No they prove that last season the Premiership was more uneven last season than previously. Take out last season, and you are left with over the previous four seasons an average "midtable spread" of England: 27 Italy: 24 Spain: 27 So possibly it was a sign that the discrepancy is getting bigger in England, potentially it was an abberation. It certainly isn't clear either way. England last season had 3 semi-finalists in the CL, and the season before as well. Was that a "clear" sign that the Premiership is getting more and more dominant? Basically England has a top 4 better than that of any nation (the fact that over the last 3 years England have had 4 different finalists illustrates this). That makes it very hard for teams outside that group to break into it. The arrival of Abramovich has strengthened Chelsea's position, but it has not "ruined" the Premiership. If anything has "ruined" it then it would have to be the Champions League and the disparity produced by it.
All I was trying to illustrate was the trend. Even if you take out last season you have: England's worse "Big-4" team: 60, 61, 67, 68 England's mid-table spread: 21, 27, 29, 30 Always increasing. It doesn't surprise me that the averages aren't that bad, as you say. That's largely because 3 or 4 years ago I felt Spain and Italy didn't have more parity than England. But OTOH, 20 years ago England had much more parity than those 2 leagues and most (all?) other top-flights in Europe. So parity keeps getting worse in England using just about any time-frame. Yes its clear the "Big 4" are separating themselves from most of Europe at an alarming rate (comparable to the rate at which they are separating themselves from the rest of England). I'm not saying its Chelsea's fault. Roman contributes to the problem, but obviously things like CL money (which always goes to the same 4 teams) plays a big role too. Thanks for missing my point by a distance only marginally less than the distance between Detroit and west London. As I clearly stated, I don't blame Chelsea. But it is what it is (fans are getting screwed).
Who was United's back up striker last season? Exactly. To imply Berbatov or any other striker is a luxury signing for United atm is overly stupid. That's like me saying Chelsea shouldn't be chasing David Silva or Ashley Young because they have plenty of midfielders.
But basically a 4/5 year spell is too short a time to form any reasonable conclusion. Ultimately those 4 are in a very strong position and it is increasingly difficult for any team to break the hegemony of the big 4. The idea that the league's been ruined though is ludicrous. Last season we had the title decided on the last day of the season, relegation decided on the last day of the season. If people rate parity as the most important factor in football, then go and watch the Championship.
In the first 10 years after a win became worth 3 points (ie. beginning in 1981), the average "mid-table spread" was 24.2 points despite the mid-table containing more teams and more games being played. And at no time did it exceed 28 points. Perhaps the last 3 years are an aberration and the recent trend will reverse on itself showing the timing of this was all merely coincidental with the huge influx of money, especially to the "Big-4". Can't say I'm holding my breath though.... True, but the less parity you have the less often you can expect final weekend drama, especially at the top.
How are the fans getting screwed? Because they don't get to see the amazingly bad crossing of Shaun Wright Phillips? Again, Chelsea, are not obligated to play a player just to please neutrals.
Yes actually, by and large Chelsea were entertaining under Grant. I've even outlined my reasons too; but hey, that's not for everyone. Look at matches like against West Ham, where they scored 3 goals in less than 10 minutes, all out attack. Just because Grant has this bad reputation people assume his team must have been boring, without actually looking back at any of the games.
Don't get so defensive. SWP most definitely added something to the Premiership before joining Chelsea. Sort of a weird example that you came up with though since SWP does play fairly regularily at Chelsea. Sidwell would be a better example. He might as well have been touring outer-space the past 12 months...
Sarcasm, learn it, love it. Now that's funny. He is if anything average (Really, he is) and he sure as hell does not play much. The only place he's good at is in the center of the midfield, an area that we are yet again stocked at.
