Is Chelsea still considered a sugar daddy club?
- Thread starter Sky1981
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Just have to ask, how’d you reach that conclusion?
Priceless.
Since your Russian prince arrived, you've spent roughly £1580mill on transfer fees, that's almost £400mill more than Manchester united, though you're around £35mill behind City at 1st place..The amount of years, and £, it took to get Chelsea floating, feck me sideways if we're going to pretend that you're success and overall situation isn't a direct result of your sugar daddy
Username is on point
Totally mate, does my head in when I see Athletic Madrid and the sort.It's like the people who write "Athletico Madrid", I'm sure @Ban can back me up here.
Before I comment on what was wrong with those numbers can you please mention a source on that?
Priceless.
Since your Russian prince arrived, you've spent roughly £1580mill on transfer fees, that's almost £400mill more than Manchester united, though you're around £35mill behind City at 1st place..The amount of years, and £, it took to get Chelsea floating, feck me sideways if we're going to pretend that you're success and overall situation isn't a direct result of your sugar daddy
Convenient not to say we were also the biggest sellers in the PL in the same period, and basically on par with Manchester Utd spending per season, less than 1 million apart.
You seem confused
I very rarely see anyone refer to Barcelona as that, but rather "Barca", what must be around 90% of the time. Nobody seems to moan about that. Same with Juventus.It's like the people who write "Athletico Madrid", I'm sure @Ban can back me up here.
18/19
Kepa - £72m
Pulisic - £57m
Jorginho -£52m
Total spent on those 3: £181m
Total Sales £62m
17/18
Total spent: £234m including Morata, Bakayoko, Drinkwater, Rudiger, Zapata, Emerson, Giroud & Barkley (referring to my quantity not quality comment - crazy money spent on mediocre players)
Total sales: £180m
Prior to that I’m sure there are seasons where net spend is high.
Prior to that...
16/17
Spent £119m
Sold £97M
Net £22M
15/16
Spent £81M
Sold £78M
Net £3m
14/15
Spent £123m
Sold £130m
Net -£7m.
*Figures from Transfermarkt*
If you want to keep on going back, before FFP really kicked in, then the spending does go back up of course.
This is the 16th season since RA arrived at Chelsea.
As things stand in those 16 seasons Man Us nett spend appears to have been greater than Chelsea in 9 of those seasons.
As for RA he has injected around £1.2 billion that includes the original purchase cost and of course significant sums on transfers but and here’s the big but conservative estimates are that Chelsea is now valued at around £2-2.5 billion and of course he owns100% of the shares in CFC so it looks like if he were to sell then he would see a healthy return.
RA isn’t like the benefactor of the past in that rarely did the likes of the Moore’s family see any growth or any sort of return from their financial donations
So is he a Sugar Daddy or an investor?
As things stand in those 16 seasons Man Us nett spend appears to have been greater than Chelsea in 9 of those seasons.
As for RA he has injected around £1.2 billion that includes the original purchase cost and of course significant sums on transfers but and here’s the big but conservative estimates are that Chelsea is now valued at around £2-2.5 billion and of course he owns100% of the shares in CFC so it looks like if he were to sell then he would see a healthy return.
RA isn’t like the benefactor of the past in that rarely did the likes of the Moore’s family see any growth or any sort of return from their financial donations
So is he a Sugar Daddy or an investor?
Damn!
Yes of course they're a sugar daddy club. I guess it's all a matter of time and perspective and if you're looking for fairness and equal opportunity in the world of football finances then you're looking in the wrong place. But Chelsea's rise from basically irrelevance to the top of the league due to a sugar daddy is way too recent to be forgotten yet. Still too many people remember Chelsea before their sudden wealth injection.
Tomorrow if a club like Newcastle is bought by rich American/Thai/Japanese owners and they aspire to be on par with top English clubs, what in the world are their options?
A model where you inject enough cash at start for the club to go on and become self sufficient down the line seems best option no?
