• Current Donation Goals

richard

Chelsea Finances Thread

Recommended Posts

This is another area where Kenyon should be talking and arguing the situation to try to educate people and manage our image rather than saying "we'll win the lot" before the season starts. The press prints this stuff because someone gave one of them a lecture on O level economics last week and they think no one else spotted the trend.

The facts are:

- Man U raised a lot of money from going public (as did others). They paid the price when taken over by the Goblin family. We got a lot of money from being taken over by RA and one day he'll sell and the fans won't have a vote on that either.

- Man U won the Premiership 8 times in the ten years prior to last season. We have won it once. You decide which is a more predictable pattern.

- We have been playing boring stuff so far this season. Does that make us boring all the time? Let's decide at the end of November or December.

- Maximum transfer fees will simply push more money away from clubs and into the pockets of players.

- RA has paid out lots of money to Charlton (I think Alan Curbishley manages them), Blackburn, West Ham and Man City. In doing so, he helped keep them afloat, especially the last two. Had he not paid so much over the top for those players, these clubs could be struggling badly. No one ever says that. Kenyon should.

- Curbishley didn't like the idea of Chelsea being able to sign quality players as pool players. Well, I'm sorry but that has gone on for years and years at Old Trafford (what's Saha, Alan Smith?), Liverpool and Arsenal. His source of frustration is that Scott Parker left when he didn't want to lose him. But that has been the reality of managing a mid-table club for years. His problem is that he only ever had one player who was good enough to be in demand and wanted to exercise the option to go.

There are cogent arguments which should be being made here, not through big interviews but through informal briefings with the press to keep them off our back. kenyon should be doing this instead of turning himself into football's Dick Dastardly. He seemed to know how to do it when it came to undermining the position of Ranieri.

Share this post


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

This is another area where Kenyon should be talking and arguing the situation to try to educate people and manage our image rather than saying "we'll win the lot" before the season starts.


id="quote">

id="quote">

OK - fair point, but all I've heard is a stated ambition to win the lot, not an arrogant claim. After all, don't Manchester United and Arsenal want to win more than their fair share of silverware this summer? The difference between those two and Chelsea is we've come out and said it.

quote:Originally posted by Blue Jock

The press prints this stuff because someone gave one of them a lecture on O level economics last week and they think no one else spotted the trend.


id="quote">

id="quote">

LOL!!

quote:Originally posted by Blue Jock

- RA has paid out lots of money to Charlton (I think Alan Curbishley manages them), Blackburn, West Ham and Man City. In doing so, he helped keep them afloat, especially the last two. Had he not paid so much over the top for those players, these clubs could be struggling badly. No one ever says that. Kenyon should.


id="quote">

id="quote">

No, Kenyon shouldn't! It'll only make the club look and sound more arrogant than it does already. I remember during the close season, Arsene Wenger publicly expressing his frustration at Chelsea's "tardiness" in bidding for Shaun Wright-Phillips and Michael Essien. As he correctly pointed out "there's one price for Chelsea, another price for the rest of us". Look at Manchester City. Where do you think they found the money from to buy Andy Cole et al? Man City "suits" and "tracksuits" know this, and so do their fans, but it's funny how they don't say too much about it.

Edited by author

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we'll have to disagree on that. He doesn't need to say it in the same way as he made his "list of one" comment. He should be briefing behind the scenes to help journos understand the point and they can write about it without attributing it to the club. That way we don't look arrogant, which, I agree, is a danger. As I said, he tried this with Ranieri (didn't really work then, though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real Madrid spend much more than Chelsea, but there is not much complaint about that because people feel comfortable with the thought of Madrid winning, even though their money has not brought much recent success.

ManU, over the last 5 years have spent similar money to what Chelsea have.

Rio Ferdinand (£29.1m) 2002: to Man Utd

Wayne Rooney (£27m) 2004: to Man Utd

Louis Saha (£12.8m) 2004: to Man Utd

Ruud van Nistelrooy 2001(£19m): to Man Utd

Juan Sebastian Veron (£28.1m) 2001: to Man Utd

Up until last year, ManU have been buying the best players around for as long as I care to remember, but again, no talk of restricting them.

In 2003/4, Chelsea spent a lot of money with CR, but we were nowhere near the team we are today. The truth is that it is not the money that is being spent, but the control over the team that makes the difference. The real reason we are so ...ing good is because of Jose, not the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kristina   

No, David! All the other clubs are social services, their players are honorary volunteers (own youth team) and both management and coaches work free of charge. Didn't you know that??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TeRiYaKi   

Very hypocritical aren't they? They're just upset that we have more spending power and they can't out cheque-book us any more. Especially Manchester United ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WPAULWIN   

Who cares. Back in the early 70's when the builders strike caused a delay in the then new East Stand, which was the trigger for our financial woes and, in some ways led to the break up of what was (upto nowish...) our best ever side... Osgood, Hudson etc.