I’m getting really sick of anti-EPL and anti-Chelsea fans whining. Especially Man U fans. How people forget Man U took the money thing into the stratosphere is beyond me. The great superclub with 330 million fans. The SuperStores everywhere (I went into not one but two in Malaysia). 83 million active fans in Asia alone, way more than the entire population of the UK. The most valuable sponsorship deal in the world. The stock exchange listing. The pre-season tours. The shirt sales. The record profits. It is the richest and most valuable club in the world (and possibly the smartest too, in my book). So how do you compete with this superclub? Billions. That’s what Roman brought in because nothing short of it will work. The ante was upped. There’s no small, family club with promising home-grown youngsters on the bench, warm fuzzies of the lads having a pint with the fans after the game. Yes, it’s a quick way of trying to equal what Man U spent 15 years building, but so what? Yes players are hoarded away but this is competition the last time I checked, right? Man U became the master of blowing the competition away with the $$ and now they have a competitor that is their equal. Both are driving the EPL into some unknown place where their real competition in 10 years will be SONY. What they both have in common is Peter Kenyon, the man who lead Man U into global prominence now trying to do the same with Chelsea. According to BBC September 2003: “Under Kenyon the club ripped up their policy of cautious spending and tossed aside their rigid wage structure. The club spent big to bring in Ruud van Nistelrooy, Juan Sebastian Veron - who he recently sold to Chelsea - and Rio Ferdinand in order to try and compete with the best in Europe. Despite the spending sprees no club have ever been better off financially than United are at present. Kenyon has helped turn the club into the most financially secure in the world and the biggest brand in football. “ If Man U fans really have to criticize Chelsea in future threads they can just replace the words “Ruud van Nistelrooy” “Juan Sebastian Veron” and “Rio Ferdinand” from above with the current or future Chelsea player of their choice (hopefully Robinho)!
Major exaggeration regarding his playing time! Last season he played fairly regularily (41 games). Also you obviously did not watch SWP play much during his final two years at City. No sense continuing this discussion then ...
Well, its human nature I guess to talk more about what's bad than what's good. Also, I'm typing this without watching Chelsea play. A little trick I learned.
Chelsea is kind of boring guys, even before considering the talent...Nice job on the above point-differential statistics Napoli.
although you are correct that SWP certianly caught the eye and was a talent during this time with City, thus the 21 million pound price tag you statement labelling SWP as a "fairly regular" warrants some debate He did make several appearances last season, although that was mostly due to injuries, the ACN and obvious inadequate replacements. If you do profess to know so much as you claim then you would clearly know that SWP only put forth a handful of memorable appearances in those 40 apps this season. For his 3 year career at Chelsea he has made a total of 122 appearances, mostly as a sub and has only started 48 League games. Although this averages to around 40 games a season, which still isnt bad, I believe his time on the field has had more to do with the price paid for him instead of the talent he has displayed.
Well, you could compare the complete squads, but considering that United has 3 players on the books who've been at the club since God was a boy and other home grown talent, Chelsea can't compete. United have certainly made some big money purchases, but like I illustrated before, those players aren't our entire team. I don't have the figures, but I'd wager that United have spent less money in the entire premiership era than Abramovich funded Chelsea have, to date. That's 16 years of spending compared to 5. Even if its not less, its close and that's bloody well ridiculous. It would be even worse if you took net transfers into context because we've sold our fair share of stars as well for good money including Becks, Stam and Veron. Here's the problem with the above statements. You act like being financially successful - something that Chelsea are not, is ruining football or unfair. United as has been mentioned has been outspent by another club transfers in 13 of 16 prem seasons. Our spending is certainly quite high - but its not gross and unlike Chelsea, Madrid or Bayern recently United hasn't bought many stars - United's made most of its stars. Ronaldo was not under the radar but we did buy him for about 12M and the same fans who are hating on United now called him a one trick pony for 3 years. We spent a fair amount on Ruud, but given the doubt that surrounded him due to a serious injury its not like he was the hottest property available at the time. Veron, Rio and Rooney are the 3 really big purchases in terms of $ and them being in demand. It could be argued that Rooney wasn't really in demand outside of England. Rio came in to replace a big sale in Stam and I think if you look at all the money United has spent on big name players in the last 15 years you can offset a good chunk of it with the sales of either those same players or other players later on. Essentially, United has been very responsible financially and shouldn't be compared to Chelsea who couldn't turn a profit it their lives depended on it.
Napoli you summed up for me what I am getting at. Thank you very much. For me I would rather see a close race from top to bottom and a more level playing field. BTW I am not an EPL hater. If anything I have more love for the game and wish the money wasnt killing it. The sad thing for me is that I have been a fan of the old 1st div and now the EPL since the early '80's and whilst there has always been the dominance of Pool, Man U and Arse we used to have the fairy tail runs of clubs like Newcastle, Notts Forrest, Everton, Villa, Rovers, Wednesday, (old) Chelsea and Leeds. You could accept the big 3 winning everything year in year out but you had the excitement of the smaller club really having a go at it and giving them a scare, or knocking them out of the FA Cup/League Cup or in the case of Rovers and Leeds actually winning the league. A small club like Forrest winning the Euro Cup will never happen again and to me this is the saddest thing about the modern game. Someone said if you want to see this sort of thing go back and watch the Championship instead. Unfortunately you are correct and I have done this. I would much rather watch Bristol City come out of nowhere and nearly make promotion or see the joy of Hull City finally getting up. I would rather watch Leeds or Luton turn around a points penalty and turn their seasons around. Call me an old romantic but once this dies out at all levels of the game so will my interest in it as well. Yes if Leeds return to the EPL I will watch it as any loyal supporter would, however I would rather watch 10 seasons of nail bitting results and close calls in the lower leagues than watching my team struggle to compete in the modern EPL week in and week out as well as spending money it doesnt have.