A model where you inject enough cash at start for the club to go on and become self sufficient down the line seems best option no?
Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one here who gives a shit about the rules?
Word.
Of course they are, they are still benefiting from all that sugar today, they were able to stockpile players to prevent other clubs getting them(across all age groups) like no other club has ever done before and because of the rules now ever will, sent most out on loan to learn their trade, and made millions from sales of players they couldn't use at the time or who were too impatient for first-team football(De Bruyne, Salah et al), rinse repeat.
I think the bar of sugar daddying has been raised somewhat by City. Who have spent more than a small countries GDP over the last 5 years.
That rug really tied the room together, did it not?
Chelsea are the third biggest brand in English football at the moment. London based - that helps.
They have a solid structure in place, and will reap the benefits of investment in youth for years to come. This year has been extraordinary for them. I don't know if the young players can hold on for one full season, but if they do, they have an incredible base to build on for the next several years.
Every club needs a luck or two to become big. For Chelsea, it was Abramovich in the 2000s. Yes, people were vitriolic about it, but they've not broken the rules with FFP like City or PSG have. Your owner has the money, so you spend it. How many people would have complained if Abramovich bought United instead of Chelsea and then went on to spend far more than United's revenues? If someone does a net profit/loss stats of all Premier League clubs in the last 15 years, Chelsea wouldn't fare too badly compared with others.
They are no longer plastic to me, but a top club with the potential for self-sustenance. I don't know how many other Premier League clubs can claim of self-sustenance while being a regular in Champions League football.
They have a solid structure in place, and will reap the benefits of investment in youth for years to come. This year has been extraordinary for them. I don't know if the young players can hold on for one full season, but if they do, they have an incredible base to build on for the next several years.
Every club needs a luck or two to become big. For Chelsea, it was Abramovich in the 2000s. Yes, people were vitriolic about it, but they've not broken the rules with FFP like City or PSG have. Your owner has the money, so you spend it. How many people would have complained if Abramovich bought United instead of Chelsea and then went on to spend far more than United's revenues? If someone does a net profit/loss stats of all Premier League clubs in the last 15 years, Chelsea wouldn't fare too badly compared with others.
They are no longer plastic to me, but a top club with the potential for self-sustenance. I don't know how many other Premier League clubs can claim of self-sustenance while being a regular in Champions League football.
1 league title in 100 years before a Russian billionaire took over and then 5 in 14 years. As I said, definition of a sugar daddy club.
Everyone starts somewhere, success doesn't come like a magical creature just by chance. Success is the outcome of hard work, investment and planning.
I'm sure you understand you can't have a golden generation of academy players if you don't build the right infrastructure for them. What I really like about this group of players is their mentality, you can see they had a good education with good principles at the core of their development.
Chelsea was making a lot of progress even before the Abramovich investment, and that progress was fundamental to be able to land arguably the best "owner" in football. And if he ever sells he will most likely double his investment.
P.S. If only money counts towards success, you wouldn't be struggling for the past 6 years.
This. Of course they are, when Abramovich came they were even more out of anybodies reach than City and PSG are today. Having gotten more than 1bn from their owner and not having a bother in the world to pay it back.
We finished 4th the season before Abramovich bought us and had been in the champions league a few seasons previous. We'd also recently won the FA Cup and the Cup Winners Cup.
Of course without his investment we wouldn't have gone that final yard to becoming champions but to say we were in mid table obscurity just seems absurd. Yes RA invested huge sums of money, but that has happened countless times accross europe. Yes we are benefiting from that now still to some degree, but i challenge you to find a club that doesn't owe their success to investment at some stage.
The club is now fully self sustaining and has been for a long time, we have a world class youth academy and 5 year net spend is miniscule compared to others.
