http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport...843670,00.html


Roman squanders and the game is being ruined

The beauty of having a billionaire benefactor is not so much the money available to spend, but the money available to lose. Look beyond this summer's acquisition of Andriy Schevchenko and the relentless pursuit of Ashley Cole and consider instead what happened within the space of two unheralded days in July. Damien Duff and Asier Del Horno were ushered out of Stamford Bridge for a combined fee of more than £15m less than Chelsea originally paid. Time for a change? Didn't work out? Whatever.

Chelsea's unlimited stash of 'whatever' money symbolises how they live on a different planet from everybody else. What if the departure of Hernan Crespo on a long-term loan suggests they will never see much of his £17m outlay? Whatever. How about paying £12m to Manchester United for a teenager who has never played at Old Trafford for a single second to disentangle John Obi Mikel from his contractual obligations? Whatever.

Since Roman Abramovich began underwriting Chelsea's accounts, more than £100m of whatever money has been discarded, if you include the Mikel deal. A considerable number of players have come and gone with their values tumbling between entrance and exit. In addition to Duff, Del Horno and Crespo, there was Adrian Mutu, Juan Sebastian Veron, Scott Parker, Alexei Smertin, Jiri Jarosik, Tiago. Obviously Chelsea can afford to deal with zero consequences. But it is this ability to trade so casually that illustrates the different worlds inhabited by Chelsea Football Club and the rest.

For 19 Premiership clubs, £100m equates to almost six years of TV money - a lifeline in the modern game on an annual basis. Any other club who haemorrhaged a similar sum would be, at best, looking to sack their entire board, or at worst, liquidated. To fritter away £100 million really is something else. If it wasn't so grotesque it would be admirable in its audacity.

Of course, when it comes to business, Chelsea specialise in the audacious. Locking horns with Arsenal over two players this summer, they will take extra pleasure from winning the battle twice over. They will get to sign Cole and to keep William Gallas should they so wish. The episode with their unsettled France defender is an interesting Chelsea case study. Relations between Gallas and manager Jose Mourinho have been strained for some time. The player has one year left on his contract, wants out, is only too keen to join Arsenal and has made a stand. All over the football world that is a guaranteed recipe for a transfer. But not at Chelsea. They can keep him as an exhibition of muscle flexing. If he leaves next summer for nothing on a Bosman, so be it.

'Hell-bent on ruining football' may be a comment Sir Alex Ferguson wanted to distance himself from when it leaked out during the summer, but it sums up the worry that persists outside of London SW6 about Chelsea's quest for global domination. It is frightening that the exposure and punishment of a tapping-up scandal neither stopped them from going back for Cole, nor approaching three young players from Leeds United, which provoked their old friend Ken Bates to cry foul.

It is not just in England that Chelsea's practices cause alarm. Bayern Munich's president Karl-Heinz Rummenigge disapproves of what he calls 'unacceptable' lack of budgetary controls, considering the two clubs have a comparable turnover. 'We make a €35m profit; this is required for our investment. Chelsea can lose €204m. Mr Abramovich obviously stumped up for it,' lamented Rummenigge. 'This makes for unequal competition, but we play against each other in the Champions League. This is not acceptable.'

In Spain, Barcelona's Lionel Messi confessed to hating Chelsea more than Real Madrid. In France, last week a teenage prospect the Blues had on trial chose not to swap Marseille for the King's Road. Defender Mehdi Benatia turned down their overtures, pointing to the failure of Shaun Wright-Phillips to make an impact as one of his reasons. 'Chelsea don't trust young players,' he said. 'I could earn a lot of money there, but I would stay on the bench and living that situation abroad is not what I want. Chelsea are impressive, but I am young and I need to play and compete.'

Fifa president Sepp Blatter, in one of his regular criticisms of the English champions, opined that 'Chelsea is an example of what should not happen'. For the club's players and manager, whose work ethic is first class, the negativity Chelsea continues to attract must be frustrating. Thierry Henry, who last week countered his disappointment in the prospect of Cole's defection across London by emphasising how much he admired Chelsea's team mentality, sings a rare song of praise from Premiership rivals who struggle to resist the blue juggernaut. 'I don't see money on the pitch,' he said. 'I see a team that fight.'