Mate, read my previous post and you will truly understand where I am comning from. If you had any real love of the game itself and cant understand where it is going then that saddens me a great deal. Chelsea's apparent success will eventually come at a cost to the game greater than anyone can imagine. In 10 years from now you will not be able to get into a game as the stadiums will be filled with corporate seating and sponsors seats. For the common supporter to go to a match it will be impossible and what spare seating is available will be at a cost that only the wealthy could afford. Why will this happen? Because the club will need to generate more funds in order to keep buying the players. Money has to come from somewhere and eventually the TV money will not be enough. I dont hold a grudge against any teams success. Chelsea has had many years waiting for something positive to come their way. Good on you and your supporters should be happy......... never mind the fact that what you have done is set a bench mark that will f**k every little club in England. Take away the team I support. In this arguement it is irrelevant. I would gladly give up my support for my team if it meant the game returned to what I wish it was.
I think comparing Man U and Chelsea is a bit unfair. Man U are rich because they are successful whereas Chelsea are successful because they are rich. I have nothing against Chelsea but as a club they have effectively won the lottery. They were in financial troubles and are suddenly purchased by an unknown who after considering buying several teams decided on Chelsea. Roman was not like Jack Walker or Ashley who bought the clubs they always loved. Roman could have as easily bought Spurs but chose otherwise. Roman now subsidises Chelsea who have assembled the most expensive squad in the history of the sport. Chelsea's last published wage bill for 2006/2007 was £133 million, the year before it was £114 million. Such largesse is not sustainable and Chelsea have made a cumulative loss of £383 million in 4 years (up to 2006/2007) since Roman took over. This level of debt would bankrupt any other club and is subsidised by Roman's wallet. It is true that Man U and Liverpool both currently have huge levels of debt but these debts are attributable to their new owners purchasing their respective clubs and then securing this purchase on the club itself. These debts are not attributable to making an operating loss and in fact are being paid off by the profits generated by operations. Arsenal have large debt but again this is not due to operating at a loss but is effectively a mortgage on their new stadium. In 2005-2006 the top wage bills were Chelsea - £114m Manchester Utd - £85m Arsenal - £83m Liverpool - £69m Newcastle Utd - £52m An analysis of this would show that Chelsea paid £45 million more than Liverpool in wages in one year alone. Considering that Chelsea's wage bill has now increased to £133 million in 2006/2007 (an increase of almost £20 million) it would seem likely that this wage gap has increased to at least £50 million on Liverpool and more than £30 million on Man U and Arsenal. This is every year. Taking a conservative figure of the wages from 2006/2007 and multiplying this per year then it is estimated that Chelsea have spent at least £135 million more in wages alone than Liverpool since 2003/2004. They have also had a net transfer spend of ~£335 million in those four years up to 2006/2007 under Ranieri and Mourinho. Avram Grant also had a net spend of ~£40 million (including Bosingwa). This is a total net spend of approx £375 million since Roman took over in pre-season 2003/2004. In the same time period Rafa Benitez has spent approx net £73.2 million (including Guthrie's sale). Houllier spent an approx £20 million net spend in his last season (including Cisse). This totals Liverpool's net spend of ~£93.2 million since Roman purchased Chelsea. So since 2003/2004 Chelsea have outspent Liverpool in the region of £375 - £93 (transfers) + 135 (wages) or ~£417 million. Liverpool and Man U have had a comparable net spend on transfers (within £15 million or so, estimating Man U spending to be at least £60 million net since 2004) but taking wages into account would show that Man U have spent about £15 million per year more on wages since 2004, a difference of £60 million in cumulative total wage bill. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/02/22/sfnrom122.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2008/05/29/sfndel129.xml http://www.worldsoccer.com/news/Premiership_wage_bill_tops_1billion_news_122223.html http://www.lfchistory.net/transfers.asp In essence, it is clear that Chelsea have been able to assemble a squad that would have been impossible if their losses were not under-written by Roman lending them this money. Chelsea have not ruined football or the EPL but they have distorted the transfer market as they purchase players by paying transfer fees more than anyone else can afford (including themselves) and pay a greater wage bill than anyone else can afford (including themselves). As long as Roman is OK to support the losses then this spending will continue. Kenyon has previously claimed that Chelsea will break even by 2010 but he is probably the only CEO in the world who can lead his company into losing £383 million and still keep his job. At this moment it is a great period to be a Chelsea fan. They have come a long way from the club that had less than 10,000 in attendance for a 1994 Premiership match. It is really not fair to blame the Chelsea fans for the actions of Roman, the fans have no say at all and many are being priced out by the increasing high price of tickets as they are elsewhere. The Big 4 are streets ahead financially of the rest of the Prem and it is this advantage, supplemented by the Champions League money and allure, that will likely perpetuate the Big 4 being the same in the next 5 years. This is not really a healthy situation for the competitiveness of the Prem.
