personally’ on their sales. Hmm…
I assume you can provide evidence of this to the relevant authorities, because as you are well aware, Wenger only ever gave a cash donation to the ASEC Academy & has never ever received a single penny back from them. If you are stating you have evidence that is incorrect them I’m sure you will have no problem providing it?? If not I suggest you keep your moronic mouth closed & concentrate on the reportedly corrupt owner of the team you supposedly support & ask exactly why it is he has moved all his cash out of russia in such a hurry!!
As for the undeniable injuries at chelski, please don’t make me laugh. Jose has access to a squad which cost over 350 million to assemble & he has done nothing but moan about injuries, when infact he had just a couple of players missing for any substantial time. Compare that to arsenal who played nearly the entire second half of the season without their two best strikers & Wenger never whinged about it once, preferring to concentrate on the players it gave a chance to. I also ask you to cast your tiny little mind back to chelski’s first ever premiership match against man utd at the bridge under Jose. Man utd were decimated by injuries & big mouth moanrinho declared “big teams don’t have injury problems, only small clubs who can’t afford big squads do”!! Shows what a pathetic prick he really is, & your just as bad because you actually fall for it!!
Ohhhhhhhhhhh behave
FREDDY BLOGGERS,
1.i can admit that wenger can be a moaner but in the last couple of seasons he has been alot better, and can now say if he saw a foul for a pen.
2.“- jose’s reported falling out with roman over transfers, many chelsea fans support jose over this but when does he reach into his own pockets”- what i am talking about refers back to jan when there were reported arguments over Tal ben haim, when chelsea would not spend 3m on a player jose wanted. RA saved your club and is spending his own money, it is unfair that jose seemed to demand it. ps read 84.
3. Henry had maybe as big an ego as drogba, but this argument stems from remarks made by drogba on several occassions saying that he was better than henry, and saying that he is the world’s best striker when, with respect, he is not. gallas? look at the stats when he and terry were partners in defence to when carvalho and terry were partners. Maybe the way he put his point across was a bit out of order but he had a point.
4.“- try to present everything as a struggle”- injuries? when around quarter of a billion pounds is spent on the squad, too many midfielders, cheating referees, diving(porto), fixtures,boardroom disagreements, media opposition, any more?
5.“- and finally,they tapped up cashley cole”
“And Arsenal have never, ever done anything so bad have they?”- no, they have not. not the only time chelsea played outside the rules is it? frank arnesen, sven, apparently rio. PS, why were they fined more than cole?
6.”Surely thats the selling club, and how is it a problem for anyone except Chelsea?”. because it means that every other club is priced out of buying players (SWP for example, not worth 21m)
7. “boring football?”, arsenal had injuries to key players for the later games in the fa cup and cl, yes key players injured. although well done for winning, chelsea could not even play attractive football against arsenals youth/2nd team.
8. no disrespect to the manc fans but look at how many comments there are on Mu articles compared to other clubs
9. finally, calling me a retard and telling me to leave the website, why are you so annoyed by my comments that you have to be abusive, i suggest that you write back apoligising, write in a balanced manner, or on the other hand you could just stop writing comments.
That, i’m afraid, is an article written in guilty conscience about Chelsea spending. i bet you drivel on about how Chelsea bought the league and need to find excuses when mourinho asked you for once to swallow that same pill. i too noticed you never took into account the Chelsea earning from our Cup, League and Champions League success. i am not defending the Chelsea spending, but i am saying Manchester United is no different.
I don’t think blaming Chelsea for the decline of a fair and valued transfer market is fair at all. The transfer market tactics currently stem from two problems.
1. Clubs, such as Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool Barca, Real Madrid, etc. that are willing to overpay for players that they want. This is either based on A) Players they really want or do not want other teams to have or B) players that these clubs feel will be great and worth the investment.
2. Clubs marketing their players at ridiculously high prices because they know they will probably get close to that on the open market for the player in question as a result of competition between teams in reason #1.
While a lot of people here bash Chelsea for spending freely, and Blues fans here counter with United’s haul this offseason, we mostly forget about #2. Remember Darren Bent anyone? Of course he was grossly overpriced, but we were all able to recognize that Charlton was out of their minds in pricing him so high, and rightly threw flak at Charlton for doing. While there were calls for Tottenham Hotspur’s head at paying almost the full amount, why are we placing the blame on one entity alone? Is Fernando Torres worth that much more in the transfer market that Henry? Certainly not. Florent Malouda is probably not worth his price either, in which will be his highest transfer fee of his career, considering he is 27 years old.
