Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DisconcertingWink1)
    Basically, Chelsea are a small club with lots of money.
    Let's suppose, for example, that United, for whatever reason, lost all their wealth and plummeted down the leagues, into the Conference or a regional division. They'd still be a massive club, not only nationally but globally, because of their fantastic history, the memories and stories their name invokes. If the same were to befall Chelsea... Well, you know what the reality would be. Their recent "popularity" is based purely on one man's bank balance. There's no prestige to them whatsoever - and their fans, deep down, know it.
    I think it's a bit harsh to call us a small club tbh, yes we have a rich owner but there's not exactly any rules in football preventing us from having one, in an ideal situation we'd want to bring through a bunch of youth players & be very successful but it's unlikely that they'd all be top quality, hence having to buy some. It's not like you guys don't have money to spend either with Kroenke/Usmanov etc. It's a question of ethics at the end of the day.

    Anyway here is our list of honours before Roman came in 2003:

    Domestic

    First Division/Premier League
    (1): 1954–55
    FA Cup
    (3): 1969–70, 1996–97, 1999–2000
    Football League Cup
    (2): 1964–65, 1997–98
    FA Community Shield
    (2): 1955, 2000
    Full Members Cup
    (2): 1985–86, 1989–90

    European

    UEFA Cup Winners' Cup
    (2): 1970–71, 1997–98
    UEFA Super Cup
    (1): 1998

    Ok not as much as Arsenal but I still think we could have challenged for PLs/CLs without Roman's cash, it would just take a bit longer but the likes of Dortmund have shown that you can build a top quality team with a small budget.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multitalented me)
    I think it's a bit harsh to call us a small club tbh, yes we have a rich owner but there's not exactly any rules in football preventing us from having one, in an ideal situation we'd want to bring through a bunch of youth players & be very successful but it's unlikely that they'd all be top quality, hence having to buy some.

    Here is our list of honours before Roman came in 2003:

    Domestic

    First Division/Premier League
    (1): 1954–55
    FA Cup
    (3): 1969–70, 1996–97, 1999–2000
    Football League Cup
    (2): 1964–65, 1997–98
    FA Community Shield
    (2): 1955, 2000
    Full Members Cup
    (2): 1985–86, 1989–90

    European

    UEFA Cup Winners' Cup
    (2): 1970–71, 1997–98
    UEFA Super Cup
    (1): 1998

    Ok not as much as Arsenal but look at Liverpool's but I still think we could have challenged for PLs/CLs without Roman's cash, it would just take a bit longer but the likes of Dortmund have shown that you can build a top quality team with a small budget.
    I think it's perhaps a bit naive to think that Chelsea could challenge without Roman's cash considering they hadn't won it in god knows how long and weren't really in a position to massively increase commercial revenue (or indeed as is still the case, match day revenue).

    The German football culture is a lot different and Dortmund have long been a big, successful club with a great stadium. Mismanagement cost them in the early noughties hence the restructuring of the club with an emphasis on youth which has coincided with a German boom, hence the success on a low budget, but it's not like they don't have history, I mean they won the CL in the 90's. Chelsea's youth system circa 2003 was far off Dortmund's now, it would have taken Chelsea a lot longer to be as competitive as they are now.

    I didn't neg by the way..
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmperorMustard)
    I think it's perhaps a bit naive to think that Chelsea could challenge without Roman's cash considering they hadn't won it in god knows how long and weren't really in a position to massively increase commercial revenue (or indeed as is still the case, match day revenue).

    The German football culture is a lot different and Dortmund have long been a big, successful club with a great stadium. Mismanagement cost them in the early noughties hence the restructuring of the club with an emphasis on youth which has coincided with a German boom, hence the success on a low budget, but it's not like they don't have history, I mean they won the CL in the 90's. Chelsea's youth system circa 2003 was far off Dortmund's now, it would have taken Chelsea a lot longer to be as competitive as they are now.

