Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Can Chelsea win any silverware this season?? They just drew with United. Most likely they will lose in Old Trafford but, the real question is, can money really buy trophies? They certainly look damn strong, have possibly the best defence in Europe, leading domestically and breezed past the CL group stages.

They just signed Jarosik and I think they may land Joaquin soon, or at least one more major signing. They are a major threat and I think they might do the double.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,252 Posts
How have Real Madrid bought success?

We won the CL twice in 1998 and 2000 without a single "galactico".

We won it again in 2002 with Figo and Zidane, who we bought in seperate summers. I don't call that "buying" success, merely improving your team. Juventus bought Buffon, Nedved and Thuram in the same summer and won the league the following season, does that mean they bought success?

If Chelsea win anything this season after spending £200m in 18 months, then yes, it's clear that money can play a major role in success.

Personally, I still feel Chelsea will end up trophyless this season although they have an excellent chance to win the league. We'll see what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Chelsea vs Barca is gonna be a cracker. But if Barca played like they did vs Villareal they are goin down! :crazy:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
13,144 Posts
El Fenómeno. you say buying 2 world class players in 2 different summers not buying success? That is buying success my lad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,725 Posts
El Fenómeno. said:
How have Real Madrid bought success?

We won the CL twice in 1998 and 2000 without a single "galactico".

We won it again in 2002 with Figo and Zidane, who we bought in seperate summers. I don't call that "buying" success, merely improving your team. Juventus bought Buffon, Nedved and Thuram in the same summer and won the league the following season, does that mean they bought success?

If Chelsea win anything this season after spending £200m in 18 months, then yes, it's clear that money can play a major role in success.

Personally, I still feel Chelsea will end up trophyless this season although they have an excellent chance to win the league. We'll see what happens.
Real spent big back then (by 1997 standards) on players like Suker, Mijatovic and so on. Not to forget Anelka, Savio, Flavio Conceicao and others. But unilke many others Real sold some players too (Redondo, Makelele, Geremi, Eto'o) but so did Juve that summer (Zidane).

==> Every big team buys success.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
Money is of course very important but to say that trophies will follow automatically, that's nonsense. Just look at Inter and how much they've spend all these years but they fail to win a CL or a national championship! Money helps but you need to build a solid squad (not only galacticos) and to have a good management otherwise you will fail!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,252 Posts
Bayman said:
Real spent big back then (by 1997 standards) on players like Suker, Mijatovic and so on. Not to forget Anelka, Savio, Flavio Conceicao and others. But unilke many others Real sold some players too (Redondo, Makelele, Geremi, Eto'o) but so did Juve that summer (Zidane).

==> Every big team buys success.
Barcawinner said:
El Fenómeno. you say buying 2 world class players in 2 different summers not buying success? That is buying success my lad.
In that case, every single club in the World buys success.

Are you comparing signing Suker, Mijatovic etc to Chelsea spending £200m in 18 months?

Man Utd have spent £90m on Ferdinand, Veron and Rooney.
Juve £80m on Buffon, Thuram, Emerson, Nedved.
Milan £80m on Rui Costa, Inzaghi, Kaka, Shevchenko.

It's the same all over Europe.

All I am saying is that at least these teams bought these players step by step. Chelsea have bought over 12 new players in the space of a year!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,902 Posts
El Fenómeno. said:
Man Utd have spent £90m on Ferdinand, Veron and Rooney.
Juve £80m on Buffon, Thuram, Emerson, Nedved.
Milan £80m on Rui Costa, Inzaghi, Kaka, Shevchenko.

It's the same all over Europe.
Except with Arsenal. Our current squad cost only roughly around £55m to put together, and that's on more than eleven players. The only players we have currently who cost in excess of £10m are Henry and Reyes, and the Reyes price isn't even for certain yet. Our most expensive defender was Lauren as combined, Ashley Cole and Kolo Toure cost all of £350k - and that was all Toure. Pires was our most expensive midfielder.

I guess being 'poor' and 'nearly bankrupt' does have its perks ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,902 Posts
It is a natural thing for clubs to have to spend money in these modern times to succeed. It’s just not feasibly possible for a club to literally not spend any money on new players each transfer season and still succeed: just look at Deportivo La Coruña this season. They did not buy any new players and stuck with the same squad before, and have been found out, and thus their performances have really suffered.

With all that said, I think Chelsea have taken it to the extreme and then another level beyond that. Arsenal don’t really spend lavishly for a variety of reasons such as the new stadium at Ashburton Grove (I utterly refuse to call it Emirates Stadium) and Wenger not really being the type to open the wallets to the ridiculous level of Chelsea.

Simply put, Chelsea will have bought this success because as I’m sure some of you are aware, Chelsea were mere days away from going into administration and had a debt of something like £70,000,000 – indeed, worse off then the also troubled Leeds United. There is no feasible way that without Roman Abramovich pumping money into the club that they’d be competing with Arsenal and Manchester United, hell, maybe not even Liverpool. Chelsea may not have existed for another week if it weren’t for Roman’s buying of the club!

Yes, they have spent lavishly and have bought themselves to where they are now, but it was to be expected. I know if Arsenal were the ones Abramovich bought Wenger would’ve bought the players he’s always wanted to buy, but never could because of the tight purse strings down at N5.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,798 Posts
El Fenómeno. said:
In that case, every single club in the World buys success.

Are you comparing signing Suker, Mijatovic etc to Chelsea spending £200m in 18 months?