But Henry cannot honestly think the way they fight for supremacy from the boardroom is endearing. When will it stop? Will winning the Champions League be enough to make Chelsea relax sufficiently to loosen up on the megalomaniacal tendencies? The Champions League is the biggest profile-builder in football. A sparkling run, as Arsenal discovered last season and Liverpool the season before, takes a club, in terms of popularity and marketing, to parts of the world other club competitions cannot reach.

On the domestic front it does English football no benefit to accept that Chelsea's third consecutive title is inevitable. Desperadoes searching for reasoning that Chelsea can be toppled clutch at the hope that managing a squad of superstars will be problematic. It is hard to see how Michael Ballack and Shevchenko cannot provide even more options of the highest quality. But it is also easy to imagine a few noses being put out of joint.

When Italian football was at its wealthiest, the most consistent problem was monstrously paid players bitching and sniping about who was and wasn't on the teamsheet. Maintaining that Chelsea idea of 'the family' is a challenge. Just looking at the midfielders in Mourinho's squad, it is hard to believe Ballack, Frank Lampard, Claude Makelele, Michael Essien, Arjen Robben, Joe Cole, Mikel, Wright-Phillips and the seldom seen Lassana Diarra can all be happily accommodated.

Sooner or later, there may be some more 'whatever' money to add to the pile.

Amy Lawrence
Sunday August 13, 2006
The Observer

 

Wonder if it would be so interesting if a billionaire thought Newcastle were worth buying?

 

well why wouldn't it be?

 

I started writing a similar post but didn't post it! I agree with what the article said and it is getting boring seeing them win all the time, but if it was your own team you would be loving it!!

 

The only hope I have is that either the squad implodes, or that potential transfer targets (the younger, rather than the established) become savvy to life at Chelsea (much like the individual mentioned in the article), which usually equates to the stemming of development while perfecting the art of sitting perfectly still on a cold bench for 90 minutes.

As a United fan, I don't have a great right to complain, but at least when we were that successful, we did so abiding under the usual business constraints; we couldn't simply write off a £100m loss as meaningless. The title race was a little more exciting too, especially when it went down to the wire.

I also can't stand the total disregard for rules and regulations in the transfer market; offering a 10-year-old £10,000 and a new kitchen to join the club (if reports are accurate) is the very latest scandal to come out in the press. Pair that with the other Leeds United/Chelsea transfer investigation, and the outcome will probably be a small fine - again, totally useless and it'll do nothing to prevent them continuing in the same manner in future.

 

Agreed Richard; why wouldn't it be Paul?

Stop getting all defensive when someone queries the legitimacy of Chelsea in today's Football world. Surely you're not stupid? You can see having a rich benefactor's given your team a huge advantage they didn't have before, and it's altered the balance. If I was a Chelsea fan, I'd hope long and hard, that Roman Abramovich doesn't get bored and withdraw his patronage - or Chelsea are in real trouble.

Cheers and enjoy today's match.

 

I'm afraid he is, and stop calling him Shirley.

 

So why didn't they win today?
I dont see you complaining getting good players from us on the cheap

 

Its not if you're a Chelsea fan

 

Cheers I did, apart from the result, your lot not playing today?

 

No we're laughing at you, along with the fans of a lot of other Clubs.

We all have our flops/failures/misfits etc etc, bought for serious money and sold on the cheap (Marcellino, Dyer, Boumsong - hopefully! ), but Chelsea just seem to buy for the sake of buying - and then sell on the cheap... At least most Clubs buy with the intention of playing the signings in their team.

Paul, it's simply an observation. Amy Lawrence's not the first to make it and she won't be the last.

Cheers

PS

And try and be a tad more gracious with your success, or some will think of you as spoilt little rich kids...

 

Theyve only really been at the top for the last 3 years.... Man United have won the prem more times than I care to remember. Wasnt boring before Chelsea were at the top though was it???

 

As I've said, it was a little more exciting.

I certainly don't recall bookies paying out in October when we were tipped to win the league that season.

 

Thats the bookies problem though, Chelseas lead last year was no superior to what United have finished with in the past. Or do you disagree? Not having a go at anybody but its always made me chuckle that no-one minded the 10 year dominance over the premiership that United had. or the division one aswell before the premiership. But Chelsea have won the league 2 years on the trot and its boring all off a sudden. Its not like theyre even winning everything anyway. Both the FA Cup and League Cup they were nowhere to be seen.

