Karl Baxter
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 128
Saw quite a good article at the Blue Champion blog. It's from last year and makes some good points about billionaires buying clubs, comparing Manchester City, dubbed "The New Chelsea," with Chelsea.
One of the points the writer makes is that Mourinho/Abramovich got good results by preserving an English core to team. But, the writer is extremely mistaken in his belief that Chelsea is a successful model. Any team that leaks over 40 million pounds a year is clearly on the road to nowhere, no matter how much money the fat cats put in at first.
[url]http://bluechampions.com/2008/09/07/man-city-cant-do-a-chels ea-because-its-not-just-about-money/ [/url]
Man City can't do a Chelsea because it's not just about money!
by Blue Champion
September 7th, 2008
After expressing his interest to sign Ronaldo, Kaka, Buffon and Fabregas, now the Sheikh wants Essien, and Gerrard. He might want Messi and Aguero too. He might try to woo Ronaldinho as well. What about Maradona and Pele? How about tempting them back from retirement? Is there something essentially different between the Chelsea project and the club who are now called as the "new Chelsea"?
"To put an offer of 42 million pounds on the table for a player from Madrid...Well! The message is a warning to Roman Abramovich. We are the new Chelsea. Let's put them in the shade." - That's what their new defender Javier Garrido said after Robinho's signing. Even the press loves calling them the "New Chelsea". That's basically wrong because people think it's all about money. Football history has shown us that the terms rich and poor are not synonymous with success and failure respectively.
Roman is a pioneer in everything he's done. He's earned his wealth from humble beginnings. Mostly, he knows what he's doing. And if other billionaires think they can copy the Chelsea model and achieve success like we did, I'd like to tell them, they've seen only the brighter side of things. There's a lot of efforts and hard work, planning and vision, and some very very efficient personnel behind all this. I'm not suggesting Man City's new owners don't have the brains but saying that they only sound so.
First of all, it is incorrect to call Man City the new Chelsea. The only similarities are that they have foreign billionaire owners and they are not afraid to spend money. Chelsea is a brilliant project where a lot of things fell in place, certainly not by chance or luck, but by planning and vision. It is not that easily copyable as it looks.
When Roman bought Chelsea, he splashed the cash no doubt, but certainly not on the best eleven players in the world. Jose had a certain list of players that he wanted in Chelsea and Roman got them for him. For all the transfers, JM had decided that he will maintain the English core of the team - Terry, Lampard, Joe Cole and he appointed Terry the captain and Lampard his deputy. He always believed that for a team to have sustained success in any league, the home nation players play a very important role. That was a smart decision. I'm very curious to see which Man City players who existed pre-Sheikhs will still find a place in the team next season.
Take a look at the players that we had or bought in 2004-05, they did not together make the world team of the year. Edge of Roman's money was used to keep the competition away and also to force the selling club so that we could get the players on board with no delay.
When we won the first title under Roman/Jose, we had a bunch of good players, committed to ambition, lead by a great coach supported by passionate owner. These are all very important ingredients of success. Only after a couple of league titles and better champions league finishes, we started attracting the best names in business.
The historic day when we beat Bolton to win the first premier league title under Roman/Jose, this was the team. First eleven: Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Gallas, Geremi, Tiago, Makelele, Lampard, Jarosik, Gudjohnsen, Drogba. Bench: Cudicini, Huth, Smertin, Joe Cole, Kezman. These are not the same as Kaka, Ronaldo, Fabregas, van Nistelrooy, Essien, Gerrard of today. How many of our 04-05 title winning players would have made the team of the year at the beginning of the season 04-05? These are good players, some very good, who improved and grew with Chelsea. They were not superstars when they arrived at Chelsea then.
Just because some players were bought at inflated prices do not mean they do justice to their price. Even if I buy Eboue at 100 million pounds, he'd still be Eboue. He can't play like a 1 million pound player, leave alone 100m pounds. So what I'm trying to say is players have two types of values - a fair value and a market value. We bought SWP for 21m pounds which the market value was 21m pounds, because we paid so much but his fair value must have been 8 - 10m pounds. You'll need to add a premium to the fair value to arrive at the market value. The premium could comprise certain factors such as (i) the extent of willingness of the club to sell that player (ii) the extent of willingness of the player to move (iii) the desparation of the buying club (iv) the competition to buy the player.
