Is there actually a double standard when applied to Chelsea?

[MavadoDribblez]

Perhaps this is a contentious issue, but I am actually curious to find out why this "double standard" exists. It seems like there are more negative feelings when teams discuss Chelsea, and the fact that when roman came aboard from abroad they instantly became a contender for the premiership. I know that he just bought players left, right and centre, but there seems to be a huge backlash against Chelsea (from people I have talked to) for that. More so than with the other big clubs.

The truth is the modern game is driven by money (no shock there), and what Chelsea did is no different from what Man U, Milan, Arsenal, Barcelona, Madrid, Liverpool or any deep pocket team does and has done in the recent modern era. They buy the best players. Why does Chelsea get extra negative attention for it though? Or is that just an incorrect perception on my part? If so, then delete this thread.

I think some of the negative connotations regarding Chelsea have risen due to the fact that since their upswing into the upper echelon of world club football they have bought players already in their prime. Whereas, Man U and Arsenal ALSO buy younger players and "develop" them to a certain extent as well as players in their prime.
I'm guessing Chelsea is beginning to do that is well with some of the younger players they have and in time, they will be exactly the same in terms of "developing" these players.

While on that topic though, when Man U acquires a Nani or Anderson, or Tevez (just for ease of comparison, take any big club) its a known fact that they (the aforementioned individuals) have the skills and fundamentals already when they were playing for their previous teams in Portugal or Argentina, France wherever. Obviously that alone won't get them to be stars, but its not like these teams are starting from scratch, unless they get a player at 14 years old and develop him. So, its not like what the other big clubs did is any different from what Chelsea is doing.
I think if anything Lyon's fans should be vexed that they're going to lose Benzema, but they lost a slew of promising players that they had a big hand in developing before they sold them to bigger clubs.
So is there a "double standard" when talking about Chelsea? Or is it just that the fans I've come across are incredibly hard on them?
If this has been posed before, then disregard this thread. Thanks.

[chrizzah]

Perhaps this is a contentious issue, but I am actually curious to find out why this "double standard" exists. It seems like there are more negative feelings when teams discuss Chelsea, and the fact that when roman came aboard from abroad they instantly became a contender for the premiership. I know that he just bought players left, right and centre, but there seems to be a huge backlash against Chelsea (from people I have talked to) for that. More so than with the other big clubs.

The truth is the modern game is driven by money (no shock there), and what Chelsea did is no different from what Man U, Milan, Arsenal, Barcelona, Madrid, Liverpool or any deep pocket team does and has done in the recent modern era. They buy the best players. Why does Chelsea get extra negative attention for it though? Or is that just an incorrect perception on my part? If so, then delete this thread.

I think some of the negative connotations regarding Chelsea have risen due to the fact that since their upswing into the upper echelon of world club football they have bought players already in their prime. Whereas, Man U and Arsenal ALSO buy younger players and "develop" them to a certain extent as well as players in their prime.
I'm guessing Chelsea is beginning to do that is well with some of the younger players they have and in time, they will be exactly the same in terms of "developing" these players.

While on that topic though, when Man U acquires a Nani or Anderson, or Tevez (just for ease of comparison, take any big club) its a known fact that they (the aforementioned individuals) have the skills and fundamentals already when they were playing for their previous teams in Portugal or Argentina, France wherever. Obviously that alone won't get them to be stars, but its not like these teams are starting from scratch, unless they get a player at 14 years old and develop him. So, its not like what the other big clubs did is any different from what Chelsea is doing.
I think if anything Lyon's fans should be vexed that they're going to lose Benzema, but they lost a slew of promising players that they had a big hand in developing before they sold them to bigger clubs.
So is there a "double standard" when talking about Chelsea? Or is it just that the fans I've come across are incredibly hard on them?
If this has been posed before, then disregard this thread. Thanks.

