The answer is the same it was a decade and half back. Yes.
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.
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.
The initial spending under RA, wages and transfer fees, are unprecedented, not to mention the consequences for the other clubs in the league that were trying to finish in the top 4 while having sound finances.. When Leeds and Blackburn ignored their financial responsibilities they were punished for it, you lucked out and had a billionaire bail you out and spend record amounts in order to compete, essentially because you were located in London and had debts that meant the club was easy to purchase.
So yeah
Mental comparison
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?
Let me guess, it was a century ago so it didn't happen?
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.
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.
I get it. Chelsea and City dont count because they are the only clubs to buy success in history of english soccer apparently. Spurs and Arsenal are unlikely to win the league anytime soon. Liverpool have not since last 30 years. So Utd are the only big club to have won and "deserved" their success in last few years.
Makes total sense to me.
Makes total sense to me.
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.
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
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51017102
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.
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.
We need CL football to maintain to be a top team. And who doesn't?
Sounds about right
Don't worry, in a century's time people will think Chelsea was self funded. Because no one does history
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.
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.
Precisely.
And here you are, stuck with a pretty shite team in terms of recent performances - but what can you do?
People who genuinely become fans of a particular football team at an early age tend to stick with that team - regardless.
For some (very few on the global scale, when we're talking about the likes of Manchester United) it will be a matter of local ties. For others (also relatively few - and this category tends to blend with the former) it will be a matter of an older relative (father, most likely - other relatives in my particular case) pretty much making the choice for you. But for the huge majority of worldwide supporters it will be a very simple case of the team being successful at the right time, having multiple players of interest, being high-profile generally.
It ain't complicated. And kids don't care about particulars. And - crucially - those particulars fade away with time.
The owner has put in a 1/4 billion in the past 12 months, I thought they had stabilised but that is an eye watering amount of money to need as subsidy.
You're making this up to defend your club. Liverpool were never a sugar daddy club.