So? The points are driven by the Champions League so a team that competes regularly are naturally going to be ahead of us. It's not a ranking of how good the teams are only a reflection of how well they do in Europe and a little bit to do with how well they do domestically.
Chelsea qualified for the CL twice before Abramovitch, Arsenal are there every year without speanding hardly anything. It helps for sure, but Everton also made it to the CL with no money. Once you have gotten in though, it opens many more doors for you other than money, its also a prestige thing, as top players will not move to clubs who arent in the CL. Spurs were unlucky not to get in last year due to a situation that may never ever come up again (A CL winner finishing out of the top 4). I think you have a great chance of grabbing 4th this year, I think ourselves, City and Utd look a sure bet for top 3, in any order, but 4th is easily doable with your squad, and you may get to do it at Arsenals expense too.
Chelsea's overspending started when Matthew Harding joined the club. No disrespect to him, as he seemed to be a true fan. Arsenal spend vast amounts of money every year, but it's on wages, so everyone disregards it. High wages are more important than high transfer spending, so I have no idea why it's ignored.
Yeah, it was mentioned on another thread, as it's the 8th anniversary of Bill Nicholson's death today. RIP to both.
Chelsea have been fortunate enough to have two chairmen in Harding and Abramovitch who simply had the passion and desire to spend big and turn them into one of europes leading clubs. We were taken over by ENIC, who had a passion to run the club as a sound business.
I try to ignore most of the rubbish posted about money to be honest (try being the operative word, I often get hooked in). I think the modern football fan, in line with the attitude of todays populace, spend far too much time obsessing over profits and spending when it comes to football clubs. Liverpool fans and their "net spend" rants stick in my mind. Football has always been like this.....this isnt a recent thing, do you think Liverpool paid their players in monopoly money in the 80's? It has only become more widely reported in the last 20 years for two reasons: 1) Inflation, the amount of money banded about now sounds ridiculous on the face of it, but inflation has made it so that £15m for a player is considered cheap. I remember 17 years ago when Shearer went to Newcastle for £15m, it was "CRAZY MONEY". Inflation mate 2) People, and by people I mean mostly the media, are money obsessed. How many people in the 70's knew how much each of the players in the squad they supported were paid, did they even care? I doubt it, they just bought a ticket and showed up to enjoy a game of football. Nowadays everyone is so bothered about getting one up it has become "You only beat us because you spent x", "You only won that cup because you spent Y". Ideally it would all be an even playing field and everyone would be given a fair shot, but football, like life, isnt like that. Some people (or clubs) have silver spoons and some people (or Clubs) have wooden spoons. What was I suppose to do when my humble team was purchased by a billionaire?! Stop supporting them? Form FC Chelsea of London? I wont lie and say I am not enjoying my club winning trophies, as I am sure Man Utd fans do and Liverpool fans did before them, but at the end of the day there isnt a damn thing we can do about how rich the clubs we support are. All we can do (and should do) is shut the **** up about it and enjoy the football. If you cant do that, then start following rugby, because this will never change.
My point was simply a reply to DL's claim that Spurs' current spending should see us qualify for the Champions League, Bodanki. It's demonstrably untrue. I wasn't talking about the rights and wrongs of overspending by clubs.
You'd imagine wages > transfer fees more often than not. Arsenal's wage bill is/was/always has been far higher than yours I'd agree but unless I'm mistaken you've spent a lot more than them in transfer fees which wouldn't make much difference. Spurs by all rights shouldn't be finishing above Chelsea, United or City. To do so last season given expenditure was a remarkable achievement but all things considered you are almost on a level playing field with Arsenal.
Arsenal's wage bill is normally about 40/50% higher than ours. The difference in net spends on transfers doesn't even come close to that amount and they're still clearly ahead. Combined transfer and wage bill budgets puts us behind 5 other teams.
By spending money they didn't have - just like Leeds did - and were financial basket cases telling their players not to swap shirts after matches to save a few quid here and there. The sole difference is an über rich bloke from Russia pitched up at Stamford Bridge, not at Elland Road. Anyway, Shakhtar's coach is coming across as a bit senile, given he's saying Chelsea will regret their failure to sign Willian, yet when Willian drops a strong hint that he'd be willing to join Spurs he aims a jab at us.
Agreed, but our only other option was to not take a gamble, play it safe and stay a higher midtable club forever! Bates wanted to take Chelsea to the peak of European Football, and in a round about way he did, his spending got us into the CL, which by all accounts was the deciding factor in Roman purchasing us over Spurs, as we already had one foot in Europes elite competition.
Fair enough, can't argue with that. I trust you are correct on the figures PNP It was the wage bill that crippled us mainly. Having players like Bogarde on 80k. The club was badly mismanaged at board level but to be fair always has been. You'll find that most clubs in Europe now spend beyond their means. Spurs v Shaktar, Europes new rivalry
So, so what I'm saying is correct. It shows they are more highly rated than us by UEFA, because they do better than us in Europe, and my point is also that they'll do better against Chelsea than we will, backing up their coaches' point. We lacked quality and organisation on Saturday, as he correctly said. IIRC last time we played Shaktar they knocked us out of Europe, so we're hardly a name to frighten them are we?
Well said again PNP. Once again the lack of knowledge on football finances by some is both staggering and unsurprising at the same time.
Exactly Boss. As I've argued from day one of Chelsea's rescue, getting RA in was the best ever thing that happened to Chelsea, and all the fans from various clubs, including many from ours, who said it was a bad thing were proved spectacularly wrong. How I wish RA had chosen us instead of Chelsea.
It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that the season when RA first took over and Chelsea got to the Semi in the CL, English clubs started to actually do well in Europe again having been tumbleweed for a good 15 years (bar United's CL win in 99). The likes of Alonso, Ronaldo and in influx of talented foreigners came in and started to get the best out of the "Golden Generation" at club level i.e Gerrard, Rooney, Lampard, Terry, Ferdinand etc. People play the "We can't compete" card often but the fact is before we came along nobody could compete with Arsenal or United anyway. Those clubs were often 10-15 clear of 3rd place by the end of December. I don't expect many to agree but not just as a Chelsea fan but a football fan I think people hugely underestimate how much of their wealth RA and Sheikh Mansour have ploughed into this country, which can only be a good thing IMO.
I think we played Chelsea the weekend Matthew Harding died...was very proud of the respect our fans paid to him, his family and to Chelsea that day. Didn't realise it was so long ago...guess I really am getting on now!
