I fail to understand here,what is wrong in spending money the club has?What about teams that won it the leicester way,i dont mind abrahimovic investing but others do not find it pure and feel like its a cheat..it would have been good if there were limits to the amount he could spend so that he did not use other teams as scouts and bamboozle everything wages wise,it would have made it more interesting for everyone.
Nothing at all wrong with it Why would limits be good? I thought you just said there was nothing wrong with spending the money your club has? The only people who find it a cheat are jealous rival fans.
Limits within the means of the Club would be good. (which is what FFP is attempting) For me the problem with the Abramovic era was that Chelsea became rich overnight. The money didn't come from footballing success as to a large degree it did with United/Barcelona/Bayern. United, Arsenal, Liverpool became the giants of English football - through football. Chelsea and City never earned their successes they were gifted them.
But again... so what? It only ever seems to be the fans of the 'original' big clubs who moan and all because they loved it when they were the only ones who could afford the best players. Now others can too and it suddenly becomes unfair. Boo hoo. I say have every club bankrolled by billionaires. Now THAT would be a fun and fair even playing ground.
But they are not so it isn't. If we want football to be about fair competition and sport then there needs to be some means based control.
Spot on Some people have tried to sweep what Chelsea's did undet the carpet, saying 'so what?' or 'other foreign clubs were paying big wages'. But what that fails to recognise is that those club still were already successful, and had earned their place at the top. The best players wanted to go there and they attracted the top transfers and wages. What abramovich did was basically take Chelsea from a relatively mediocre position, throw inordinate amounts of money at them to try and buy a new team full of the best players, paying way over the odds in transfers and wages and in the process skewing the whole British transfer market completely out of shape. They were also posting massive losses, a completely unsustainable way of running the club, relying completely on Roman's personal fortune. Chelsea's success is arbitrary, if it wasn't for a massive and sustained cash injection (remember many of their mega signings were flops, Veron, Crespo, Torres, Shevchenko) then they simply would not have won the titles they did. Trying to brush it off as 'jealousy' simply fails to recognise the truth of what happened. Chelsea bought their success.
Essay, essay, essay. The only people who care about Chelsea buying success are fans of teams who were then immediately less able to buy the best players around themselves, ie the bitter and jealous. The more teams there are who can afford big players the better. Much rather the competitive PL than the 2 (sometimes 3) team LaLiga. Saying their success is arbitrary is just so bitter. Find a fan of a sugar daddy club who cares that you feel this way. You won't. And if Usmanov funded a spree for us and we won the CL you wouldn't care either. And if you claim you would you're a liar.
Yes mate, anyone who disagrees with you must be bitter/jealous. Many people care about the direction the sport is taking.
So if Usmanov started pumping money into our club would you care to the point of stopping supporting us and claiming any subsequent trophies were arbitrary? Or would you continue supporting us and celebrate trophies we might then win?
Trying to brush off Chelsea's trophies as "arbitrary" simply fails to recognise the truth, that you are bitter. Whatever helps you sleep at night mate mediocre position We were in the same position when Abramovich bought us as Arsenal has been for the last 10 years. Finishing 4th and winning the odd cup every 5-10 years.
What sort of comeback is that ? You've already agreed with me that Chelsea wouldn't have won those titles unless it was for Roman's juice.
It's not 'opinion' to state that Abramovich pumped huge amounts of cash into Chelsea to help them win titles. It is fact
There's nothing to comeback to, dividend. No of course Chelsea wouldnt have won 4 league titles and the Champions League without Roman's money. Again, no one has argued that since day one. Not on this thread. It stems from the fact that I dont feel clubs ever "earn" their success regardless of who they are. Even in the beginning it was a lottery. Liverpool and Man United had an advantage because they came from huge cities with only one other rival club to speak of. London has a gajillion clubs, so already it's an uneven playing field. Plus Arsenal were "elected" into the football league, at the expense of Spurs. I won't go into what happened there, but that wasn't earning success either. And Man United, selling their soul on the stock exchange, bringing out 6 kits a season made for nothing because they were made in asian sweat shops, was that earning their money? Or the money Sky pour into the league? How did the clubs earn that? Football hasn't been a level playing field since the 80's mate, and it was made worse in 1992. You are just pissed that another London club have been European Champions and actually manage to win the league So one more time.....Whatever helps you sleep dividend.
It's opinion, not fact, to say that Chelsea's success is arbitrary. That's the point Bodanki questioned to which you replied you were simply stating facts.
That's your opinion. But I guess it suits you to try and equate everybody else's success as a 'lottery' because that's exactly what happened to Chelsea.
That's your opinion. The facts are that Abramovich was looking at sinking his billions into a number of other clubs, the fact that it was Chelsea who ended up being the beneficiary, when it could have been one of several, makes their success arbitrary.