Man Utd have spent £90m on Ferdinand, Veron and Rooney.
Juve £80m on Buffon, Thuram, Emerson, Nedved.
Milan £80m on Rui Costa, Inzaghi, Kaka, Shevchenko.

It's the same all over Europe.

All I am saying is that at least these teams bought these players step by step. Chelsea have bought over 12 new players in the space of a year!
Transfer fees today are way inflated compared to the 90s. In 96 when Capello took over Real Madrid, he brought in Seedorf, Roberto Carlos, Mijatovic, Suker, Illgner and Panucci for approximately £20M, and Real went on to win the league (The exclusion from European competitions that season allowed RM to focus their attention on La Liga).

In today's inflated market £20m the amount required to sign a top quality player. RM paid £37m for Figo and £48m for Zidane, which is £85m on 2 players alone. Chelsea spent close to £200m due to the truckloads of players they signed for the past 18 months.

PS: Milan spent "only" £1.5m for van Basten in 1987, arguably the buy of the century.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,469 Posts
In England, Liverpool, Man United and Blackburn have bought success but Newcastle and Leeds tried and failed.
In Itlay, Milan and Juve have bought success but Inter have often tried and failed.

I suppose the best answer is Yes, usually.
 

·
Cachorro
Joined
·
18,741 Posts
Yes, money CAN buy success if it's invested wisely. Real has spent truckloads of money but they didn't invest equally on all sectors, which led to an unbalanced squad - and the results didn't come. Chelsea signed a highly-qualified manager and let HIM choose the necessary players, which is the WISE thing to do. And today they're at the top of the table, with the best defense and the 2nd best attack in the league. ;) They didn't win the league yet, but their results so far weren't produced by accident.
El Fenómeno. said:
All I am saying is that at least these teams bought these players step by step. Chelsea have bought over 12 new players in the space of a year!
"Buying" a high-class team in the space of a year, or two years, makes no difference whatsoever – the team was still built by throwing lots of money at other clubs to sign their best players. Chelsea is doing the exact same thing that Manchester, Real, Juventus and all the big Euro clubs have always done; they just did it on a greater scale and in a shorter time period. Of course, the Blues' seemingly-endless supply of money attracts resentment from fans of "more traditional" teams; but there's no difference at all between their methods of signing reinforcements. Didn't Manchester invest large amounts of money to sign Cristiano Ronaldo, Rooney and Ferdinand? Didn't Real spend generous piles of $$$ to sign Samuel and Owen from their previous teams? Makaay, Cisse, Ibrahimovic, Ronaldinho Gaucho... does anyone really believe that these players were signed by peanuts? :greed: :mute:

Really, it's funny to see fans of big Euro teams acting outraged at Chelsea's aggressive transfer campaigns... you'd think that all the other big Euro teams use only youth-squad kids. :rollani:
 

·
Xtratime's Head of Humour 2007
Joined
·
63,337 Posts
I don't think United can be put in the same category as Chelsea, United have earned all their money over the years by fantastic business plans and marketing and great sporting achievement, so it really isn't bought at all because it's been earned in the 1st place. ;)

I think buying success is more about the sugar daddies and yes it can be bought especially if you are willing to invest what Abramovich is, all these rumours about him buying up all these different clubs worldwide seems like he wants to control the whole transfer market, not only for the 1st tier players that he wants, but also to not allow his rivals to get the very good players he doesn't want.

must say it does smell a bit like he wants the monopoly on football talent, that will be the ultimate buying if it happens like that in the next years.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,469 Posts
Jern Lizardhous said:
I don't think United can be put in the same category as Chelsea, United have earned all their money over the years by fantastic business plans and marketing and great sporting achievement.
United made their money by paying asians a pittance to make replica shirts and merchandise and selling it on to their boy-band 'supporters' with a huge mark-up. For income from sporting success they cannot even rival Bayern Munchen.
Jack Walker also made Blackburns money by being a fantastic businessman, and both Blackburn and Man U bought success in exactly the same way.
 

·
Xtratime's Head of Humour 2007
Joined
·
63,337 Posts
Attila_the_Nun said:
United made their money by paying asians a pittance to make replica shirts and merchandise and selling it on to their boy-band 'supporters' with a huge mark-up. For income from sporting success they cannot even rival Bayern Munchen.
Jack Walker also made Blackburns money by being a fantastic businessman, and both Blackburn and Man U bought success in exactly the same way.
I didn't say United were ethical, but they made their money however dodgily from inside the club, same can't be said of Blackburn, although at least Jack was a lifelong fan and didn't spot the club from a helicopter and buy it only because it was dirt skint. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,845 Posts
If you have enough of it, then yes. But transfer prices are so big these days I'd say its almost impossible for any small club to "do a Blackburn" and win the league with an injection of funds.

I mean even with Chelsea, the guy has spent £200million on players, none of whom were proven world class players at the time. Of course the likes of Mutu, Duff, Carvalho were outstanding, but despite media reports, he's been unable to land a Shevchenko or a Ronaldo.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,469 Posts
Jern Lizardhous said:
I didn't say United were ethical, but they made their money however dodgily from inside the club, same can't be said of Blackburn, although at least Jack was a lifelong fan and didn't spot the club from a helicopter and buy it only because it was dirt skint. :)
And Man United are owned by people who aren't even football fans.
However Man United made their money doesn't change the fact that they are successful because they bought success, like Blackburn, Juve, Real Madrid, AC Milan have done and like Chelsea are doing now.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top