Contributing author Soupdragon2 takes a suicidal swipe at Chelsea-haters.
Is Carrick worth two-thirds of Shevchenko (18.7 million and 29 million respectively)? Is it such an exorbitant sum for the best centre forward in recent history (Henry was going to Barcelona for the same fee before he had a change of heart, and is the same age)?
Would you rather get Senna for seven million, or Ballack, a proven world class midfielder for free? (Granted the wages are different, but that reflects the quality of the players) If Ferguson is talking about Chelsea relying on ‘pensioners’, the press should call into question his decisions. Roy Keane, Ryan Giggs and Paul Scholes have all been crucial members of his team, and are all older than Ballack and Shevchenko.
What is a better deal? Chelsea selling Eidur Gudjohnsen (age 28) for eight and a half million or Man Utd selling Ruud Van Nistelrooy at the same age as Henry and Shevchenko for around ten million?
- Chelsea have spent 50m and sold just under 22m worth of players this season.
- Liverpool have spent 14m, and sold 5 million pounds worth of players.
- Manchester United have spent 21m million and sold just over 11m, after Glazer was allowed to take over the club and use it entirely as a financial pressure release (Ferguson apparently wants two more high profile signings before the window closes).
- Arsenal have spent 397m on a new stadium and Rosicky, but I am not sure of the sum they received for the sale of the land at Highbury (I assume it would only slightly recoup the loss).
The figures are pending the sale of Ashley Cole from Arsenal and the sale of Robert Huth from Chelsea.
According to the public and the press, it is a terrible threat to football to pay massive sums for assets that could guarantee a good financial balance for a football club in the long run. Spending money on players makes for entertaining football.
Agreeing to sell your valuable players (Ashley Cole, Henry and Reyes) and relying on young players is bad for the supporters and is damaging to the clubs standard of football and reputation.
I wonder which club is really looking to provide entertainment for the fans?
Is it more damaging for the English game that Chelsea are selling players at cut rates to other clubs and making and spending money at a similar ratio to other top clubs. Chelsea are bringing the best players and new sponsorship interest to our league. Man Utd and Arsenal have attempted (and in Man Utd’s case succeeded) to sell the two most prolific strikers in our league for financial gain.
Chelsea have bought young players from smaller sides such as Leeds etc, and the space devoted to the alleged tapping up stories coming from Chelsea’s bitter ex-chairman has been huge, one day had 3 pages of coverage in one tabloid paper. Arsenal allegedly taking advantage of legal loopholes with their player’s pay packages and an unusual financial relationship with a feeder club gets 2 small paragraphs 3 pages in on the same day, the next day, more Bates hate is printed on the back and inside back page.
Barcelona’s disgust at Wenger taking another young player prior to the signing of professional contracts gets 3 paragraphs and is touted as “shrewd business” rather than saying he is a “Shyster” like they quoted Bates about Chelsea.
Matt Lawton in the mail stated that a Liverpool at 50 percent beat a full Chelsea team, in direct opposition to Mourinho’s statement that Chelsea are only at 50 percent and Liverpool are ahead in their preparations for the season (The 50 percent was referring to their fitness levels, but of course as it suits the journalist’s argument, he talks about the number of first team players on the pitch without considering that Liverpool introduced all of their key players with 20 minutes to go against a tired Chelsea).
Chelsea started without 3 crucial players who were expected to start the season in the first 11, and lost another when Ballack limped off (Joe Cole, Petr Cech and Makalele).
Of course the mix ups between the John Terry and the left backs for the 2 Liverpool goals means that the press call Terry’s leadership skills into doubt the day after their favourite Steven Gerrard is ‘pipped’ at the post for the England captaincy, co-incidence? “There’s nowhere to hide” they claim.
2 comments critiquing the England setup (Gerrard was played out of position and was ‘disgusted’, and he “was angry” that Walcott went) in the World Cup from Steven Gerrard are analysed fairly and no-more is said the next day, it is just his opinion after all.
Frank Lampard makes 1 critique, in which he stated that he AND Rio Ferdinand were doing something to combat the lack of training and words from a fellow professional are widely publicised that Lampard is a “coward” for complaining and not taking the blame. Reading’s centre forward. Will anyone be calling Gerrard a coward, and if they are will the papers and websites run it as a story?
Gerrard has worse statistics since Lampard has come to the fore at Chelsea in the last 2-3 years in the premiership and in international competition. The stats did not matter then, and people were of the opinion that Lampard and Gerrard were of an equal standard. The first time Gerrard slightly out-performs Lampard (Gerrard scored 2 goals and Lampard didn’t get any) and suddenly the numbers are what counts and Gerrard should be the England captain because he’s such a hero. That would makes Gerrard the one who should be granted protection from substitution while Lampard would be likely to be dropped if there was a midfield re-shuffle, oh and what of John Terry, arguably the strongest and most influential club captain in the world?
This is not meant to be an unbiased article as such, the facts are in there, and my opinions on the facts may leave you with varying feelings about your previous Chelsea-related perceptions.
Perception relies on positive or negative focus. If the papers (aka. “The people’s voice”) focus on how much worse off the Premiership is for Chelsea’s wealth, it becomes worse off in everyone’s opinion.
Feel free to express your opinions.
*Pulls on flak jacket*