Chelsea Thread

Most of Utd's big sales were players they bought.

You have to go back to Beckham to find a youth team player sold for big money prior to this season

Similar story for Arsenal and Liverpool, and most teams for that matter. You can't say a low net spend for a season doesn't count because it's Chelsea. They made profit on the players they've sold, it's not like they have sold them at or below the price they bought them for.
 
Godotelli said:
Most of Utd's big sales were players they bought.

You have to go back to Beckham to find a youth team player sold for big money prior to this season

Similar story for Arsenal and Liverpool, and most teams for that matter. You can't say a low net spend for a season doesn't count because it's Chelsea. They made profit on the players they've sold, it's not like they have sold them at or below the price they bought them for.
Click to expand...

Yes, but those three other clubs also make money, and have to in order to keep the doors open. And not from selling players, but from regular, predictable revenue streams. Put another way, who are CFC going to sell next season to fund their annual splurge?

Chelsea may have positive net spend for the first time in 12 years, but that's only because they sold their very expensive assets they'd spent over 50m to acquire in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, this is an excellent summer of business, but it's only possible because Abramovich has dumped over a billion dollars into the club. Coming out 1 thousandth of that up in 1 summer is hardly something to brag about.

Same with city, if Chelsea/City made good profits of 20m a season from here on out (which is incredibly rare in world football) it would still take 50 YEARS to pay back the 'investment' that was put into them.

Enjoy the football, enjoy the trophies, enjoy the ridiculous squads you've assembled, but stay out of discussing football and finances.

It's like when the rich kid tries to empathize with his normal mates about London rents, from the views over Hampstead from his lofted penthouse that was given to him by daddy. Listen, the views great, but shut the f*ck up.
 
Chelsea have a higher revenue stream than both those clubs (and not too far behind Utd: 2014= CFC: 320-340m, Utd: 390m, with CFC having the lower wage bill) so could, based on that, still spend more than them for the foreseeable future. But I guess your argument would be that this has only become possible because of Roman in the first place. The question is when do you stop trotting out such an answer for Chelsea? and I say 'for Chelsea' because you have done so for Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool - all clubs that have spent money that they did not produce themselves to gain success.


Stay out of discussing football and finances? haha You'd like that, I'm sure.
 
Last edited:
Beach is right though and you should stand by chels they gave ManCity the f'n blueprint. Never understood how fans just can't be happy to win and now looking for moral grounds. It like watching someone represented themselves in front of a judge w/ no experience.
 
All the moral crusading comes from people like Beach who are so one-eyed out of pure bitterness


A few people on here just simply refuse to deal with the histories of their own clubs. It's understandable, of course, no-one wants to feel like a hypocrite.

Arsenal, Liverpool, Utd, all 3 of these clubs have gained success by spending money they did not earn. This is a fact. The most fundamental difference between City and your clubs (incl. Chelsea) is that City have not tried to capture the system once gaining success. People can whine on about this or that figure but the larger numbers are a big consequence of the increased money in football (TV and the general globalisation of English football) and the monopolistic rule changes foisted on the game thanks in large part to said clubs. This shouldn't be news to anyone anymore and yet people continue to act as tho it is.
 
Last edited:
There have never been similar sized comparisons as to Chelsea and City in English football. Relative, inflation adjusted, whatever you'd like. Aside maybe from Blackburn, but that was obviously unsustainable.

Let's just talk football. Chelsea's squad is beautifully assembled, and it is now very much is a Mourinho special. Great backup in all positions other than striker, hard-working and tough.

City's squad is the best in the league, filled with at least 2 full international stars at each position.

Those two teams are the best collections of talent the league has ever had. Even the great United v Arsenal battles were comprised of much lower quality players in some parts of the pitch, and certainly the squad.

Talk about that. Leave financial discussions for clubs that have to worry about such matters.
 
The point in this discussion is that, even if other clubs did it, they haven't done it quite in the same scale as Man City and Chelsea. The difference is obscene and we all know it.

As for Arsenal, can you specificaly remind us when it has happened? The club took loans to build the Emirates Stadium and has been paying up stadium debt, but other than that, when was it that Arsenal spent money they didn't have on players?
 
They didn't need to. The difference in scale is mostly because of the growth of football in general and the fact it takes more to break a monopoly/oligopoly. Football was more of a level playing field prior to once the PL really got up and running.
Back in the early 90's most clubs had a similar revenue of about 17m. I'm not exactly old and yet I remember when a 2m signing was like a 40m signing. The mere thought of a 10m signing back then would be comparable to the thought of a 200m signing today (and that's probably being too conservative). "That can't happen" - it did.

As for Arsenal, it was only thanks to Fiszman's money that you could buy the likes of Bergkamp and give your existing good players decent wages.

Beach, I will talk about it A) because others talk about City's and B) because it interests me.
 
Last edited:
Two words:

Glass ceiling



G14 clubs created the sugar daddy clubs. So don't complain about them.
In the short term the sugar daddy clubs saved football.
Otherwise wewould have a super league now or only 3 clubs playing for the title in England. Without Walker Abramovich and Mansour, the titles would have been divided between Man Utd, Arsenal and perhaps Liverpool.
I don't really see any difference between those two evils.