There have been countless discussions on this. It's not that they bought the best players, but rather the source of the money to buy the best players. Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool grew over a long period of time the same way most big companies have grown from being much smaller businesses. The money they spent on players came from money the club had earned. After Abramovitch took over, the money Chelseas spent on players mostly did not come from what Chelsea had earned, but rather from Abramovitch's pocket. I've never played it, but I'll bet the game Football League Manager has a cheat to allow managers to have unlimited funds to purchase whomever they want and that is exactly how a lot of people view it.

Also, even before Ambramovitch, Ken Bates, the former chairman of the club, added an element of distastefulness that turned a lot of people off to the club.

[MavadoDribblez]

Oh, thanks for the quick reply, I'm new here so I didn't know there were many discussions pertaining to this topic.
I suppose that's the only way to be competitive nowadays. Get a rich owner and let him use his (or her) own money to buy players.
I saw this statistic in the papers the other week that stated that the teams of the Big Four in England had lost only a combined 4 or 5 matches at home versus all other premiership clubs not in the Big Four since 2004-2005. That's disparity. Not just in England, but everywhere else too Spain (Barcelona, Madrid) and even France (with Lyon: six consecutive titles on the trot). Thanks again.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Perhaps this is a contentious issue, but I am actually curious to find out why this "double standard" exists. It seems like there are more negative feelings when teams discuss Chelsea, and the fact that when roman came aboard from abroad they instantly became a contender for the premiership. I know that he just bought players left, right and centre, but there seems to be a huge backlash against Chelsea (from people I have talked to) for that. More so than with the other big clubs.

It's not a double standard at all because Chelsea have done something that is unprecedented in football and in that sense they are an aberration. To expect them to be treated the same as everyone else is baffling.

The truth is the modern game is driven by money (no shock there), and what Chelsea did is no different from what Man U, Milan, Arsenal, Barcelona, Madrid, Liverpool or any deep pocket team does and has done in the recent modern era. They buy the best players. Why does Chelsea get extra negative attention for it though? Or is that just an incorrect perception on my part? If so, then delete this thread.

It is different because Chelsea spent a huge amount of money in a very short period of time to completely revamp their entire squad. This was not money earned through football but money from Abramovic. Now contrast that to Man Utd, the most successful team in the history of the Premiership. What many people fail to realise is that Man Utd have been outspent by Premiership rivals in 13 out of 16 seasons. Man Utd only started to spend big after a prolonged period of success and only because the transfer strategy changed in order to target the top tier of talent to complete the team. Throughout all of this Man Utd have had to operate within their own limits, which is in stark contrast to Chelsea who are regularly making a huge loss without any problems at all because they knew Abramovic would foot the bill. It puts them at a competitive advantage to their rivals.

I think some of the negative connotations regarding Chelsea have risen due to the fact that since their upswing into the upper echelon of world club football they have bought players already in their prime. Whereas, Man U and Arsenal ALSO buy younger players and "develop" them to a certain extent as well as players in their prime.
I'm guessing Chelsea is beginning to do that is well with some of the younger players they have and in time, they will be exactly the same in terms of "developing" these players.

I don't think it has anything to do with being able to buy established players at the top tier of the market per se but more to do with the sheer number bought.

While on that topic though, when Man U acquires a Nani or Anderson, or Tevez (just for ease of comparison, take any big club) its a known fact that they (the aforementioned individuals) have the skills and fundamentals already when they were playing for their previous teams in Portugal or Argentina, France wherever. Obviously that alone won't get them to be stars, but its not like these teams are starting from scratch, unless they get a player at 14 years old and develop him. So, its not like what the other big clubs did is any different from what Chelsea is doing.
I think if anything Lyon's fans should be vexed that they're going to lose Benzema, but they lost a slew of promising players that they had a big hand in developing before they sold them to bigger clubs.
So is there a "double standard" when talking about Chelsea? Or is it just that the fans I've come across are incredibly hard on them?
If this has been posed before, then disregard this thread. Thanks.