In summary, yes we were a 'sugar daddy' reliant club, that is no longer the case
Of course without his investment we wouldn't have gone that final yard to becoming champions but to say we were in mid table obscurity just seems absurd. Yes RA invested huge sums of money, but that has happened countless times accross europe. Yes we are benefiting from that now still to some degree, but i challenge you to find a club that doesn't owe their success to investment at some stage.
The club is now fully self sustaining and has been for a long time, we have a world class youth academy and 5 year net spend is miniscule compared to others.
In summary, yes we were a 'sugar daddy' reliant club, that is no longer the case
United's success came from a magical creature by chance. Chelsea were making "good progress" may be true but if it wasn't for Roman's billions you'd have less league titles than Sheffield Wednesday. The fact that the spending slowed from the first few years is the reason their dominance of the league that was evident in his first few years there went.
"In January 1902, with debts of £2,670 – equivalent to £280,000 in 2019[nb 1] – the club was served with a winding-up order.[19] Captain Harry Stafford found four local businessmen, including John Henry Davies (who became club president), each willing to invest £500 in return for a direct interest in running the club and who subsequently changed the name;[20] on 24 April 1902, Manchester United was officially born."
Your whole history (not just success) as Manchester United is thanks to four wealthy businessmen saving your arse.
"Sugar daddy club" is a very childish way of viewing capitalism applied to a football club.
Some clubs like Tottenham and Chelsea for example are owned by very rich individuals (Levy and Abramovitch can not be sacked)
Some clubs like Manchester United are owned by very rich companies (Ed can be sacked)
Some clubs like PSG and City are owned by very rich states.
All the most performing clubs in Europe are based in rich and large cities: Paris/Lyon/Marseille are the 3 biggest cities in France, several clubs based in London/Milan/Madrid, Munchen/Barcelona/Torino are dynamic or established cities at the economic level, etc. Big cities means big stadiums, more sponsors, more revenues, a stronger fan base etc.
From an investment standpoint, the only difference - in 2019 - is between PSG/City that have unlimited funds and the others.
Some clubs like Tottenham and Chelsea for example are owned by very rich individuals (Levy and Abramovitch can not be sacked)
Some clubs like Manchester United are owned by very rich companies (Ed can be sacked)
Some clubs like PSG and City are owned by very rich states.
All the most performing clubs in Europe are based in rich and large cities: Paris/Lyon/Marseille are the 3 biggest cities in France, several clubs based in London/Milan/Madrid, Munchen/Barcelona/Torino are dynamic or established cities at the economic level, etc. Big cities means big stadiums, more sponsors, more revenues, a stronger fan base etc.
From an investment standpoint, the only difference - in 2019 - is between PSG/City that have unlimited funds and the others.
I fully agree
You can use smileys all you want. Point is your success didn't come from a "magical creature" like you said it did.
It came from a magical creature I saw it with my own eyes.
Its a sort of a respect thing.
It doesn't have to be. Chelsea were better than Everton are and you haven't included Chelsea's trophies so I would say its nearly night and day anyway.
Every time it seems like we are on the verge of becoming irrelevant/fading away we bounce back and surprise people. This winds people up. Stuff like this 'but remember when' is brought up as a coping mechanism to feel better about their own teams shortcomings.
The club was saved by Roman and our success is down to him, but the model of spending has changed quite a bit from around 2015 onward. There a plenty of other PL clubs bankrolled by Billionaires trying to spend their way up the table, but the timing & already established clubs prevent them from doing anything. No different to clubs in the 20th century breaking British transfer records left & right despite not having much success.
The club was saved by Roman and our success is down to him, but the model of spending has changed quite a bit from around 2015 onward. There a plenty of other PL clubs bankrolled by Billionaires trying to spend their way up the table, but the timing & already established clubs prevent them from doing anything. No different to clubs in the 20th century breaking British transfer records left & right despite not having much success.
The law is not what it used to be around here.
Sounds like somebodies got an axe to grind.
At what point does that label become inappropriate or does it just stick forever?