By Alex Allen
aaa
Are Chelsea really a club in turmoil, or does their perceived demise owe much to fanciful media scaremongering? Fourth in the Premiership, still involved in the FA Cup and Champions League, as a footballing force they hardly seem at death's door. In fact, their biggest public relations problem seems to be that the club has become defined as a bottomless financial pit, relentlessly ploughing the European leagues for their best players and prizing them away whether their clubs like it or not. But the days of transfer wranglings with Lyon over Michael Essien are long gone, and despite massively reducing their transfer outlays in recent seasons the stigma of fiancial gluttony has remained, jeoprodising every managerial incumbent at the club since Jose Mourinho, who, along with Claudio Ranieri, is the only manager to have really benefitted from massive transfer funds. When the team wins, journalists and fans argue that they should be given the amount of investment they have received, when they don't it is considered a massive underachievement and that money and talent should be able to overcome luck, weather, fatigue, injuries and suspensions. Perhaps the club's biggest error was giving their fans and the media the impression that their blueprint was to operate in the way which Manchester City intend to, as a rich man's toy where money is no object. I suspect that in 2003 when Roman Abramovich took control of the club that that was the plan and it was only Peter Kenyon's arrival and determination to build a legacy for the club that has derailed it and injected a sense of realism in to the project.
sss
It is the eternal dialema in a modern game dominated by foreign ownership, business versus performance. Investment in the Premier League is rife, clubs that don't have it feel like they are being left behind, cannot comprehend the financial consequences of relegation and are looking for it from any willing source - just take Newcastle United as an example. But how much do we really know about these people? How often are clubs' lured towards new ownership with dollar signs in their eyes without questioning their long term ambition and committment to the club? Kenyon is planning for Chelsea's future by trying to make ensure that if Abramovich ever grows tired of owning the club they won't be left in a mountain of debt without a leg to stand on. It's a cautious approach that may not reap many trophies in the short term, but then again, things haven't started going wrong for the foreign owned clubs yet. Take Manchester United as an example of a club living life close to the line - the owners are currently paying 80 million pounds in interest payments on the 770 million loan the Glazers' took out to finance the club in additon to any transfer outlays. Fine while the going is good and the club qualifies for the Champions League routinely, while it is generating massive sponsorship deals, merchandise revenue and gate receipts, but who can tell whether than will be sustained when Sir Alex Ferguson retires? United fans will tell you that although they would prefer the club not to be privately owned at all, at least the Glazers have stepped back, let Ferguson and Gill do their jobs and generally been good owners. Of course, it's easy to do that when you have arguably the best manager of his generation at the helm and the team is winning, who can say whether the Glazers will be any better than Roman Abramovich when Ferguson eventually retires? It is up to these twenty clubs to find some middle ground between business and performance, between caution and adventure. Each have set up their stall and have started a heated debate amongst their supporters about whether their club is on the right path. Arsenal, for example, are spending very little and making great profits on their developing stars, Vieira, Anelka, Henry, all sold on for a large profit, but one that has come at great cost on the field as they find themselves in severe danger of failing to make the top four. Which is the best approach, prudence or positivity? Only time will tell, but Kenyon and Chelsea cannot be blamed for taking steps to ensure the future of their club, however detrimental it may be to their short term success. If the club is guilty of anything it is misleading their supporters by continuing to operate in the same high 'em fire 'em style they did when money was being poured in to the team. Scolari inherited an ageing team that knew how to win in a certain way. Those players were all bought at their peak, their value was never going to increase and when Sir Alex Ferguson commented in the 2007/8 season that the team wasn't going to be able to develop he was right. Turning that squad in to a team capable of playing free flowing, attacking football was never a one season job, the players just weren't there and those that were such as Joe Cole were permanently in the treatment room. If the club wants to suceed financially and on the field then business and pleasure must pull in the same direction. Would Chelsea rather play defensively and win, or try and build something more entertaining and lose? More importantly, can they afford they to lose? Time will tell, but Peter Kenyon and Roman Abramovich appear to have different ideas about how they want Chelsea to operate, over the next season or so we will find out if there is enough common ground for them both to work together.
sss
It is the eternal dialema in a modern game dominated by foreign ownership, business versus performance. Investment in the Premier League is rife, clubs that don't have it feel like they are being left behind, cannot comprehend the financial consequences of relegation and are looking for it from any willing source - just take Newcastle United as an example. But how much do we really know about these people? How often are clubs' lured towards new ownership with dollar signs in their eyes without questioning their long term ambition and committment to the club? Kenyon is planning for Chelsea's future by trying to make ensure that if Abramovich ever grows tired of owning the club they won't be left in a mountain of debt without a leg to stand on. It's a cautious approach that may not reap many trophies in the short term, but then again, things haven't started going wrong for the foreign owned clubs yet. Take Manchester United as an example of a club living life close to the line - the owners are currently paying 80 million pounds in interest payments on the 770 million loan the Glazers' took out to finance the club in additon to any transfer outlays. Fine while the going is good and the club qualifies for the Champions League routinely, while it is generating massive sponsorship deals, merchandise revenue and gate receipts, but who can tell whether than will be sustained when Sir Alex Ferguson retires? United fans will tell you that although they would prefer the club not to be privately owned at all, at least the Glazers have stepped back, let Ferguson and Gill do their jobs and generally been good owners. Of course, it's easy to do that when you have arguably the best manager of his generation at the helm and the team is winning, who can say whether the Glazers will be any better than Roman Abramovich when Ferguson eventually retires? It is up to these twenty clubs to find some middle ground between business and performance, between caution and adventure. Each have set up their stall and have started a heated debate amongst their supporters about whether their club is on the right path. Arsenal, for example, are spending very little and making great profits on their developing stars, Vieira, Anelka, Henry, all sold on for a large profit, but one that has come at great cost on the field as they find themselves in severe danger of failing to make the top four. Which is the best approach, prudence or positivity? Only time will tell, but Kenyon and Chelsea cannot be blamed for taking steps to ensure the future of their club, however detrimental it may be to their short term success. If the club is guilty of anything it is misleading their supporters by continuing to operate in the same high 'em fire 'em style they did when money was being poured in to the team. Scolari inherited an ageing team that knew how to win in a certain way. Those players were all bought at their peak, their value was never going to increase and when Sir Alex Ferguson commented in the 2007/8 season that the team wasn't going to be able to develop he was right. Turning that squad in to a team capable of playing free flowing, attacking football was never a one season job, the players just weren't there and those that were such as Joe Cole were permanently in the treatment room. If the club wants to suceed financially and on the field then business and pleasure must pull in the same direction. Would Chelsea rather play defensively and win, or try and build something more entertaining and lose? More importantly, can they afford they to lose? Time will tell, but Peter Kenyon and Roman Abramovich appear to have different ideas about how they want Chelsea to operate, over the next season or so we will find out if there is enough common ground for them both to work together.
No comments:
Post a Comment