• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

gregduh   

The people that complain about rich clubs being bad for football need to realise that there will be disparity as long as a club's spending power is the most important factor in player movement. I know it's impractical in Europe since there are many countries and players obviously can and do switch leagues, but perhaps European leagues can learn from American (by American I mean the United States) pro leagues. There are salary caps in three of our four major leagues, and there are no money transfers, only player trades. There are also entry drafts, but it probably wouldn't be practical since there are youth academies and there are always players joining and leaving, and they're usually from the club's area. UEFA could seemingly create salary caps that every league has to use, and ban money transfers to allow for only player trades, but the issue is much more complex than that. Being 17 and only having been seriously following European football leagues since January 2005 (I don't consider myself a "glory hunter" and the reason being a long story that does not belong in this post :P) I don't know enough about the situation that exists or have the intelligence to elaborate further on this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by WashingtonBlue

My thoughts exactly, Geezer. And your analysis that we are a "symptom" not a cause is an excellent turn of phrase. It is only through the efforts of a Roman that a non-G14 club like us can challenge the self-appointed big boys.

It will be VERY interesting for me what happens if the Kraft family group truly buys Liverpool, as I saw rumoured in some of the red tops recently. I know it will likely be another round of handwringing over American ownership of a storied Premiership side, but the Krafts are very different from the Glazers. They are founding owners of several teams in MLS, love the sport, have done a great deal to promote "soccer" in the US and run the sports franchises they own, including the 3-time Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots, with great skill and style. Their personal wealth probably isn't quite as great as Roman's but it is very significant and if they take on buying Liverpool they will splash the dross to cure what ills that club.

Wonder what the 'Pool fans will be saying about money then? No doubt when they are being forced to buy good players for 24 million it will still be Chelsea's fault.


id="quote">

id="quote">Wonder what the fans will say when the price of their tickets go up? Another break away club?Scouse FC......?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypocrite did not hesitate to have Smertin or Carlton Cole on loan . Curbs is one of footballs nearly men .Chelsea are the new Man utd and Liverpool ,people need to get used to it . We are going to dominate football for years .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMSAndre   
quote:Originally posted by iamchelseamad

Portugeezer GEEZER, great post, all true. MTs is true as well.

Question is why us , why now?

I don`t believe its entirely unique to us, Man united, were, are hated.

Its a symptom of the deep set envy that eats like a maggot at the core of British society imo. Anyone, any company who does well, succeeds , and as a consequence rewards themselves accordingly British people via the press seem to resent, with very few exceptions. Hence BP , a massively successful company, who have to compete in a worldwide market, that is viciously competitive, get slagged for making profits rather than praised. Why ? Jealousy is the problem and laziness, imo its a deep set problem, that the welfare state has bred.

Its a complicated subject and I do not wish to be trite, but there is nothing we (Chelsea fans) can do about it, except to try to answer logically, criticisms of us as Portugeezers post does, but fearing that logic will not work, just larf, cause we are top of the league.

Loadsamoney and lovin it.


id="quote">

id="quote">

This was the question, really. Why now and why Chelsea? My answer is actually somewhat different from yours. It's not a matter of jealousy, it's rather a matter of how fast it hapenned.

Roman simply arrived, with an unlimited amount of money and started buying every player, manager, director, etc, he wanted. It wasn't something that hapenned over 5 to 10 years, it simply hapenned overnight. Claudio not winning the title may had to do with his ability or not, but it was unimportant in the main aspect of things. After Roman arrived Chelsea simply started dominating and that was it. Jose's arrival just made it more obvious to everyone.

The difference between Chelsea and Blackburn is probably only in the quality the Premiership has now and had back then. Right now English football (and also English players in general) are in a much higher level. That just shows all this even more clearly, since we can dominate in Europe as well as home.

The speed and sustainability of our rise is what actually created all this animosity. Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool created their superiority throughout some years. Blackburn was a one/two years thing. We did it in two years and look to be going nowhere. That's what creates hostility.

PS - don't forget two factors. Teams like Man Utd and Arsenal lost their power (which they can't like) and the fans of small teams are probably thinking (wht didn't Roman come to us). All of that can also bring resentment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To a certain extent we are the 'symptom' to one problem but the antidote to another. If you look at English football through the generations, there have always been teams who dominate the league for prolonged periods interspersed with the odd unglamourous team winning the league occasionally. Since the formation of the Premier League, the big boys have just got bigger and bigger.

The only way any team was going to be able to challenge United or Arsenal was with a massive outside financial injection. Blackburn were able to mount a challenge to United that culminated in their Title win but have faded away because they have been unable to maintain the cash cow that they created.

Romans' investment in Chelsea has not only put us on a level playing field with United but has elevated us far beyond. Man United, Arsenal and Liverpool are English football's establishment and as such, their dominance was never questioned irrespective of whether the other clubs in England's top division had any chance of competing with them or not. Even Blackburn's minor intrusion was tolerated by the big clubs because ultimately they knew it wouldn't last.

