Chelsea and football's soul

"when Chelsea win a European Cup it's the day football's soul has been lost forever"

A quote from the CL thread that struck me.

There is a widespread view that what Abramovich has done at Chelsea by putting in so much money is "out of order" and against the spirit of the game in some way.

Am I the only one who this is a load of rubbish?

Since football went professional in the 19th century it has always been a business and involved getting the best players in your team. Hence the likes of Preston and Blackburn signing Scottish players to the horror of the likes of Old Etonians and previously prominent amateur teams. Most clubs relied on the financial support of wealthy local businessmen.

The abolition of the maximum wage made it even more important to get as much money a possible into clubs to sign the best players. There was never a "draft system as in US sports to spread the better players among different clubs in the league.

English football accepted the supremecy of the pound sign once and for all when the Premier LEague was set up, purely to conecentrate as much TV money as possible in the top division (the Greed is good league) as Brian Glanville has called it from the start. Clubs thought it was the best thing ever.
Other methods such as becoming plc's were seen as good ways of raising finance.
I think Forest were the last club to be a "members club" as opposed to a company. They became a company in 1978.

Jack Walker at Blackburn did an Abramovich 15-20 years ago by bankrolling the club personally. I understand in his will he left a large amount to continue to finance the club.

So what Abramovich has done, admittedly on a huge scale, is perfectly logical given the way English football is structured, as well as being completely within the rules.
You could argue it follows in a long tradition of the game in england.

IMO the people who moan about "the unfairness of what Abramovich and Chelsea have done" are just sorry he didn't pick their club.

World of difference between lifelong Rovers fan Jack Walker giving money to the club and Russian Tyrant Roman Abramovich trying to buy name recognition for himself through Chelsea.

I do agree that Utd and Liverpool fans giving out about Chelsea spending lots of money is laughable however

Exactly jebus, chelsea wont win anyway!!! i was delighted with drogbas celebration, i cant stand benitez he got what he deserved, words came back to bite him in the arse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

I do agree that Utd and Liverpool fans giving out about Chelsea spending lots of money is laughable however

---

Arsenal fans also.

Regarding the original post, I think the whole "buying success" is exaggerated by fans of other clubs, and Chelsea are following in the tradition that the richest club will often be the most successful, but I do think Chelsea took it to a new level with how they went from mediocrity to champions so quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

World of difference between lifelong Rovers fan Jack Walker giving money to the club and Russian Tyrant Roman Abramovich trying to buy name recognition for himself through Chelsea.

---

Obviously Walker's motives were completely different.

Maybe a better comparison is when Robert Maxwell bought Derby(?) about 20 years ago. what happened at Chelsea is just on a much bigger scale.

I look at it purely from a football point of view and i think football and the premiership is better for the fact that there is another team that is competitive and has a realistic chance of winning top trophies. Until then, it really was just united and arsenal, liverpool always threatened but thats about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

Obviously Walker's motives were completely different.

---

Then why mention his name alongside Roman's? People criticising Jack Walker for doing what we all would do in his position annoy me a lot more than people who say Chelsea bought the title to be honest

[QUOTE=osarusan;933421]Arsenal fans also.

Regarding the original post, I think the whole "buying success" is exaggerated by fans of other clubs, and Chelsea are following in the tradition that the richest club will often be the most successful, but I do think Chelsea took it to a new level with how they went from mediocrity to champions so quickly[[QUOTE]

At least Chelsea were in the Premier league when Roman took over. Walker took Blackburn from the second division to being champions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Then why mention his name alongside Roman's? People criticising Jack Walker for doing what we all would do in his position annoy me a lot more than people who say Chelsea bought the title to be honest

---

Because what they did was effectively exactly the same.

My point in using Walker as a comparision is that some people say what Abram did is unprecedented , when it clearly isn't.

Top European football has been getting more and more soulless for a long time which can only be good for the eL personally I'd love to see more billionaire investors coming in to further alienate the genuine supporter. the more sterile the EPL becomes the more old style football Fans will start to comeback to the eL for the "Real" match day experience but only when facilities improve around the country. you can see evidence of this occurring in the UK already with attendances up in league 2 and conference football as real fans of the big club's are either priced out of it or can't get a ticket with all the suits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

but I do think Chelsea took it to a new level with how they went from mediocrity to champions so quickly.

---

Abromovich bought them in 2003. In the 5/6 years before that they had won the FA Cup twice, the League cup and the Cup Winners Cup. They hadn't finished outside the top six and played int he champions league a couple of times. Not dominating, but not mediocre either

Nobody can criticise Jack Walker imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

Because what they did was effectively exactly the same.

My point in using Walker as a comparision is that some people say what Abram did is unprecedented , when it clearly isn't.