Reading the complaints from the fans of these big clubs is bitter for fans of clubs from litle countries. Clubs like Ajax would bedelighted with Arsenal's budget.
A club like Porto can only dream about the amount of money United or Liverpool have spent this summer.
 
gerd said:
Two words:

Glass ceiling



G14 clubs created the sugar daddy clubs. So don't complain about them.
In the short term the sugar daddy clubs saved football.
Otherwise wewould have a super league now or only 3 clubs playing for the title in England. Without Walker Abramovich and Mansour, the titles would have been divided between Man Utd, Arsenal and perhaps Liverpool.
I don't really see any difference between those two evils.

Reading the complaints from the fans of these big clubs is bitter for fans of clubs from litle countries. Clubs like Ajax would bedelighted with Arsenal's budget.
A club like Porto can only dream about the amount of money United or Liverpool have spent this summer.
Click to expand...

But neither Ajax or Porto play in a league with budgets like that? If you gave Ajax Arsenal's budget, presumably Ajax would dominate the league for the forseeable future - because they'd be an outlier in terms of spend.

We'll see. I think the pervading view at the moment is that it's nice to see new names at the top of the board that aren't the established evils (United/Arsenal).

But after a decade of City/Chelsea dominance, the public might turn against them too. And their glass ceiling is a lot harder to break than that of clubs who have to post a profit to survive.

Look at LFC. Came close last year by plunging into losses - but they'll be further away this year and unable to lose 50m again. So they'll settle into a Spurs rhythm - spend around 5th, come around 5th. Alongside Spurs, Everton and others.

Arsenal and United have both spent massively for the first time really in 10 seasons over the last 2, but can't keep doing it. They're making a play now to get back to the top, but they can't sustain City/Chelsea levels of expenditure for long.

But then, the goal for the sugar daddy teams is get in before FFP, get to the top and now settle into the glass ceiling dominance position. They've succeeded. But with FFP, it'll be almost imposisble for a new sugar daddy to emerge.
 
Looking at Arsenal /Mutd they look half complete. I bet Chels /ManCity are saying how cute ....they bought a engine w/ no vehicle.Arsenal has a Russian billionaire on the wings, just waiting to take over. Wenger keeps getting to 4th spot and renewing his contract (im not complaining). Anyways City's money never really bother me tbh Chels holds my bitter pill since they just buy not to let anyone get them ,then loans them out.

So, when Liverpool loan out players (last season)that beat Chels, made me chuckle :APPLAUD:
 
Beach, come one, be reasonable.
Of course i want similar budget for all teams in a league.

The biggest issue is the way television money is divided.

What happened in the '90's is that the traditional big clubs made some sort of kartel (don't know if that is a correct English word) which created a glass ceiling for all non G14 clubs.

Of course there are clubs who are gonna be "creative" and will search for other means to go through that glass ceiling. I tend to agree with you that the glass ceiling created by Chelsea and City will be a lot more difficult to break through, but all this was still created by the traditional big clubs. If they hadn't created the glass ceiling there would have been no need for Sugar daddy's (or is it daddies ?).

Most United, Arsenal or Liverpool fansnever cared about the unfair competition when their clubs were above the glass ceiling. Now they are overtaken and they complain. I'm with godotelli on this.

To be honest i'm getting tired of all the stick Chelsea gets. Both Chelsea andCity play stunning football at times. If their fan act super fair like with Lampard, that is totally ignored because this doesn't suit the narrative of "evil" clubs.

For me the clubs who are really problematic are clubs like Juventus and Real Madrid, who have a decade long history of cheating. Hardly anybody mentions this. The fact that both Barcelona and Madrid are "investing" billions in a country in financial crisis is obscene. I have a friend who lives in Spain, his mother has to support him...don't talk him about Real Madrid or Barcelona...
 
funny that the last season the media tried to create a little war between jose and hazard with using a stupidly manipulated post-game interview. but you read now hazard's and jose's latest interviews and you think they're like father and son.

I'm guessing hazard will win the next ballon d'or('15). I was saying in May that I wasn't still really impressed with him but he's heading in a very good direction recently, from a star to a leader. not the freaks messi-ronaldo level maybe but to the iniesta-ribery etc level of course.
 
Kanouté said:
funny that the last season the media tried to create a little war between jose and hazard with using a stupidly manipulated post-game interview. but you read now hazard's and jose's latest interviews and you think they're like father and son.

I'm guessing hazard will win the next ballon d'or('15). I was saying in May that I wasn't still really impressed with him but he's heading in a very good direction recently, from a star to a leader. not the freaks messi-ronaldo level maybe but to the iniesta-ribery etc level of course.
Click to expand...

Hazard is a long way off that :LOL:

first he needs to prove he's the best player in England, which I don't think he is to be honest but we'll see.
 
Fitness permitting, Aguero and Di Maria(if/when Utd get good) have the best chance from England, imo.