    I didn't neg by the way..
    We made the CL QFs in the 99/00 season before losing to Barca in extra time we also got CL in the 02/03 season which would have given us the platform to build & get stronger even if Roman didn't come, eventually that would lead us to challenge for PL as there was only like you guys, Utd, Liverpool & Newcastle up there just before Roman came & you've seen how "big" clubs such as Liverpool have declined so it's just as conceivable for us to progress into a top quality outfit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multitalented me)
    We made the CL QFs in the 99/00 season before losing to Barca in extra time we also got CL in the 02/03 season which would have given us the platform to build & get stronger even if Roman didn't come, eventually that would lead us to challenge for PL as there was only like you guys, Utd, Liverpool & Newcastle up there just before Roman came & you've seen how "big" clubs such as Liverpool have declined so it's just as conceivable for us to progress into a top quality outfit.
    You could argue Liverpool dropped off because Chelsea changed the whole landscape with the increase in wages and transfers. But of course there are too many ifs and buts to be certain, this is all speculation. I guess going on clubs in a similar situation, Chelsea in 2003 were like Spurs now, on the edge of top 4 but never consistently so and I can't see Spurs winning the league any time soon (god forbid).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmperorMustard)
    You could argue Liverpool dropped off because Chelsea changed the whole landscape with the increase in wages and transfers. But of course there are too many ifs and buts to be certain, this is all speculation. I guess going on clubs in a similar situation, Chelsea in 2003 were like Spurs now, on the edge of top 4 but never consistently so and I can't see Spurs winning the league any time soon (god forbid).
    I very much doubt one club was the cause of Liverpool's demise tbh, & if you take away us & City then Spurs are only really behind you & Utd right now while getting closer to you guys all the time (might even finish above you this season). So eventually I could see them challenging with the CL revenue & then buying players who may might be tempted in their project or whatever, & then "hey presto" they could be challenging, even a club like Everton would probably benefit too.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DisconcertingWink1)
    Basically, Chelsea are a small club with lots of money.

    Let's suppose, for example, that United, for whatever reason, lost all their wealth and plummeted down the leagues, into the Conference or a regional division. They'd still be a massive club, not only nationally but globally, because of their fantastic history, the memories and stories their name invokes. If the same were to befall Chelsea... Well, you know what the reality would be. Their recent "popularity" is based purely on one man's bank balance. There's no prestige to them whatsoever - and their fans, deep down, know it.
    Na, CL title, super cup, 4 other major european trophies, 4 premier league titles, 8 FA cups 6 league cups will like to disagree we just need a few more league titles and you guys stay mediocre and we're a better club we could easily overtake you as a big club by 2020 at this rate that we've been under abramovich.

    I don't know if you're responding to another guy on here but the sound of this post looks absolutely pathetic, just be happy that an english club has done well, we're the only club in the past 2 years that have actually bothered keeping up the european coefficients making our league stronger otherwise germany would be quite a bit in front now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multitalented me)
    I don't one club was the cause of Liverpool's demise tbh, & if you take away us & City then Spurs are only really behind you & Utd right now while getting closer to you guys all the time (might even finish above you this season). So eventually I could see them challenging with the CL revenue & then buying players who may might be tempted in their project or whatever, & then "hey presto" they could be challenging, even a club like Everton would probably benefit too.
    I think a club like Spurs are at their peak right now unless they get a bigger stadium and make themselves more attractive for investment. Even if they finish above us this year, they lack the infrastructure to make it stick for anything more than a few years. Arsenal are on the brink of a huge influx of new money with deals that dwarf Spurs' and United are years ahead of the rest of the league in terms of commercial revenue, it's just not as easy as getting CL money. The most stable clubs, those likely to stick around in the long term, aren't reliant on CL money. United aren't, Arsenal aren't and Spurs struggled to break even even with it. I can't emphasise enough how important infrastructure is and it's something that will handicap them in years to come.