I can't remember any anyone helpng us or even offering a bit of understanding....

We battled through this period and came out as a better and stronger club. We have now gone full circle with RA's cash, but what people do not remember or choose to ignore is that we were a good side before Roman. We are one of 7 clubs that have always been in the Premier League, we had qualiifed for the Champions League twice before he arrived and in recent years have won FA,CC and CWC.On balance we were probably the 3 most successful team since the premier League started.

Yes there were some financial issues resulting for the stadiun redevelopment.... just like Arsenal are facing now.

I loved watching Chelsea before RA, (I loved watching Chelsea before ken bates!!) But I must say I love watching now more. I love it that every side wants to beat us but can't, and no matter how much I enjoy the games on Saturday/Sunday.... reading the whines and whinges of Whenger and Fergie in the papers on Monday morning on the way to work really kicks off my week in a good way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great point about enjoying reading all the whingers on a Sunday / Monday morning. You know it is really SO funny. You remember Fergusons comments a few years ago when he patronisingly told everyone he never worried about losing to Chelsea every year because they would always go to Leicester, Watford, Charlton and blow it anyway. Times change, eh?

quote:Originally posted by WPAULWIN

Who cares. Back in the early 70's when the builders strike caused a delay in the then new East Stand, which was the trigger for our financial woes and, in some ways led to the break up of what was (upto nowish...) our best ever side... Osgood, Hudson etc.

I can't remember any anyone helpng us or even offering a bit of understanding....

We battled through this period and came out as a better and stronger club. We have now gone full circle with RA's cash, but what people do not remember or choose to ignore is that we were a good side before Roman. We are one of 7 clubs that have always been in the Premier League, we had qualiifed for the Champions League twice before he arrived and in recent years have won FA,CC and CWC.On balance we were probably the 3 most successful team since the premier League started.

Yes there were some financial issues resulting for the stadiun redevelopment.... just like Arsenal are facing now.

I loved watching Chelsea before RA, (I loved watching Chelsea before ken bates!!) But I must say I love watching now more. I love it that every side wants to beat us but can't, and no matter how much I enjoy the games on Saturday/Sunday.... reading the whines and whinges of Whenger and Fergie in the papers on Monday morning on the way to work really kicks off my week in a good way.


id="quote">

id="quote">

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ali   

I agree with you David Stephane, I always go hell-for-leather with this argument :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disgree with the topic - here's why.

1) Money. First and foremost, this was needed just to keep the bailffs away pre Jul 2003. Ken Bates, bless him, had chased the dream and it nearly paid off, in terms of famous names (Hoddle, Gullit, Hughes, Vialli, Gianfranco Zola OBE are just a few), cup successes, raised profile, sposnsorship money and a couple of good CL runs. He also built up the assets of the club in the form of Chelsea Village, making the club worth a few quid.

2) Abramovich's investment. To quote Chairman Bruce Buck "We appreciate that the £250 million-plus is a lot of money, but we are just playing catch-up,†he said. “If you look at what [Manchester] United, Arsenal, Newcastle and Liverpool have spent in the last ten years, and then us more recently, by and large we are all similar. If the tag that we have bought success exists, so be it, but I don’t believe it is true. I think that money does help and it gets you a long way there, but it doesn’t get you over the goalline by a long shot. The answer is to build our academy and bring up more of these younger players and that is our intention. To bring more John Terrys up the ranks.

“Mr Abramovich has invested a lot of money, but I emphasise the word investment. And, on top of that, we have changed our business model, brought in the right sponsors, changed the kit company, the management team, the structure. We have done a lot more than Mr Abramovich throwing money at players and I am not sure we get the credit for that.†(The Times, 25 Apr 2005)

3) Jose Mourhino. Arguably, only the appointment of Glenn Hoddle to lay the foundations of the modern Chelsea FC was a better signing. Cut out the mind-game and arrogance crap, and you're left with a man who knows his stuff inside out AND can motivate his charges to deliver. Often in football, there is great technical knowledge but poor motivational skills and vice versa, but Jose has both of these qualities in abundance, plus absolute confidence (or arrogance, depending on your point of view ;-)).

4) The players. Mourhino has turned a collection of talented individuals into a unit. I believe we are now what Manchester United used to be - a team. (Conversely, I believe that United are now what we used to be - a collection of talented individuals). Ranieri was a "nice guy", but tried to "please all of the people all of time". Mourhino's attitude is "close the door on your way out."

As the Chairman says, it's not JUST the money.

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