 

Although the article is a pretty fair summation of feeling towards Chelsea, I disagree that english football has accepted a third Chelsea title as inevitable.
I (along with Mr Benitez) believe Liverpool now have the strength of will as well as the squad to beat them in the league, neither of which we've had in the past two seasons, and I can't honestly see either Wenger or Ferguson rolling over and conceding defeat either.

In their first winning season, Chelsea were truly dominant, and thoroughly deserving of their success. Last season, they rode their luck to a certain extent, they ground some fortunate results out of some terrible games, added to which neither Liverpool nor United managed to capitalise on the advantages they both had at various points last season.

 

That was only due to a major slump (by their standards) at the back end of the campaign.

I've addressed this:

For me, I think it's a combination of factors; no financial constraints (they'll buy for the sake of buying), total disregard for transfer policies (i.e. tapping up, sabotaging transfer deals - Obi Mikel for one), very little sportsmanship on and off the field (Mourinho refusing to shake hands, constant diving, surrounding and berating match officials to get their own way), etc.

Don't forget, we were always the most hated time in the land, so you can't say people didn't mind our success. That tag has been passed to Chelsea, partly because of their achievements, partly because of their arrogance and disregard.

 

Not strictly true, I think you'll find us at the other end of the East Lancs minded A lot

 

You know what I mean... Not saying nobody minded United at all, In fact G-STAR is wrong when he says the tag has been passed, as far as Im concerned United are still the most hated team in the land But I would say that, I am biased. What I meant by that comment you quoted is that nobody was saying the prem was boring when United were winning. OK we had some interesting seasons

92/92 United won by 10 clear points.
93/94 United won by 8 clear points.
95/96 United won by only 4 points.
96/97 United won by 7 points.
98/99 only one point in it.
99/00 18 points gap
00/01 United won by 10 points.
02/03 United win by 5 points.

See the point? Looks boring and fairly predicable to me.

 

The big difference is that during United's period of dominence they had a team that was largely home grown, or players that were not regarded as great when they were bought but became great at the club.

Chelsea look to have bought the best players they can find, and stuffed as many of them as possible into a team.

It's the difference between being a great club, and being a club with a great bank balance.

 

United have always dominated the leagues with money, whether you choose to ignore that is up to you, the youth that united home grow come from the smaller clubs and are bought out by United. There are plenty of examples of the players united have taken from smaller clubs. OK its not Millions branded about, United did it slightly different but at the end of the day they were still outpricing others. Although the laws have now changed to protect the smaller clubs and will be able to cash in now on any youth player deemed good enough to move to a bigger club Refreshing to see rules brough ino play now that benefits someone other than those in the premiership.

 

but ( as a gooner) I thought that was OK for utd, since they had the fan base, they balanced the books etc etc. Yes they had more money than us (so we used Arsene's brilliance in the market to cancel out the difference ) but it was fair money because of the brand etc and good luck to them... Chelski is on a completely different level

 

Good article
Hopefully Villa will be doing the same soon

 

Exactly and, as I, you wont give a **** what they say

 

Of which United have neither

 

lets be honest who would be complaining if their club had roman abramovich has its owner the answer is no one it also amazes me how short a memory some other fans have when they go on about chelsea tappping up players it wasn't long ago liverpool were found guilty of tapping up a player all the big clubs tap up players from other clubs just that chelsea were daft enough to get caught the other problem is that parts of the media not all are bais towards the so called big three(arsenal,man utd and liverpool)and would not be complaining if it was one of those three.

 

Totally Agree with richie yes chels have got great financial backing but so have utd,pompey and now villa whose fans i am sure are not bemoaning the fact.
There is now a media frenzy surrounding chelsea and its team/staff who cannot wait to knock them down and if anyone in the press is to have a go it would be the Guardian and some women who is just another PC hack who eminates from that paper.

 

Under the Glazer family, I beg to differ.

 

Of course not, I'm a Man United fan

The differance is that Chelsea really are buying the title and even their own players are getting bored because they don't get a game.

 

 

sorry thats complete crap every team who unless has got every player from youth side or on a free transfer buy the title.