    It's worth remembering that Chelsea almost went out of business in 2002, they were in a very vulnerable position.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmperorMustard)
    You could argue Liverpool dropped off because Chelsea changed the whole landscape with the increase in wages and transfers. But of course there are too many ifs and buts to be certain, this is all speculation. I guess going on clubs in a similar situation, Chelsea in 2003 were like Spurs now, on the edge of top 4 but never consistently so and I can't see Spurs winning the league any time soon (god forbid).
    Not really, Considering the seasons they were actually above chelsea they were under united. They've only been above united once in the history of the premier league, so whatever nonsense gerrard tries to say the table doesn't lie, liverpool have come 2nd place twice and were below united both times. But hey lets just say that it was our fault that they couldn't keep almost a 10 point lead over united in 09 and decided to draw **** loads of games. Or that in the 02-03 season when we went above them that abramovich put a **** load of cash in despite us making no signings whatsoever that season. Loserpool like to make any old excuse plus anyway they sold their best players to barca and madrid respectively not to chelsea, or to city. They should blame them. By the time torres left he wasn't the same player and liverpool had regressed anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    Na, CL title, super cup, 4 other major european trophies, 4 premier league titles, 8 FA cups 6 league cups will like to disagree we just need a few more league titles and you guys stay mediocre and we're a better club we could easily overtake you as a big club by 2020 at this rate that we've been under abramovich.

    I don't know if you're responding to another guy on here but the sound of this post looks absolutely pathetic, just be happy that an english club has done well, we're the only club in the past 2 years that have actually bothered keeping up the european coefficients making our league stronger otherwise germany would be quite a bit in front now.
    Winning all of that still makes you a small club. Heres why: you current manager has helped you take your arrogant, scummy players to a place where champions league is assured next season and has won a pretty cup (however insignificant it maybe cause lets face it Europa league is not an achievement), but he's probably going to be shown the door in a few weeks. The same is going to happen a few seasons from now if not next season and when your billionaire owner decides he's had enough with the worthless trophies, he's going to find something else to play with and thats goodbye to all the players who 'loved' the club so much.

    If winning all those trophies means so much to you then all I can say is I hope the club doesn't fall too hard when R.A leaves cause I can't imagine what that would feel like. Ill take Arsenal's old school approach to winning silverware any day even if it means waiting a lifetime
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jibberish)
    Winning all of that still makes you a small club. Heres why: you current manager has helped you take your arrogant, scummy players to a place where champions league is assured next season and has won a pretty cup (however insignificant it maybe cause lets face it Europa league is not an achievement), but he's probably going to be shown the door in a few weeks. The same is going to happen a few seasons from now if not next season and when your billionaire owner decides he's had enough with the worthless trophies, he's going to find something else to play with and thats goodbye to all the players who 'loved' the club so much.

    If winning all those trophies means so much to you then all I can say is I hope the club doesn't fall too hard when R.A leaves cause I can't imagine what that would feel like. Ill take Arsenal's old school approach to winning silverware any day even if it means waiting a lifetime
    Bit in bold is jibberish. Because we sack a manager for doing a decent job we're a small club. How about real madrid for sacking heynckes in 98 when he won the champions league or how they sacked del bosque. If you can seriously call real madrid or inter a small club for going about their business in a similar way to us then I'd applaud you. However you can't, so the bit in bold is completely moot.

    Yeah, winning trophies is important. I'd like to see the club become self sustainable in the future, with a few more trophies, a higher fanbase that may be the case. This is probably one of the first cases of it's kind in the modern day(so not under your scummy henry norris who used to pay bungs and use arsenal's money to pay his chauffeur back in the 20s) that a team that has gone under serious investment has had sustained success at a global level(because lets face it two european trophies in two years, 3 prem titles and numerous FA cups and cup finals is sustained success)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmperorMustard)
    I think a club like Spurs are at their peak right now unless they get a bigger stadium and make themselves more attractive for investment. Even if they finish above us this year, they lack the infrastructure to make it stick for anything more than a few years. Arsenal are on the brink of a huge influx of new money with deals that dwarf Spurs' and United are years ahead of the rest of the league in terms of commercial revenue, it's just not as easy as getting CL money. The most stable clubs, those likely to stick around in the long term, aren't reliant on CL money. United aren't, Arsenal aren't and Spurs struggled to break even even with it. I can't emphasise enough how important infrastructure is and it's something that will handicap them in years to come.