It is different because when you sign young players, regardless of whether you are personally responsible for most of their development or not, you accept that you are getting a player who will make mistakes and who will require time to complete their development (either physically, mentally or in terms of their skillset). When you buy an established top level player you expect that they will come in and immediately do a job to a very high standard. The latter obviously involves less risk. Normally teams would be able to blood youngsters while still competing but Chelsea raised the bar in terms of what was required to win the league (points, etc). Their ability to rotate without any drop off in quality makes it a lot more difficult for other clubs to compete. That is why Arsenal, as an example, effectively gave up on a season when they chose to blood in their youngsters. It worked in the long-term but it was a huge risk to take.

[MavadoDribblez]

Thanks. At least I understand the situation definitively.

[schafer]

It is different because Chelsea spent a huge amount of money in a very short period of time to completely revamp their entire squad. This was not money earned through football but money from Abramovic. Now contrast that to Man Utd, the most successful team in the history of the Premiership. What many people fail to realise is that Man Utd have been outspent by Premiership rivals in 13 out of 16 seasons. Man Utd only started to spend big after a prolonged period of success and only because the transfer strategy changed in order to target the top tier of talent to complete the team. Throughout all of this Man Utd have had to operate within their own limits, which is in stark contrast to Chelsea who are regularly making a huge loss without any problems at all because they knew Abramovic would foot the bill. It puts them at a competitive advantage to their rivals.


From manutdzone.com

'James W Gibson is the man who saved Manchester United from financial collapse and ultimately extinction. In 1932 he gave £2000 of his own money to pay the players wages. A wealthy local businessman (who made his fortune manufacturing army uniforms), he took over the club and turned it around, contributing over £40,000 to help pay off the club's debts huge debts which had arisen during the Great Depression.

He also funded the rebuilding of Old Trafford after WWII and the United youth system which went on to produce so many great players. Most importantly of all perhaps, Gibson brought 36 year old Matt Busby to the club in 1945 as manager. Unfortunately he died in 1951 before the Busy Babes phenomenon took the club to the top. Gibson is commemorated by a plaque on the players tunnel at Old Trafford and outside the stadium on the railway bridge on Sir Matt Busby Way'

That sounds suspiciously like a team operating outside of their limits, having their debts paid off by a wealthy benefactor, and benefitting over the long term due to a revamped youth system and rebuilt stadium. And done with money not gained through football;).

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Bringing up both the Great Depression and WW2, two events that had a severe impact on all clubs, notably Man Utd because our stadium was near destroyed, is a pretty weak effort. Go back in the history of any club and you find events that have had an impact. Pity it is irrelevant because we were not discussing past events. If we were then there are countless previous instances of Chelsea being passed 'along' to a new owner in order to save the club. Abramovic doing so is simply the latest in this trend. Factors outside of football having an impact is hardly living outwith our means, a distinct difference from Chelsea under Abramovic, Bates... etc.

[schafer]

Bringing up both the Great Depression and WW2, two events that had a severe impact on all clubs, notably Man Utd because our stadium was near destroyed, is a pretty weak effort. Go back in the history of any club and you find events that have had an impact. Pity it is irrelevant because we were not discussing past events. If we were then there are countless previous instances of Chelsea being passed 'along' to a new owner in order to save the club. Abramovic doing so is simply the latest in this trend. Factors outside of football having an impact is hardly living outwith our means, a distinct difference from Chelsea under Abramovic, Bates... etc.

Why is the past irrelevant?

[Eduardo Dourmom]

Thats bc chelsea is a team of trolls who smeer poop on each other and have relations with each other on the field after scoring a goal, which happens rarely. who also like to buy their team out of problems and buy cosmetics to make themselves pretty...ugly...hahaha! all yu got to rememeber is "******** off chelsea fc you aint got no history, 5 league cups in 18 leagues thats what we call history" also from a reliable source i heard that ballak and cole are goin to be traded in a major deal with the orlando butt pirates..both of them said they liked the offer

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Why is the past irrelevant?

The thread creator clearly wanted information on the Abramovic era, ergo the present. Even when he wanted to discuss more general points he still referred to the modern game.

[schafer]

Fair enough.

[MavadoDribblez]

The thread creator clearly wanted information on the Abramovic era, ergo the present. Even when he wanted to discuss more general points he still referred to the modern game.