---

Jack Walker supported Blackburn his whole life, and ploughed his heart, his soul and his wallet into bringing the club as far as he could before he died. Didn't expect anything back bar leaving himself and his fellow Blackburn supporters with memories to last a lifetime

Roman Abramovich got bored sitting on his yacht one day and decided to buy a London club to give him something to do and to raise his profile a bit

What part of their situations being incomparable don't you get

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Arsenal fans also.

---

Not quite as laughable as MU and Pool fans though, in fairness untill this season Arse have had to work with a much smaller budget than the other top 3 and Wenger has probably recouped as much as he has spent over the years in transfers, ye can call Wenger a poor loser or a whinger but ye can't say he has ever bought the title.

I do think that too much money is hurting the competiveness league as the gap between the top and the bottom of the league is getting larger, not sure how to remedy it, perhaps a maximum salary cap like they have in the States might help but I doubt that will ever happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paudie

I think Forest were the last club to be a "members club" as opposed to a company. They became a company in 1978.

---

Barcelona and its 150,000 or so members may disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Abromovich bought them in 2003. In the 5/6 years before that they had won the FA Cup twice, the League cup and the Cup Winners Cup. They hadn't finished outside the top six and played int he champions league a couple of times. Not dominating, but not mediocre either

---

Dodge, I'd prefer it if you didn't use facts to make my posts look silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Dodge, I'd prefer it if you didn't use facts to make my posts look silly.

---

POTM!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Jack Walker supported Blackburn his whole life, and ploughed his heart, his soul and his wallet into bringing the club as far as he could before he died. Didn't expect anything back bar leaving himself and his fellow Blackburn supporters with memories to last a lifetime

Roman Abramovich got bored sitting on his yacht one day and decided to buy a London club to give him something to do and to raise his profile a bit

What part of their situations being incomparable don't you get

---

The point is though, if roles were reversed and Abramovich was the lifelong fan, and Walker was the rich scumbag on a yacht, the results would have been pretty similar, despite the huge difference in motive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

The point is though, if roles were reversed and Abramovich was the lifelong fan, and Walker was the rich scumbag on a yacht, the results would have been pretty similar, despite the huge difference in motive.

---

But he's asking why people think so little of Chelsea and their achievements, where as Blackburn got away with 'buying' the league. And the main reason I think is the difference between Walker and Abramovich in fans eyes, ones a fan, the others a money man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

But he's asking why people think so little of Chelsea and their achievements, where as Blackburn got away with 'buying' the league. And the main reason I think is the difference between Walker and Abramovich in fans eyes, ones a fan, the others a money man

---

I never said Blackburn "got away" with buying the league. I said it provided a reasonably comparable precedent for what Abram has done and never commented on the reaction to Blackburn.

Also don't agree with your previous comment that the 2 situations are "incomparable".
Just because the situations aren't exactly the same dosn't mean you can't compare them.

I think the qoute referred to to start this thread was mine. While I agree that football has pretty much always been a business every bit as much as a game, and a pretty despicable business at that, I stand by the general tone of the remark but maybe I should rephrase as "it'd be a bad day for football".

Chelsea have always been a nothing club that has offered very little to the game anywhere. Even pre-Abramovic it was genuinely regarded by visiting fans that Stamford Bridge was a place where their fans knew little about football. I've always had an intense dislike for the club, Ken Bates and his poisoned agenda, the neo-nazi factions and the home county thugs in their support.

I disliked the way their imported players were more intent on posing than being committed players (Zola aside obviously). Di Mateo's goal celebrations anyone? Total creeps like Frank Lebouef...

Sure they've had some real gems like Zola, a delight to watch, but for every Zola there's been a thug like Dennis Wise who'd be in jail if he wasn't a footballer.

Of course money buys success but United and Liverpool have great European pedigrees and each would be a rich club without a super rich benefactor as would many of the big continental clubs. Chelsea's emergence is 100% down to the money and this money, probably more so than at any rich football club, has been "earned" by its owner in extremely dubious and unethical ways. Ask your average Siberian if he feels it was worth having his rightful heritage taken from him to pay the way for Michael Essien's transfer fee? I guess Milan's wealth has been down to Berlusconi but as Chelsea is closer to home I find it more distasteful, and at least Milan down the years have given us some of the great teams and great players of our lifetime. The 1994 CL demolition of Barcelona was a thing of rare beauty!

You can pick at the way Chlsea play the game but I believe whatever works is fine ( I hope a dour organised approach works for Ireland!) but as a neutral I massively prefer United's football ethos.

Not my most articulate post ever but you know what I'm trying to say...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

You can pick at the way Chlsea play the game but I believe whatever works is fine ( I hope a dour organised approach works for Ireland!) but as a neutral I massively prefer United's football ethos.

...

---

Manchester United had what? Three shots on goal and averaged 39% possesion over 180 mins of their semi final with Barca. :confused:

They're every bit as capable and inclined to play cynical as the next crowd.