    It's worth remembering that Chelsea almost went out of business in 2002, they were in a very vulnerable position.
    Ok so say us & City didn't have wealthy owners, do you just think you guys & Utd would dominate the PL then? Would other teams like us/Liverpool/Everton/Spurs ever break through?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    **** me the hate for us is outstanding, I agree there are many bad points about our club, but this is supposed to be an internet forum, thought people would at least have well rounded views than to let their bias cloud their judgement. The reaction on this thread just because we won a trophy is absolutely ridiculous. Football is a game. While it's a great game you got to remember that fans are people, you don't tar all people with the same brush.

    Really I could wum you guys but tbh all these people hating aren't worth my time. Sorry to those who have decent views on this forum but I get why most people on this site attack this thread and some of the people on it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multitalented me)
    Ok so say us & City didn't have wealthy owners, do you just think you guys & Utd would dominate the PL then? Would other teams like us/Liverpool/Everton/Spurs ever break through?
    No one would break through, It'll just turn into the arsenal/utd league vs the rest due to their consistency and revenue until another dortmund lookalike comes around. I'd have anything than for this to turn into the ukranian league mkII
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    Bit in bold is jibberish. Because we sack a manager for doing a decent job we're a small club. How about real madrid for sacking heynckes in 98 when he won the champions league or how they sacked del bosque. If you can seriously call real madrid or inter a small club for going about their business in a similar way to us then I'd applaud you. However you can't, so the bit in bold is completely moot.

    Yeah, winning trophies is important. I'd like to see the club become self sustainable in the future, with a few more trophies, a higher fanbase that may be the case. This is probably one of the first cases of it's kind in the modern day(so not under your scummy henry norris who used to pay bungs and use arsenal's money to pay his chauffeur back in the 20s) that a team that has gone under serious investment has had sustained success at a global level(because lets face it two european trophies in two years, 3 prem titles and numerous FA cups and cup finals is sustained success)
    Its not jibberish its just that your head is too clouded by success that you can't comprehend what I'm saying. Its not warranted success though cause the club hasn't had to go through the natural progression necessary to achieve that kind of success. Don't give me the old 'manager is not doing well so sack him' malarky. Explain Mourhino to me. Why did he leave the club even though he brought your club all those trophies? Or Di Matteo a few months after he won you the Champions League..the trophy that your owner wanted all along?!

    I love how you think being self-sustainable can be achieved through winning more trophies. Just think real hard if that is actually self-sustaining behaviour. Do you really think Abramovich gives a toss if the club becomes self-sustainable? If he did, he would try to get a longer term solution in management, build an academy for younger players and probably investment in the club to build a new stadium to accommodate your so called growing fan base
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    No one would break through, It'll just turn into the arsenal/utd league vs the rest due to their consistency and revenue until another dortmund lookalike comes around. I'd have anything than for this to turn into the ukranian league mkII
    That would be so boring lol, I guess it's somewhat a question of ethics in relation to how clubs are successful.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jibberish)
    Its not jibberish its just that your head is too clouded by success that you can't comprehend what I'm saying. Its not warranted success though cause the club hasn't had to go through the natural progression necessary to achieve that kind of success. Don't give me the old 'manager is not doing well so sack him' malarky. Explain Mourhino to me. Why did he leave the club even though he brought your club all those trophies? Or Di Matteo a few months after he won you the Champions League..the trophy that your owner wanted all along?!

    I love how you think being self-sustainable can be achieved through winning more trophies. Just think real hard if that is actually self-sustaining behaviour
    So basically, you're saying that real madrid are a small club when they have done the same thing with heynckes and del bosque? Answer me the question or don't reply to me again.

    Didn't say that solely will make us self sustainable. Don't be a smartass and make snide comments because you're not being anywhere near smart. I clearly said
    with a few more trophies, a higher fanbase that may be the case
    if we have a higher fanbase, we'd have more revenue from t shirt sales, more leverage to make sponsorship deals if more people will buy our merchandise and we'd have more money to expand or make a new stadium and our stadium will be filled for more games. I'm no economist but if you have more revenue from more and more people buying your stuff, soon you will be able to balance the books. It's as simple as that.

    It's why global companies on the whole make more money than local companies/corner shops.