Chelsea on the other hand are seen as a much bigger threat to their previous dominance because of the level of Romans wealth and the fact that there is an uncertainty as to how long it will last. No one can see into the future, but if RA's eventual intentions for Chelsea to stand alone financially come to pass, then the current gap between Chelsea and the rest will close.

Being realistic, Chelsea would never have been able to mount a sustained challenge to the United/Arsenal duopoly without Roman, and as the six or seven seasons before Roman show, winning the league just once was unlikely. Even Liverpool, the other member of the establishment have struggled to win the league since 1990 and without a significant cash injection, it will remain that way.

Unless Bill Gates suddenly develops a fascination with an English football club and pours his money into it, the current situation will remain whilst Roman remains. Even then, it would take an exceptional man to plough his wealth into a club in the way that Roman has.

It is highly ironic of course, that a team that has only won the league twice, with a fifty year gap between the two, is seen as a danger to English football when the established clubs have won the league nearly 50 times between them. Surely any challenge to that dominance is good for English football, not bad. It would be naive to believe that money has never played a part in football until now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Codger   
quote:Originally posted by Portugeezer

... according to Alan Curbishley. He is complaining that predictability will kill football.


id="quote">

id="quote">Actually, it wasn't quite like that.

I heard the full interview, and Curbishley was asked a leading question and now the papers are full of it. In fact, the online version of this interview, both in text and audio doesn't have the original question - more a statement of fact - anywhere to be seen or heard.

The BBC has a lot to answer for, the decline in the quality of their journalism to the very depths the tabloids are prepared to plumb is tragic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aprevost   

Portugeezer, simply an excellent post.

Couldn't agree more - the growing disparity betweent he richest clubs and the rest IS a problem, no doubt. But it's a problem that existed before Roman bought Chelsea, and exists in club football throughout the world. The "new" Chelsea is simply the latest and perhaps most extreme manifestation of a trend that was growing even before Roman took over. Thus the unfair focus on Chelsea.

That said, despite being a Chelsea supporter I don't think all the hand-wringing about our newfound dominance is entirely negative. If our success focuses attention on a problem with the competitive balance in football that existed for years before, and forces the football authorities to finally deal with it, then I think that would actually be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:Originally posted by gregduh

The people that complain about rich clubs being bad for football need to realise that there will be disparity as long as a club's spending power is the most important factor in player movement. I know it's impractical in Europe since there are many countries and players obviously can and do switch leagues, but perhaps European leagues can learn from American (by American I mean the United States) pro leagues. There are salary caps in three of our four major leagues, and there are no money transfers, only player trades. There are also entry drafts, but it probably wouldn't be practical since there are youth academies and there are always players joining and leaving, and they're usually from the club's area. UEFA could seemingly create salary caps that every league has to use, and ban money transfers to allow for only player trades, but the issue is much more complex than that. Being 17 and only having been seriously following European football leagues since January 2005 (I don't consider myself a "glory hunter" and the reason being a long story that does not belong in this post :P) I don't know enough about the situation that exists or have the intelligence to elaborate further on this idea.


id="quote">

id="quote">

I have actually read a few articles in which there was some musing about some kind of American-style spending cap imposed by FIFA or the FA, but it would simply never work because the "big clubs" and, indeed, probably any club that thinks it is financial sound and on the verge of greatness, would probably never agree to it. Any serious actions in that direction by FIFA would simply hasten the departure of the G14 and a few other clubs (maybe us) into a multi-national super-league, which has been threatened in the past.

There is a HUGE difference between American sports leagues and world football. Take the NFL, for example. Each "club" is actually a league-created "franchise" that is sold to an ownership group. The owners then come together as a board of directors, appoint a commisioner and staff and subject themselves to governance by the league. The league creates this thing which is, in essence, a multi-billion dollar unified entertainment product. The "product" is the COMPETITION, not the individual clubs, so pains are taken to ensure, to the fullest extent possible, that all teams have a chance to be successful if they manage themselves wisely (e.g., the entry drafts in which the worst teams get the earliest selections and arguably the best development players, the salary caps, the revenue sharing where the smallest market teams get the same cut as the big market teams). That doesn't stop there being dynasty teams like the current New England Patriots, but even the Green Bay Packers of the 60s, Pittsburgh Steelers of the 70s, San Francisco 49ers of the 80s, etc. never had as much of a stranglehold on American Football as ManU and Arsenal have had on the Premiership. Even with the best management, scouting staff and coaching in the world, no team can stay absolutely on top for more than 6 years or so (6 draft cycles).

World football has a governing body that the clubs have subjected themselves to (largely) but they are still entirely separate corporate entities that have entirely separate finances, separate marketing arrangements and don't have the same emphasis on parity and the "any given Sunday" concept the American leagues work with. The "product" in World Football, if there really is such a thing, are the clubs themselves, their history and the "style" of football they play. The "big clubs" are not going to voluntarily surrender their advantage unless it somehow was worth it to them because they would get MORE money by doing so. A lot of fans would have to abandon football for the big clubs to agree to "parity" in competition to lure them back. That level of abandonment will never happen. Which is good for Chelsea at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now