Note: This article is a reply to BlueChampions’s piece on Manchester United’s spending. It’s a good article and raises some interesting points that I’ve discussed here.
Replace Chelsea with Arsenal, Liverpool or Tottenham and you’ll get the same answer – there is plenty of misinformation spinning around and sometimes Chelsea fans have no choice but to believe the spin fed to them by the media.
Before anyone gets a chance to rant about this, I just want to point out a few things:
1) BC is going to get killed for the bias 🙂
2) Jose is a master baiter – he manipulates the argument to his own purposes very well. People ARE asking Liverpool and Arsenal why they didn’t challenge for the title. People ARE asking Man Utd why they failed at San Siro or at Wembley.
And yes, there will be pressure on Man Utd and Liverpool to perform because of the buys, but you forget the pressure on Chelsea because of the expectations attached with that club – expectations they’ve built themselves.
3) If Chelsea want to be a world class club, they need to match or better Man Utd’s ambitions. So to claim on one hand that their ambitions are modest while ignoring the club’s aims is a bad case of selective memory.
4) To put Man Utd’s buying in perspective – the Glazers have more or less announced / let it be known that they are providing 25m per year for players, plus 25m extra in case there’s a special buy like we brought in Rooney. Mind you, this 25m per year plus the 25m emergency fund was planned with minimum results – 3rd place Prem, 2nd round CL, 3rd/4th round domestic cups.
AND last season United did not lose any money in the transfer market – whatever they spent on Carrick was made up by the Ruud transfer and the Obi Mikel money.
AND this summer, even with the Tevez transfer, we’re not spending 50m or 70m. The Nani and Anderson deals are staggered payments with several clauses attached to them. Tevez will be the same, either a loan or a staggered payments deal.
In all scenarios, AFTER buying Tevez United would have spend 40m. Is that a lot? Yes, of course. But United would have spent less than the two years’ transfer budget in their hands (last year’s 25m plus this year’s 25m).
5) United splurged less than Chelsea AND they now have a squad that will grow together in the long run. No need for United to spend more either.
6) Sheva’s deal was 30m+.
7) Something people don’t realise is that the business of football is one of assets. You HAVE to be in it for the long haul – 10+ years – to make real money out of it. Glazers’ aren’t going anywhere, neither are the Pool owners. Roman? I doubt he’ll leave either.
8) Issue of debts – regrettable but we’re living with it. I could similarly point out that Chelsea is going in loss and that the plan to be financially stable by 2010 is overambitious and racked with uncertainty simply because of the astronomical wages Chelsea pay their players.
There are financial concerns for both clubs – United have a fixed plan to repay that debt and it involves a long-term commitment on and off the pitch. That does NOT make the club financially unsound – the only serious point of trouble United will have is if the next coach cannot help Man Utd qualify for the Champions League. That’s a risk all top four clubs have.
I’d also advise you to read this – Chelsea and Liverpool takeovers all about the money – and read comment #2.
Overall, I seriously don’t think you should believe what the spin doctors push on your plate. Get your facts straight mate.
Add Sportslens to your Google News Feed!