I think the issue of who is to blame in the transfer amrket for overpricing players is moot; it is a combination of both the teams that sell the players and the teams that buy, and not one entity’s alone. As long as teams are willing to buy outraegeous prices, teams will sell at outraegeous prices. And as long as teams sell at outraegeous prices, teams will buy at outraegeous prices. It is the world of football, and the blame cannot be placed on any single club.
gooner10:
- they massively inflate player’s transfer value
***See my above post; they are not the sole reason for it, and it is unfair to criticize the Blues for doing so.
- have a manager with a huge ego, and players(drogba)
***I’ll give you that; it is not endearing to other fans, and I am not happy about it myself.
- try to present everything as a struggle
***It is for us, but it only seems petty because they are in a position other clubs will kill to be in, but again, also not endearing.
- jose’s reported falling out with roman over transfers, many chelsea fans support jose over this but when does he reach into his own pockets
***Of course supporters will favor a manager who wants to improve the team. If Mourinho didn’t produce results, the fans wouldn’t back him so much, but when he wins two league titles and says he needs more money for players to get a third, the supporters are going to believe him and push for it; remember, supporters don’t care about profits, only pitch results; executives have to balance both.
- play boring football alot of the time
***I rsent when everyone says this; more posession means you have more time to strike and the opponents have less. If you watch their games, they alter their style for different opponents. It’s really not fair to criticize winning football, but I know casual fans and rivals hate it because it works, and who wants to watch your rival lose to Chelsea or flip on a game for fun that isn’t high paced? No one. But hey, it’s not like Arsenal has never killed the clock before.
- and finally,they tapped up cashley cole
***Don’t hate the Blues because he couldn’t get a contract done, blame him or Arsenal management for not getting a deal done.
[...] The last time I wrote a post, it sparked mass controversy. This time I’ll try to keep it more low key in that sense . I’ll also keep it (relatively) short and to the point. [...]
[...] all fans, bloggers and supporters of Man Utd: Don’t feel apologetic about the way your club is spending this season; we didn’t either, in the last two seasons. [...]
am glad the tone has changed and ppl are now sending posts in a more civilised manner.
While i’m a manchester united fan, i wont blame chelsea for overbuying. look, its simple, every team wants to win…even watford or doncaster fans (no disrespect meant)sometimes dream one day their team will be champions. so when roman took over u cant blame him for overspending to make his team competitive. these days winning is almost everything (its said that its this way now).
However, there is no denying that the chelsea way over the last few years has changed the way transfer market operates. some players went to chelsea for high prices then played little part in the title run-ins (SWP example). u almost had the impression chelsea simply bought players other teams were interested just to thwart their opponents…thats y we were so happy we managed to get the premiership trophy back to old trafford last season.
i think, though, it will be unfair to blame chelsea for inflated prices. Rio, Rooney and Veron came before the Roman era…and, correct me if am wrong, only shevchenko’s price surpassed them. we must not try to justify or excuse united’s spending, coz, as i said earlier, swashbuckling spending is nothing new at OT and dates back to the 50’s. each club has its own traditions and culture and united has always been a glamorous club with lotsa stars and attacking football…while we remain very famous for our youth system which dates back to the 40s, no manager of manchester united has ever been afraid to reach for their pockets if need be.
Regards
The difference is manutd didnt need a sugar daddy for money and we still the best team around
>> How many times has Wenger reached into his pockets? He has them lined actually,
>> remember the Beveren case? Wenger moves African footballers there and
>> then profits ‘personally’ on their sales. Hmm…
> I assume you can provide evidence of this to the relevant authorities, because as
> you are well aware, Wenger only ever gave a cash donation to the ASEC Academy &
> has never ever received a single penny back from them. If you are stating you
> have evidence that is incorrect them I’m sure you will have no problem
> providing it??
The evidence was already provided here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5036342.stm
The matter was investigated by the PL. They decided no PL rules were broken. Which is great because no-one said any PL rules were breached. It’s Fifa rules that are breached relating Uefa competition.
During the period of the loan Arsenal used “Goal” to support Beveren in return for control on the board. They received profits from sales of Ivorian players (like Eboue).
Wenger himself invested 300k in the Ivory Coast academy in 2002 and expected over 300% profits. Like when Toure was bought direct from the Academy. But when question Wenger “didn’t see it” that way. It was merely a philanthropic gesture and not an investment (expecting a return) at all. Yeah, right. Copies of the documents proving Wenger’s involvement are linked in a popup off http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5037494.stm
Did Arsene open all his bank acounts to the PL investigation? Why isn’t he involved in the Stevens enquiry for bungs? Why don’t Uefa investigate the clains seeing as its Fifa’s rules that have jurisdiction in Uefa competitions that’s in question?
Arsenal original denied any involvement in Beveren through Goal, but were forced to admit it. Wenger doesn’t deny giving money to the academy, but he calls ita donation not an investment. All the essentials of the investigation are therefore true. It’s all up to whether you believe the statements from Guillou and the un-named Beveren diretor that confirms the accusations outright. Arsenal and Wenger are confirmed liars in this matter already - no-one in their right mind would believe them.
The funniest thing of all is that the Belgian police investigated Beveren trying to find Chelsea and Abramovich. Instead they found Arsenal and Wenger. Classic.