Just read some of these articles and noted that one of them mentions that the Championship is now the 6th highest league in Europe in terms of wages. Do you happen to know where league 1 and 2 sit within Europe at all?
good post RevX several good points here, both pro and anti Chelsea. I just have a few quick points. 1. Where were all these "do gooders" and "fair and ethical treatment for all" people when players were being poached from Chelsea? At one point in time (actually quite a few times) Chelsea has produced some bloody good players from their academy/youth ranks and several of those players were..."influenced (for a better choice) of words to leave for other clubs. Where was this wave of fairness and equity then. 2. It always amazes me how fans of club X, Y and Z will steam in to give Chelsea a lash and then run off and hide behind excuse A, B and C of why their club has partaken in the same antics. Although I wont address teso and his usual myopic bollox, anyone who thinks that the clubs in power at the respective time have not used their money, power and influence at the expense of less powerful and less wealthy clubs is clearly drinking the funny flavored Kool Aid/Barley Water. 3. Why are the clubs who hold their players for exbortatent fees not held accountable. Why just place Chelsea on the rack for paying X for a player when the club selling the player is clearly adding another 10 mil "just because its Chelsea". Shouldnt this type of behavior be discouraged as well, or is it okay to fleece Roman because he has money. This is the double standard which never gets addressed and is excused by "well the club can sell the player for whatever price they want". I am fine with that explanation but dont moan when a rival club pays that much for the player. Quick example, Drogba was linked to a move to Juve for around 12 mil and Chelsea we rumoured to be interested. Overnight his price went up to 16 mil and by the weekend it was 20 mil. Although it was obvious that Juve, and basically everyone else, was out of the running, Chelsea still ended up paying 24 mil for him. Now is that the fault of Chelsea, Marseille, or Drogba's agent. Personally I would think a little of all parties- but most people focus on the easy target which actually require some rational thinking.
Which is still less than half what yanited cost the glazers and they're still spending money. Look, the plain truth of the matter is that the world is unfair. Fellas like David Beckham wanted to go to yanited because it was a 'big' club with 'history'. He's a North London boy, why didn't he go to Sperz or LeArse!!! Exactly the same thing happened with Liverpool back in the 60's and 70's with the fellas they brought in as I've mentioned before. The clubs that are presently successful are the ones that will attract the young fellas now and in the future, some of whom will go on to become major world stars... or do we really think it will be an accident that yanited will make a load of dosh when they sell fake Ronaldo, (not exactly a Manchester boy!!!), to Madrid. It's the same with established players as well. Why do you think Ronaldinho wanted to go to Milan instead of joining sparky Hughes at citeh? For the better quality mocha or cappuccino? As I say, the world is unfair and football, (being part of the commercial and entertainment world), is unfair. The 'big' clubs with 'history' have been creaming off the better players from the smaller ones for years. We had a terrific young player called Jimmy Greaves many years ago. How come sperz weren't 'ruining the game' (TM) then!!! After a few years of Chelsea competing for honours, (and winning some of them), it won't be as difficult for us to attract the talent, both youngsters and established players. If we were in a world where fairness and integrity were the order of the day we'd still be cheering on Accrington Stanley... Yanited would be owned by the fans instead of some American corporation... Wimbledon would be in Wimbledon instead of Milton Keynes... West ham would be one of football's great powers with all the talent they've produced over the past few years. I suggest people get used to it coz it ain't gonna change any time soon.