    Oh and with the growing fan base comment and youth academy, does that mean that manchester city are now exempt from this, considering that they have spent a lot of money on the youth academy now. We do have some youth coming through, we're no barca/united in the 90s but you know about bertrand already and chalobah seems to be looking like a top class player. Also the fact that you have 3 youth squad players who get regular game time (sczezhny, wilshere and gibbs) when we have 2 who get regular game time(terry and bertrand) you can't be going onto us about youth academy players either.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multitalented me)
    That would be so boring lol, I guess it's somewhat a question of ethics in relation to how clubs are successful.
    I've said many a time that our club may not be the most morally correct club in how we do our business. I know people don't like me going on about FM but I don't even like playing that way in a computer game.

    It doesn't mean that you can discredit us for our victories. Considering that arsenal could do the same thing if they wanted to, it's an even ball game but they choose to be more moral than our club. As long as what we do is within the rules of the game, you cannot discredit our success. If it's the case that we spent 90 mins doing leg breaker challenges and payed the ref so we don't get carded then yeah fair enough but we win within the rules of the game.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Multitalented me)
    Ok so say us & City didn't have wealthy owners, do you just think you guys & Utd would dominate the PL then? Would other teams like us/Liverpool/Everton/Spurs ever break through?
    I don't really have the time tonight to reply to this as I would like to but briefly..

    Thing is, once you're at the top it's hard for others to catch up because of how the TV money is spread. This is how United are so successful now, because they were successful at the right time, when the money came in, the premier league boom. It's a real barrier for up and coming clubs because it's hard to compete with clubs that not only dwarf you in commercial revenue, but also get more money for finishing higher each year. It's exactly what has happened in Spain with Real Madrid and Barca. Success = money = more success = more money.

    Of course Chelsea's significant investment broke that cycle for now, and it helped them that Arsenal built a stadium at the same time they were pumping loads of money into their squad (but I'm still glad we did it then).

    Of course there are too many variables to know what would happen for sure, but bottom line is Arsenal/United were the best clubs at the time, receiving the most TV money at the time, demanding the most commercial revenue at the time (bar Liverpool for Arsenal) and with the fastest growing fan bases. It's a tough cycle to break unless another club pumps a load of money in.

    Whether it's fair or not is for another day. Do successful clubs deserve more TV money? There's the North American model of weaker teams getting better draft picks, could a similar thing be implemented here with TV money? It does create a monopoly or duopoly in my opinion but, hey, for another day
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jam277)
    So basically, you're saying that real madrid are a small club when they have done the same thing with heynckes and del bosque? Answer me the question or don't reply to me again.

    Didn't say that solely will make us self sustainable. Don't be a smartass and make snide comments because you're not being anywhere near smart. I clearly said if we have a higher fanbase, we'd have more revenue from t shirt sales, more leverage to make sponsorship deals if more people will buy our merchandise and we'd have more money to expand or make a new stadium and our stadium will be filled for more games. I'm no economist but if you have more revenue from more and more people buying your stuff, soon you will be able to balance the books. It's as simple as that.

    It's why global companies on the whole make more money than local companies/corner shops.
    Because the expectation with a manager appointed at a club like Madrid is to win trophies and achieve success..the clubs ambition. Its not the same thing that has happened at Chelsea- Di Matteo left because he didn't meet the expectation of the OWNER. Two different things.

    Selling t-shirts is not self-sustainsable ffs. Self-sustainable means developing a youth academy and re-investing profits back into the club.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmperorMustard)
    Whether it's fair or not is for another day. Do successful clubs deserve more TV money? There's the North American model of weaker teams getting better draft picks, could a similar thing be implemented here with TV money? It does create a monopoly or duopoly in my opinion but, hey, for another day
    I know it's for another day, but yeah it does, ukranian league, scottish league, spanish league, german league i.e. the bayern vs the rest league and many other leagues are a testament to that. It's basically maintaining a status quo and if you're lucky to do a dortmund and rise to prominence with a young group of local loyal(although I can't even say that with them) lads then you may be in luck to break the cycle but even then the big club will clock on and do a bayern and try to weaken your squad to compete at the top.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: August 26, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.