In that sense, the fair value of the team was in fact only about half the market value. So basically, we had a team of good players, who were coached by Jose Mourinho to glory. If we were to turn back time to the beginning of the 04-05 season and were to bet on premier league winners, how many would have given any chance to Chelsea at that time? So it was not all about money. If it's all about money, Man City will win the premier league next season before they win the champions league too. In June 2004, when Jose Mourinho was just hired, Times wrote this about Chelsea, in their season preview for 04-05:
Still there is one vital ingredient missing, and it is one that cannot be bought. They need time on the grass together. Only the experience of training and playing with one another over a lengthy period will turn an ensemble of talented individuals into a cohesive team, and for that reason it is difficult to see Chelsea winning the League this time.
We won the league. We lost just one match out of 38, which was due to a dodgy penalty. We amassed 95 points, which is still the British record in more than 100 years of football (even if you convert those old two-point wins to three). The goal difference was 57. To put it in perspective, Man Utd's goal difference in 06-07 and 07-08 were 56 and 58 respectively. After winning the title in 04-05, Peter Kenyon said this:
Whatever they get this season is not about money, it's about a lot of players who have improved. The old players we've got are better than they were 12 months ago and that is about their personal development and coaching. It was never the plan to just sign everyone and anyone, but I can understand why people thought that.
That's exactly my point too. We did not have this plan of signing everyone on sight. There was a reason why players were bought. Some players were not even one of the best three players in their position in England. A lot happened on the personal development and coaching side as Kenyon states. The work that is required in terms of team work, ambition, spirit, attitude, ethics and discipline of the players, is immense. Otherwise, it is quite easy to get those little quarrels, ego clashes, 'not-getting-alongs' inside the camp. And these things will have a direct bearing on the pitch.
What Sheikh seems to be trying is to get the best eleven players and make them play for mighty Man City. That's certainly not the smartest thing to do. Normally it takes time to assemble the galacticos in one place and then fail. But Man City might do it in record time. What could be the problem of having a team of Buffon, Kaka, Ronaldo, Fabregas, Essien, Gerrard etc? With so many strong personalities, someone stronger than all of them should be managing it. There are handful of managers who can do that job well. In the premier league, I could think of only one name and may be the rest I can count with my fingers, on one hand. Mark Hughes is a good manager but he himself would be making a big leap if he were to train Kaka and Ronaldo in place of Elano and Jo.
Before the Sheikh spend a billion on setting up his team, there's this little of matter the players willing to make the move. Yes, Robinho signed for them but he was left with no choice. He badly wanted to leave Real Madrid (believe it, he was paid less than Drenthe) and Man City's offer was the only one accepted by Madrid. His heart may not be with Man City but if reports are to be believed he is certainly not regretting joining Man City. Do you have any idea about how much he gets per week at Man City? Hold your breath, it is 160,000 pounds. So that's two british records broken in one day. The most expensive players in British football gets the highest ever wages.
Assume for a moment that Robinho's relationship with Real Madrid was good and he was paid and respected to his satisfaction. Do you think Madrid would have sold him or Robinho would have moved from the club of the century to the club of this transfer window? None of the European powers would sell their players who are key to their plans. But the thing not all the best players are in the top European clubs. Man City now has enough money to buy every player they want by paying their release clause fee. Say, if Aguero's release clause says a fee of £100 million, if Sheikh drops the cash bag at Atletico, it would be too big a fortune for Atletico to reject. Aguero could be very upset but a 300,000 pounds a week contract to make up his disappointment a bit.
What happens when you start 'collecting' the best players for your team is, you lose sight of your plans on the pitch which are overshadowed by the global plans. Sheikh wants to get big names, get noticed and recognised, and shoot up to sky at one go. Also you become the centre of attraction, butt of every joke, and also the common enemy in the world of football. You'll be subject to much ridicule from the press even if you draw one match. The pressure would be so much that if they don't win titles, someone has to take the blame and in most cases it has to be the manager. It could all come tumbling down a bit too early.
Back to where it started, I don't see Essien going to Man City or anywhere else. He is quite happy here. We're happy with him too. He has a big role to play in our ambition. To quote the cliche, "he is the engine of our team" and we would retain him at any cost. I think Essien loves it here at Chelsea. He is very much part of the Chelsea family and he would love to be so in future too. So, let's put this to bed.
Man City can't do a Chelsea because it's not just about money. Also what Man City does now is certainly not what Chelsea did. If someone doesn't see the difference, it shows he/she does not read beyond the headlines. Finally, there is only one Chelsea and there is absolutely no such thing called "new Chelsea".