That's true, I was focusing on the current era. Just to understand where all the animosity was generated from.

[BlackburnRover]

All that and wasn't James W Gibson a local Man Utd fan. Not that I'm sticking up for Man U here, god forbid, but facts are facts. A fan who gave his money to the club he supported, just like many of us do week in week out, he just had more to give. A bit like Jack Walker did for us, a lifelong fan, poor boy come good, had money invested in the club for years until his business got to the state where he could invest in the club he loved without thinking about it.

Whereas Roman was an opportunist who bought a club on the point of collapse. Before Chelsea were bought out clubs were waiting to pick off bargains as they tried to clear huge debts. Not that there's anything wrong with Roman for doing that, it's just a different situation.

Add to that the fact that a lot of the more vociferous and obnoxious Chelsea fans would have considered Chelsea to be a bunch of mid table crap back then, only a handful of years ago, and that's why they never get much sympathy. Not that all their new fans are like that, they've got many good ones ... but you know the ones I mean.;)

[CL_2004]

it's definitely a double standard

my guess is that fans of clubs who used to have the advantage over Chelsea now have to give them respect as a club because they are no longer a mid-table team but now a title challenger ever season.

[BoltonMassiv]

People don't care about how much money they have spent anymore, because it's the norm for the Champions League teams these days, Chelsea is no worse than Real Madrid, but that's in the past now, people look down on Chelsea simply because they aren't a club in the sense we expect. In England Chelsea's fans are viewed as a joke, you expect to go there and laugh your head off at these pash sathoners who go to the match with the wife, wave a flag about a bit and don't sing a word, score a goal at Stamford Bridge and it goes dead, these days respect for a club is based more so on the quality of the fans more than anything else, and given that most of Chelsea match going fan base are people that just decided to support the best football team at the time and are all just rich people it doesn't help them, and this is why no one thinks Chelsea deserve any of the success they get, and is why when teams like Portsmouth do well people don't mind, they have fans that will sing all day long in the wind and rain and they go through love of the club rather than to be seen at a Chelsea match so you look rich.

[BlackburnRover]

Like I said, Chelsea have a lot of decent fans who've followed them for years when they were relatively average, and some new ones who love the club.

But a good sign of the overall type of support is that out of all the major London clubs they consistently bring the least support when they travel. Arsenal brought a lot more for a mid-week fizzy pop cup game than Chelsea brought for a weekend league match. West Ham and Spurs bring more too.

The only exception is Fulham.

So they don't get much respect for the size of club they are.

[BoltonMassiv]

But you have to accept that the majority of the fans that go to Chelsea matches are not there through love on the Club, it's all to make yourself look a player in the business world, it's bcome the rich mans club because if you say you support Chelsea is gives you that image, the fact is the majority don't have a clue about the club, they only care about the good times whilst the club is popular, and when the bad times come they flee and call for the managers head. These are the kind of fans that think they are the best club in the world, ignorant of any other team.

Arsenal and Chelsea always have decent away support, but this is only because the glory supporters live all over the country, go to Birmingham and there are probably more Arsenal fans that Birmingham or the Baggies.

Fulham are just Chelsea on a smaller scale.

[BlackburnRover]

You know I was agreeing with you right?

Out of interest, what's Chelsea's support like at the Reebok? While it's obviously not bad at Ewood it's nowhere near what you'd expect for a top side, and like i said not as good as West Ham, Spurs and Arsenal.

[BoltonMassiv]

Ye I know you were agreeing, Chelsea support is awful here, I think about 500 came last time and just sat there motionless and quiet, and then when they scored acted as if they were singing all game and were the best ever. Personally I can't be bothered with London based clubs, the fans think they are some kind of big shots because they live in the capital, even though they all know the best football and all the passion is up in the North West. You live in Blackburn by the way? Because I actually live closer to Ewood Park than I do the Reebok:(

[BlackburnRover]

Nah I live in Derby now. Parents in Clitheroe where I stay every other weekend after the game. Don't know why I do it, ******* M6. Especially the crap we're dishing up lately. And I'll still renew my season ticket .... madness.