What needs to be looked at is whether Chelsea could’ve sustained their finances and position in the game without the artificial growth of a billionaire pumping money in and writing it off. The answer is they wouldn’t. And they aren’t financially stable because of how well run they are.
Nothing is proven yet; the game has only just begun. The difference is that Barcelona has its back against the wall, as Niemans has explained. It's their last gameplay, their all-or-nothing moment.
Pfft you are wrong, wrong, and even more wrong. He planned on using all money he spent out of pocket as listed debt from the beginning, he even discussed it in early interviews.
There's few rules in the english game stopping owners investing in their team - see Jack Walker with Blackburn. And the few that exist now came in after Abramovich.
I’m not a Barcelona fan. The point remains here that Chelsea aren’t in the financial position they’re in because of how smart they are. They’re in the financial position they’re in because an oil baron gifted them a shitload of money. Literally any club in the world would be in that position if somebody handed them £1.5bn.
It’s not meaningless when discussing the financial position they currently find themselves in. Some Chelsea fans want to pretend it’s because they’re dead smart. Seemingly not realising that clubs like Barcelona are in the position they’re in because they’ve tried to compete with what oil teams did to the game. Chelsea wouldn’t be where they are if they lived by the reality that 99.9% of other clubs do.
Chelsea didn't live in the reality that 99% of clubs did. Milan under Burlesconi didn't either. 99% of other teams lived within their means or went bankrupt. Painting Madrid or Barcelona as victims of money in football is too silly an idea to take seriously.
I’ve never claimed Chelsea were the first. Just the subject of my posts. You think those clubs would be spending as much as they are were it not for oil clubs? Who’s being silly now? No doubt they’d be top or near the top spenders but come on. Football changed when Abramovich started playing with his money.
Including their own fecking out of contract player as a signing
And someone signed for the B team, nutters.
A team struggling to pay current players next season on their current contract have managed to bring in 4 new players on big wages, one of them soon 34, one of them the lesser of two free Chelsea defenders (their rivals took the better one), and one a winger from 17th placed Leeds United.
Let’s just spin it as genius though and pretend that in 2018 they didn’t spend less money and bring in:
Athur, Malcolm (see Raphinha), Lenglet (see Christensen), Vidal, Emerson.
They’ve made one very good signing is all, and he’s 34 soon.
Their 2014-15 window was absolutely miles better with Suarez, Stigen, Rakatic all coming in with others for around 160m.
That’s not true. And there have been quite a few teams either gifted said money, or had it through sheer club size and popularity who haven’t achieved our solidity and success. We don’t just compete for trophies. Marina won footballing executive of the year just last year. We have the best and most productive academy in England. Outside of Romans vanity purchases, we were often net positive on profit in transfer windows. Our creative use of the loan system forced them to change the rules. We have been smart.people like Emenelo were talented team builders. And saying that “anybody can do it with a money toss” is not only inaccurate, it belittles the excellence and hard work of a lot of very good, talented people.
You're absolutely deluded if you think there's anything smart in the way Chelsea have been run. It doesn't matter that you have had savvy people in place in the organisation (which is obviously the case), the key determining factor is that you reached this position by creating debt and losing money on a yearly basis. Those were the pillars of your "growth", take those away and leave the same governance and people in the corporate structure and you're nowhere near where you are currently.
And who would they be? Since Abramovich came in Chelsea sit third on ‘net’ spend. Who has been gifted £1.5bn by their owner and not done what Chelsea have done?
Dembelé hasn't had a single full good season free of injuries in 5 years. What he did vs Juventus in a friendly game is not his usual performance even when fit.
Rewrite history? We were bought by a billionaire vetted and approved both by your country and the premier league. Roman is technically an Israeli citizen now. His youngest children are American. He acquired his first primary asset through a legal program run by America and Great Britain. Are you saying we should be ashamed of our team, which by all accounts has been above board in every way, based SOLELY on where our previous owner was born?
I doubt they'd spend as much were it not for oil clubs. I just dont think chelsea are responsible for barcelonas lack of self control. Its not like they're paupers, i dont think living within their means is a totally unreasonable, crazy expectation.
There’s… lots, but let’s take Shad Khan. He has sunk nearly 600 million of personal money into Fulham, and that is only over 8 years, so spending-wise about the same pace as Chelsea. Except they kept registering losses, never put in the right structure, cant stay in the Prem, much less compete for the biggest trophies in the world. Khan is an NFL owner, with major resources …. all equaling failure.
Says lots. Mentions one.
