VidaRed
Unimaginative FC
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 29,612
The answer is the same it was a decade and half back. Yes.
Your finances were shit and you were about to do a Leeds, you had a £75mill eurobond and you were unlikely to be able to make the July payment. That's just the start. The timing also meant that you avoided selling the likes of Terry and Lampard, the few players that could generate some much needed cash at the time. In terms of what would've happened if RA didn't purchase the club, it's difficult to say, but it's highly unlikely you would've found someone interested in spending anything even remotely close to what RA has done so far.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
Mental comparison"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.
Why?Mental comparison
Let me guess, it was a century ago so it didn't happen?Mental comparison
The drawn comparison is between a club that was bailed out, like a lot of other clubs, at a time where stable income barely existed and clubs were barely organized, there were barely any leagues, and then more or less having to survive on it's own income, to Chelsea being bailed out in modern day football and being financed during an unprecedented spending spree that lasted for years, spending power miles beyond something the club could ever finance on their own, where wages alone ate up almost all the income.Why?
In years gone buy Utd were a so called sugar daddy club and at some point Utd fans have decided that label just isn't right.
What Chelsea fans are saying is that 15 years after Abramovich arrived and after many years of complying with FFP they too are no longer a sugar daddy club. At what point is the label no longer appropriate. 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 117 years? How do you decide when that time comes? When the club is self sufficient or maybe some arbitrary timescale set by fans of other clubs?
The club has been self sufficient for approximately 10 years and are now in a position to incorporate 4 youth players into a Champions League match without relying on any transfer fees at all. Through hard work and prudent management the club is now worth more than Abramovich's initial investment and he would make a profit if he sold. Are you suggesting that even if he took all of his money out of the club they would still be a SDC or perhaps he would he have to die for that to not happen?
Your guessing is as good as your comparisons, have you by any chance been taking lessons from City supporters comparing ownerships ?Let me guess, it was a century ago so it didn't happen?
You can spin it whatever way you like but the facts are you needed 4 sugar daddies to merely exist.Your guessing is as good as your comparisons, have you by any chance been taking lessons from City supporters comparing ownerships ?
You can spin it whatever way you like but the facts are you needed 4 sugar daddies to merely exist.
Not that I hold that against you or think you're a lesser club because of that, i just find the hypocrisy on show quite amusing.
Never? Those who use that label could argue that any success the club has subsequent to Roman's exuberant initial spending is a result of that spending, even after Roman leaves. The logic being; no Roman oil money -> no top top players with top top wages -> no regular titles and CL participation -> no top top sponsorship deals -> no top top players with top top wages -> ad infinitum.What Chelsea fans are saying is that 15 years after Abramovich arrived and after many years of complying with FFP they too are no longer a sugar daddy club. At what point is the label no longer appropriate.
That article is just lazy journalism. You can't compare the money he put into the Club, which was most likely related to the stadium development and similar matters, with the money that goes into the transfers, wages, etc.Thought I would bump this thread after so many people tried to make out Chelsea don't need Abramovich anymore:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51017102
Regardless Abramovich put in nearly a quarter of billion pounds in one season.That article is just lazy journalism. You can't compare the money he put into the Club, which was most likely related to the stadium development and similar matters, with the money that goes into the transfers, wages, etc.
We need CL football to maintain to be a top team. And who doesn't?Regardless Abramovich put in nearly a quarter of billion pounds in one season.
The club made a £96.6m loss.
It's clear you still need him to stay a float.
Sounds about rightLet me guess, it was a century ago so it didn't happen?
Very true - over time, at least.Because no one does history
TBF I don't blame him.Very true - over time, at least.
The taint of being a sugar daddy club is already wearing off for Chelsea - which is entirely predictable. The next generation of supporters is - always - what matters. This goes for individual players as well as for clubs (my generation isn't convinced Messi is the absolute GOAT, nevermind Ronaldo - and will remember that Chelsea emerged as a powerhouse due to unprecedented spending over a short period of time - but we've been overrun already).
A kid who became a Chelsea supporter during the early Roman/Mourinho era will remain a Chelsea supporter - and there are millions of those worldwide.
My nephew turns seven this year - he's a City fan, loves Pep, loves De Bruyne and Aguero. Sportswashing means feck all to him.
Precisely.TBF I don't blame him.
2 Decades ago I fall in love with the richest, the biggest, the best, the luckiest team in England with their CO 92.
You're making this up to defend your club. Liverpool were never a sugar daddy club.To be having this sort of conversation you'd have to bring in old timers, too. You can't have people that have not lived through the 70s and 80s to be dissecting this matter. By living those time I mean to have actually been going to football matches and so on, it would have to be people in their mid 50s now, early 60s. How many are in here? Don't think that much to be fair.
Genuine question though? Do you think Liverpool was winning so much back then being on par with the others? Do you think their budget was the same as Chelsea's? Salary wise, transfer wise etc? You'd have to be a fool and born post 1990 to think Chelsea was not massively represented in England. What Liverpool and others had back than was a powerful backing, something you see now with City, PSG, Chelsea etc. There was always a wealthy family/business/figure behind every successful project. Always.
'Plastic', 'Oil money' etc. Terms used by kids that have only watched football post 2000. Ask you grandfathers they will tell you it's a normal thing for winning teams to be the wealthiest around, Liverpool did not operate on peanuts money in the 70s and the 80s, nor was United during their glory days, they were a different animal from the others in terms of money spent on transfers and contracts.
Stop fooling yourselves Liverpool and United went from average spending to being wealthy just by having a good fan base and global recognition. It's a foolish thing to do, better ask your old pals and then maybe all the bs would stop.