One of the points the writer makes is that Mourinho/Abramovich got good results by preserving an English core to team. But, the writer is extremely mistaken in his belief that Chelsea is a successful model. Any team that leaks over 40 million pounds a year is clearly on the road to nowhere, no matter how much money the fat cats put in at first.
[url]http://bluechampions.com/2008/09/07/man-city-cant-do-a-chels ea-because-its-not-just-about-money/ [/url]
Man City can't do a Chelsea because it's not just about money!
by Blue Champion
September 7th, 2008
After expressing his interest to sign Ronaldo, Kaka, Buffon and Fabregas, now the Sheikh wants Essien, and Gerrard. He might want Messi and Aguero too. He might try to woo Ronaldinho as well. What about Maradona and Pele? How about tempting them back from retirement? Is there something essentially different between the Chelsea project and the club who are now called as the "new Chelsea"?
"To put an offer of 42 million pounds on the table for a player from Madrid...Well! The message is a warning to Roman Abramovich. We are the new Chelsea. Let's put them in the shade." - That's what their new defender Javier Garrido said after Robinho's signing. Even the press loves calling them the "New Chelsea". That's basically wrong because people think it's all about money. Football history has shown us that the terms rich and poor are not synonymous with success and failure respectively.
Roman is a pioneer in everything he's done. He's earned his wealth from humble beginnings. Mostly, he knows what he's doing. And if other billionaires think they can copy the Chelsea model and achieve success like we did, I'd like to tell them, they've seen only the brighter side of things. There's a lot of efforts and hard work, planning and vision, and some very very efficient personnel behind all this. I'm not suggesting Man City's new owners don't have the brains but saying that they only sound so.
First of all, it is incorrect to call Man City the new Chelsea. The only similarities are that they have foreign billionaire owners and they are not afraid to spend money. Chelsea is a brilliant project where a lot of things fell in place, certainly not by chance or luck, but by planning and vision. It is not that easily copyable as it looks.
When Roman bought Chelsea, he splashed the cash no doubt, but certainly not on the best eleven players in the world. Jose had a certain list of players that he wanted in Chelsea and Roman got them for him. For all the transfers, JM had decided that he will maintain the English core of the team - Terry, Lampard, Joe Cole and he appointed Terry the captain and Lampard his deputy. He always believed that for a team to have sustained success in any league, the home nation players play a very important role. That was a smart decision. I'm very curious to see which Man City players who existed pre-Sheikhs will still find a place in the team next season.
Take a look at the players that we had or bought in 2004-05, they did not together make the world team of the year. Edge of Roman's money was used to keep the competition away and also to force the selling club so that we could get the players on board with no delay.
When we won the first title under Roman/Jose, we had a bunch of good players, committed to ambition, lead by a great coach supported by passionate owner. These are all very important ingredients of success. Only after a couple of league titles and better champions league finishes, we started attracting the best names in business.
The historic day when we beat Bolton to win the first premier league title under Roman/Jose, this was the team. First eleven: Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Gallas, Geremi, Tiago, Makelele, Lampard, Jarosik, Gudjohnsen, Drogba. Bench: Cudicini, Huth, Smertin, Joe Cole, Kezman. These are not the same as Kaka, Ronaldo, Fabregas, van Nistelrooy, Essien, Gerrard of today. How many of our 04-05 title winning players would have made the team of the year at the beginning of the season 04-05? These are good players, some very good, who improved and grew with Chelsea. They were not superstars when they arrived at Chelsea then.
Just because some players were bought at inflated prices do not mean they do justice to their price. Even if I buy Eboue at 100 million pounds, he'd still be Eboue. He can't play like a 1 million pound player, leave alone 100m pounds. So what I'm trying to say is players have two types of values - a fair value and a market value. We bought SWP for 21m pounds which the market value was 21m pounds, because we paid so much but his fair value must have been 8 - 10m pounds. You'll need to add a premium to the fair value to arrive at the market value. The premium could comprise certain factors such as (i) the extent of willingness of the club to sell that player (ii) the extent of willingness of the player to move (iii) the desparation of the buying club (iv) the competition to buy the player.