Costa could have a shout if he scores a mountain of goals but he has the disadvantage of not reality being a 'fashionable' player

With that said, given that CRonaldo already has like a dozen goals I think he's most likely unless injuries hit or Messi gets back to his insane best. There's also Suarez who could be even better at Barca
 
I was talking about the ballon d'or that will be given in the january 2016. that's the one called "ballon d'or 2015"...
 
Kanouté said:
I was talking about the ballon d'or that will be given in the january 2016. that's the one called "ballon d'or 2015"...
Click to expand...

Even so. Don't think we will a person other than Messi and CR7 lifting that trophy until at least 2018. They are still playing at a level that I never saw in my life, not even guys like Zizou, Ronaldo or Ronaldinho have achieved the consistency and production that those aliens put every season. Cristiano has 20(!) goals this season and we are in mid-October, ffs.
 
Ronaldo and Messi aren't slowing down, no one else will win either of those two awards till 2017 the earliest.
 
@andy, not that you're not aware but you couldn't have found worse examples than the brazilian ronaldos. one had a completely injury plagued career, the other one was a party clown. some top pro's like raul, sheva, henry could make a better comparison. again, not that I disagree with your argument. messi/ronaldo are total freaks. I'm an avid fan of zizou, though. :P

as for my argument, if hazard does impress in the latter stages of CL and win the PL, I think he'll definitely have his chance. unlike Ribery or Sneijder, being a Premier League player, Eden will have the backing of the British media which have a huge influence on the continent. and he's also a fashionable player unlike drogba or lampard, 2012 winners, too.
 
He first has to convince the british public though Kanoute, its very rare a player hasn't been labelled the best in England and Europe would consider him the best.

I remember in 2007 when Ronaldo had ended the debate about who was the best player in England yet most of Europe still scoffed at the idea and backed Kaka.

Hazard will have to prove without question hes the best over here, and the debate can then be moved on.
 
Hazard isn't preoccupied with being the best player of the world. He knows hè is still a long way off.
In England players like Di Maria and Aguero are better. Personally i also think Silva is better.

As for Mourinho, Hazard really, really doesn't like him and the same goes for Courtois and Lukaku, after what he did to De Bruyne. Thierry Hazard told me that. I used to play football against him a long time ago and see him now and then.
 
Last edited:
YoungGun_UK said:
He first has to convince the british public though Kanoute, its very rare a player hasn't been labelled the best in England and Europe would consider him the best.

I remember in 2007 when Ronaldo had ended the debate about who was the best player in England yet most of Europe still scoffed at the idea and backed Kaka.

Hazard will have to prove without question hes the best over here, and the debate can then be moved on.
Click to expand...

younggun, sorry but I don't see how that 2007 example helps your point. kaka-led milan then actually beat 3 british clubs, celtic, manutd(cough), liverpool (&bayern) in that year's knockout stages and won the CL. as well as ronaldo was rightly seen as PL's best then, kaka was rightly seen as europe's best (probably by the british media too). I never implied that being the best in the PL would be enough to win ballon d'or.
 
Kanouté said:
@andy, not that you're not aware but you couldn't have found worse examples than the brazilian ronaldos. one had a completely injury plagued career, the other one was a party clown. some top pro's like raul, sheva, henry could make a better comparison. again, not that I disagree with your argument. messi/ronaldo are total freaks. I'm an avid fan of zizou, though. :P

as for my argument, if hazard does impress in the latter stages of CL and win the PL, I think he'll definitely have his chance. unlike Ribery or Sneijder, being a Premier League player, Eden will have the backing of the British media which have a huge influence on the continent. and he's also a fashionable player unlike drogba or lampard, 2012 winners, too.
Click to expand...

I compared them with the players from the recent past that were at the very top. Raúl, Sheva and Henry, although world class players, cannot be compared to those two IMHO. Being at the level that Messi and CR7 are and remain there for as long as they are is extremely hard; it requires an extreme level of dedication and hard work. All I was point out is that in my living life I never saw an elite player remain at the top for so long and I don't see them stepping down any time soon. Off the three Zizou had the most consistent career, but when he was at the peak level had some mediocre/regular seasons (for his level of course).
 
Kanouté said:
younggun, sorry but I don't see how that 2007 example helps your point. kaka-led milan then actually beat 3 british clubs, celtic, manutd(cough), liverpool (&bayern) in that year's knockout stages and won the CL. as well as ronaldo was rightly seen as PL's best then, kaka was rightly seen as europe's best (probably by the british media too). I never implied that being the best in the PL would be enough to win ballon d'or.
Click to expand...

Bit of a memory lane debate :P

Kaka performed in the CL Semi final but over the course of the season Ronaldo was the better player.
 
amineken22 said:
No Costa, Remy or Dave. Looks like United are in luck, they might actually have a shot.
Click to expand...

Hazard will still run circles around our inexperienced backline so unless Chelsea is having an off day or LvG decides to park the bus I'm not sure we won't concede some. Could be interesting though. Master Louis against former apprentice Mou.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom