Chelsea Finances Thread

[east stand give us a song]

what a mug, not only the journalist but his editor must be either spurs, goon or west ham fans.

CHAMPIONS

[Ed of the Shed]

What a pile of b*ll*cks. I am not going to dignfiy it with a response, other than to say it is unsubstantiated, jealous nonsense, and they have to fill their rag up with something!

[mccarf]

The people who write those rubbish anti-Roman articles should really ask themselves "If I had all that money would I not take over a football club? Then if I did take over a football club would I not give it lots of money to keep it going?". Maybe then the idiots would stop being so critical of Roman and start appriciating him more. If he hadn't come, considering the latest Glazer saga, then wouldn't Arsenal have just been champions year after year? That would really be destroying English football IMO.

[haveyouseenmywife]

That article is so ridiculous it's not even funny.

If you had Romans' money, why the hell not? You'd do it on ebay for a programme you desperately wanted or a ticket for a game if you were desperate to see it. The man can afford it, so ****ing what if he wants to buy a house for 100million? Is the guy saying if his wife loved a house and he had indispensible funds he wouldn't try and please her? Us mortals have our hobbies, for instance I collect records.... Roman has Chelsea and collects footballers and comparatively is like us spending £50 to go and see Chelsea but he spends 20million on a footballer. Bollocks to them. I'm sick of seeing these negative stories. Full of ****.

[Hilario Coimbra]

Good article that you point out SUPER BLUES.

[True Blue Gary]

I have lost the last drops of respect for the ES. I am proud to say taht I have never bought the ES in my life. I just usually pick up a copy that is left on the train seats. Now I might not even bother anymore!

[celery1905]

geez thats one load of rubbish ...

[Portugeezer]

... according to Alan Curbishley. He is complaining that predictability will kill football. Well done for stating the obvious. He then insinuates that Chelsea is the root of this, which is hysterical nonsense on so many levels.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/e...rem/4255262.stm

As I seem to keep saying, and I apologise if I'm repeating myself like a 90-year old granny, but the reason the Prem is predictable is because of the financial disparity that has been caused by the creation of the Premiership and the Champions League. But to say Chelsea are the problem is absurd - we are a symptom, not the cause.

Is it good for football that we are significantly wealthier than the rest. Of course it isn't. But since when have ANY of the big clubs shown concern about the small ones. The Premiership and the Champions League were specifically designed to make the Man Utd's, Arsenal's, Liverpool's, - and the Barca's, Madrid's, Juve's, Milan's, etc - even richer and protect their position at the top (but not the Chelsea's of this world, we weren't big enough in those days). It's also why the G14 was created, this body of big clubs effectively forced UEFA to create the Champions League under the threat of breaking away to create their own European Super-League. Remember that?

In other words, these revamped tournaments were created to lessen the competition around them and prevent things happening like Watford or Southampton finishing second in the league (which happened in the 80s), prevent a team like Wimbledon from climbing from the depths of non-league to the heights of the top flight (yes there's Wigan, but they don't count as they couldn't have done it without the money from JJB - they are the 'Championship Chelsea'), or prevent teams from Eastern Europe from ever winning the European Cup again. So the purpose of the Premiership and the Champions League was to INCREASE predictability to protect those 'big' clubs. Do you see where I'm going with this?! The rich were protecting their position and wealth, while the poor suffered.

The last team, other than Man Utd and Arsenal, to genuinely challenge for the Premiership was Newcastle in 1996 (Liverpool in 2002 doesn't count - they finished 2nd by stealth and never challenged Arsenal for the top spot). Since then, no one has come close to knocking the two 'Reds' from their perch. What I can't understand is why Curbishley and his ilk weren't complaining about predictability back in 2003 because nothing has changed in the last couple of years, other than there's now three teams competing for the Prem not two.

After all, before Roman, only 3 teams had won the Prem. Moneybags Blackburn (now that IS buying the league) being the other. So predictability has been an issue for over a decade. For further evidence of that you need only look at the winners of the past 10 FA Cup Finals, and compare it to a list of the previous 10 to that. The truth is, even if Roman had not invested in Chelsea in 2003, predictability in football would still be a significant issue that would desperately need addressing. I wonder who they would've blamed it on instead though - my vote would go against David Dein of Arsenal, who's filthy little hands were all over the G14, PL and CL (though I doubt the media would be brave, honest or intelligent enough to dare).

There's also no mention of the inequality in the other European leagues. La Liga is a battle between Barca and Real Madrid, as teams like Valencia and La Coruna have faded away. Serie A will be fought out between Milan, Juventus and Inter - as in the last few years Lazio, Roma, Sampdoria, Parma, Fiorentina and others have suffered serious financial problems simply trying to compete (another symptom of the post-Prem/CL era, and one that nearly bankrupted CFC). Lyon have won the French league for the last four seasons, and look set to do it again. In Germany, as ever, Bayern Munich are the out-and-out favourites for the title. And who can name the last time either Ajax, PSV or Feyenoord failed to win the Dutch championship. Clearly, predictability is not an English disease.

Let's also remember that the top Italian and Spanish clubs negotiate their own TV deals to further line their pockets, leaving the remaining 16-20 clubs scraping around for whatever money they can get. Imagine how teams like Charlton would REALLY struggle if us, Arse and Utd went our own seperate TV ways.

This is a hugely complex issue but it seems to have been reduced by the media and non-Chelsea fans, into a 'Chelsea have ruined football' rant. Unless there is a willingness on all sides to engage in genuine dialogue for the good of the game, and an end to the blame culture which continues to point the finger at my club (who I have supported through thick and, let's face it, mainly thin over the past 30 years) then the media and other teams' fans who continue to criticise us out of spite, jealousy and ignorance can, quite frankly, f**k off.

[Michael Tucker]

Now, if only they could explain how Man Utd's dominance, winning 8 premierships in 11 seasons, was GOOD for football, then I might have some sympathy for their bleating. They didn't have a debt, either.

That will be somehow, "different", of course!

[voodoo]

You would think that our money has some affect on how teams play against the other 18 teams in the league.

Charlton play us TWICE in a league season. We have nothing to do with how they, or any other team for that matter, lose points against other teams.