In that sense, the fair value of the team was in fact only about half the market value. So basically, we had a team of good players, who were coached by Jose Mourinho to glory. If we were to turn back time to the beginning of the 04-05 season and were to bet on premier league winners, how many would have given any chance to Chelsea at that time? So it was not all about money. If it's all about money, Man City will win the premier league next season before they win the champions league too. In June 2004, when Jose Mourinho was just hired, Times wrote this about Chelsea, in their season preview for 04-05:
Still there is one vital ingredient missing, and it is one that cannot be bought. They need time on the grass together. Only the experience of training and playing with one another over a lengthy period will turn an ensemble of talented individuals into a cohesive team, and for that reason it is difficult to see Chelsea winning the League this time.
We won the league. We lost just one match out of 38, which was due to a dodgy penalty. We amassed 95 points, which is still the British record in more than 100 years of football (even if you convert those old two-point wins to three). The goal difference was 57. To put it in perspective, Man Utd's goal difference in 06-07 and 07-08 were 56 and 58 respectively. After winning the title in 04-05, Peter Kenyon said this:
Whatever they get this season is not about money, it's about a lot of players who have improved. The old players we've got are better than they were 12 months ago and that is about their personal development and coaching. It was never the plan to just sign everyone and anyone, but I can understand why people thought that.
That's exactly my point too. We did not have this plan of signing everyone on sight. There was a reason why players were bought. Some players were not even one of the best three players in their position in England. A lot happened on the personal development and coaching side as Kenyon states. The work that is required in terms of team work, ambition, spirit, attitude, ethics and discipline of the players, is immense. Otherwise, it is quite easy to get those little quarrels, ego clashes, 'not-getting-alongs' inside the camp. And these things will have a direct bearing on the pitch.
What Sheikh seems to be trying is to get the best eleven players and make them play for mighty Man City. That's certainly not the smartest thing to do. Normally it takes time to assemble the galacticos in one place and then fail. But Man City might do it in record time. What could be the problem of having a team of Buffon, Kaka, Ronaldo, Fabregas, Essien, Gerrard etc? With so many strong personalities, someone stronger than all of them should be managing it. There are handful of managers who can do that job well. In the premier league, I could think of only one name and may be the rest I can count with my fingers, on one hand. Mark Hughes is a good manager but he himself would be making a big leap if he were to train Kaka and Ronaldo in place of Elano and Jo.
Before the Sheikh spend a billion on setting up his team, there's this little of matter the players willing to make the move. Yes, Robinho signed for them but he was left with no choice. He badly wanted to leave Real Madrid (believe it, he was paid less than Drenthe) and Man City's offer was the only one accepted by Madrid. His heart may not be with Man City but if reports are to be believed he is certainly not regretting joining Man City. Do you have any idea about how much he gets per week at Man City? Hold your breath, it is 160,000 pounds. So that's two british records broken in one day. The most expensive players in British football gets the highest ever wages.
Assume for a moment that Robinho's relationship with Real Madrid was good and he was paid and respected to his satisfaction. Do you think Madrid would have sold him or Robinho would have moved from the club of the century to the club of this transfer window? None of the European powers would sell their players who are key to their plans. But the thing not all the best players are in the top European clubs. Man City now has enough money to buy every player they want by paying their release clause fee. Say, if Aguero's release clause says a fee of £100 million, if Sheikh drops the cash bag at Atletico, it would be too big a fortune for Atletico to reject. Aguero could be very upset but a 300,000 pounds a week contract to make up his disappointment a bit.
What happens when you start 'collecting' the best players for your team is, you lose sight of your plans on the pitch which are overshadowed by the global plans. Sheikh wants to get big names, get noticed and recognised, and shoot up to sky at one go. Also you become the centre of attraction, butt of every joke, and also the common enemy in the world of football. You'll be subject to much ridicule from the press even if you draw one match. The pressure would be so much that if they don't win titles, someone has to take the blame and in most cases it has to be the manager. It could all come tumbling down a bit too early.
Back to where it started, I don't see Essien going to Man City or anywhere else. He is quite happy here. We're happy with him too. He has a big role to play in our ambition. To quote the cliche, "he is the engine of our team" and we would retain him at any cost. I think Essien loves it here at Chelsea. He is very much part of the Chelsea family and he would love to be so in future too. So, let's put this to bed.
Man City can't do a Chelsea because it's not just about money. Also what Man City does now is certainly not what Chelsea did. If someone doesn't see the difference, it shows he/she does not read beyond the headlines. Finally, there is only one Chelsea and there is absolutely no such thing called "new Chelsea".