"You want entertainment? go to the pictures" is from the horses mouth ...and I'm not talking about Ruud Van Nistelrooy either.

I wasn't specifically referring to the CL semi final. Just look at United's goals for column versus Chelsea's in the Premiership. Not many would contend that United don't play more entertaining football than Chelsea.

As it happens I prefer Barca's style to United's but they barely got near United's goal over 2 games.

As someone who has been a Chelsea fan for a lot longer than others in Ireland, it annoys the hell out of me when people say Chelsea bought the league, no history, etc.

I agree, Chelsea would not be in the position that they are now without Abramovich.

Chelsea had qualified for the CL weeks before Abramovich bought the club. Chelsea had numerous top six finishes between '97 and '03. They qualified for the CL after finishing third in '99 and fourth, pipping the mighty Liverpool on the final day of the season, in '03.

They were not a club plucked out of obscurity. Chelsea were sold because the club were on the brink of implosion. £80m in debt, they were going to be the next Leeds. Why not sell the club? And of course, why not sell it to the best option? Any club in the same situation would've sold up. And looking at where Leeds are now, I'm glad they did. Chelsea have been followed by Man U, Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle and Man City in being bought out by foreign investors willing to splash the dosh to better the club and have these sides been as successful? Have they been villified as much?

Abramovich didn't buy the league. Again and again, I have to tell people about the 2003/04 season. Top of the table at Christmas and bottled it under Ranieri. Ranieri wasted money left, right and centre.

Juan Veron cost €18m, iirc, and only played 7 games for Chelsea. Mutu, Smertin, Johnson and others were signed by Ranieri with Abramovich's millions and failed to make any impression. There are others like Crespo, Robben and Cech that Ranieri splashed out on but they have done well. And Chelsea didn't win any trophy that season.

Ranieri got sacked, I believe, for wasting money. Mourinho came in and look what he did with the team, even when he signed some surprisingly average players (Ferreira, Maniche). Money can buy you players but it can't buy you titles. Managers win titles.

Another thing is history. First of all, Chelsea were founded in 1905, 61 years before Abramovich was even born. Chelsea have plenty of "history". The period under Gullit and Vialli was, and still is, the most successful in the clubs history. Chelsea won six trophies in three years, including three in the 1997/98 season. All before Abramovich came on the scene.

My idea as to why so many people hate Chelsea now is because they have been successful at spending money and winning trophies in the last five years. Liverpool fans are ****ed because now they are even further off the pace. Arsenal and Man U fans are ****ed because they have a new rival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfrank

Chelsea had qualified for the CL weeks before Abramovich bought the club.

---

They pipped liverpool to the 4th spot to qualify IIRC. If Liverpool had beaten them 2 weeks before the season ended, they would have finished fourth, qualified for the Champions' League and maybe Abramovich would have bought them instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I think the qoute referred to to start this thread was mine. While I agree that football has pretty much always been a business every bit as much as a game, and a pretty despicable business at that, I stand by the general tone of the remark but maybe I should rephrase as "it'd be a bad day for football".

Chelsea have always been a nothing club that has offered very little to the game anywhere. Even pre-Abramovic it was genuinely regarded by visiting fans that Stamford Bridge was a place where their fans knew little about football. I've always had an intense dislike for the club, Ken Bates and his poisoned agenda, the neo-nazi factions and the home county thugs in their support.

I disliked the way their imported players were more intent on posing than being committed players (Zola aside obviously). Di Mateo's goal celebrations anyone? Total creeps like Frank Lebouef...

Sure they've had some real gems like Zola, a delight to watch, but for every Zola there's been a thug like Dennis Wise who'd be in jail if he wasn't a footballer.

Of course money buys success but United and Liverpool have great European pedigrees and each would be a rich club without a super rich benefactor as would many of the big continental clubs. Chelsea's emergence is 100% down to the money and this money, probably more so than at any rich football club, has been "earned" by its owner in extremely dubious and unethical ways. Ask your average Siberian if he feels it was worth having his rightful heritage taken from him to pay the way for Michael Essien's transfer fee? I guess Milan's wealth has been down to Berlusconi but as Chelsea is closer to home I find it more distasteful, and at least Milan down the years have given us some of the great teams and great players of our lifetime. The 1994 CL demolition of Barcelona was a thing of rare beauty!

You can pick at the way Chlsea play the game but I believe whatever works is fine ( I hope a dour organised approach works for Ireland!) but as a neutral I massively prefer United's football ethos.

Not my most articulate post ever but you know what I'm trying to say...

---

I accept your point re: the source of Abrams riches but the same could be said of Berlusconi (avoided prosecution for a while as PM) and more recently
the Thai ManCity owner (may be implicated in the disapperence of a human rights lawyer).
Didn't Birminghams owner make his fortune from porn?