Chelsea Extravaganza

Link : http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=736663&sec=england&cc=5901

Roman Abramovich will authorise a £200 million summer transfer extravaganza to land the world's best young talent to refresh an aging squad.

According to the article, that includes a 200 million injection into the club, 100 million towards wages over 5 years, and 100 million towards transfer fee's.

Should be interesting to see what happens.

Link : http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=736663&sec=england&cc=5901

Roman Abramovich will authorise a £200 million summer transfer extravaganza to land the world's best young talent to refresh an aging squad.

According to the article, that includes a 200 million injection into the club, 100 million towards wages over 5 years, and 100 million towards transfer fee's.

Should be interesting to see what happens.

Fifa need to bring fair play back into football & quickly, this is getting stupid now.

Fifa need to bring fair play back into football & quickly, this is getting stupid now.

Yeah......For us (man utd), the future is completely uncertain. Unless some super - mega rich sheikh buys us and clear's our debt (thanx again to the glazer's) then I dont think Manchester United has much of a future........lucky man city and chelsea....

If I'm right there will be introduced a "Spend what you earn" policy in 2012. That would stop sprees like this.

If I'm right there will be introduced a "Spend what you earn" policy in 2012. That would stop sprees like this.

And solidify the squads that have already spent loads (like, say, Chelsea) at the top. Which would be why Chelsea's owner was one of the backers of the idea.

In a few years the Premier League will just boil down to who can spend more, Man City or Chelsea?

And solidify the squads that have already spent loads (like, say, Chelsea) at the top. Which would be why Chelsea's owner was one of the backers of the idea.

That may be true. But a private fortune wouldn't count as "money earned". I get the whole "spend before the lockdown" thing, though. Chelsea and City are the rood-boys there..

But in future windows, this won't matter, as the already bought players will age, and the teams who base their progress on their current fortune will be unable to spend their money, ergo won't be able apply the same finacial tactics as they are today. Teams topping the sponsor list however, will be in the top flight.

Would just like to point out that that article is written by who is pretty much a complete idiot, who always writes these sorts of speculative transfer stories, then absolutely none of them happen.

The 'spend what you earn' policy is no better than what exists now. It just gives a further advantage to clubs like MUFC who bring in loads of revenue.

The 'spend what you earn' policy is no better than what exists now. It just gives a further advantage to clubs like MUFC who bring in loads of revenue.

Even if Chelsea & Man City solidify their squads they would never be able to afford the wages by their own means, meaning they could never spend a penny

In a few years the Premier League will just boil down to who can spend more, Man City or Chelsea?

This. And its pretty clear its starting to happen already. So far, only one club literally breeds players and that is Arsenal. The rest buy thier players. Im a big fan of either breeding players, or spending low on quality players.

This is why I like the A-League. I live in Australia and the salary cap, while Im not a big fan of it, stops clubs from spending too much money and everybody is in with a shot as they all can spend the same amount of money. Only the marquee player is payed out of the cap.

You'll see alot of shenanigans about the transfer price of imports. Man Utd will claim they sold player X to Spanish Club Y for 12 million when it was really only 6. They'll give the club an extra million to go along with the ploy.

Highly doubt it's true. The papers right crazy stuff all the time

The 'spend what you earn' policy is no better than what exists now. It just gives a further advantage to clubs like MUFC who bring in loads of revenue.

That's the whole point! Having a big stadium and big sponsor deals is something you earn, while a rich chairman can be seen as "cheap money" IMO. Especially when it comes to clubs suddenly spending like City and Chelsea, who have extremely rich chairmen who pump money into the club.

The "spend what you earn" policy will

1. Stop teams from collecting bench-warmers, which will improve the leauge quality as players will be guaranteed first team appearances in lesser clubs

2. Force teams to actually sell players, instead of relying on their rich chairmen for money (again, Chelsea and City)

and

3. Avoiding rich teams creating so called "super teams", which will make sure the league is more fair, providing more competitive and interesting football.

That's the whole point! Having a big stadium and big sponsor deals is something you earn, while a rich chairman can be seen as "cheap money" IMO. Especially when it comes to clubs suddenly spending like City and Chelsea, who have extremely rich chairmen who pump money into the club.

The "spend what you earn" policy will

1. Stop teams from collecting bench-warmers, which will improve the leauge quality as players will be guaranteed first team appearances in lesser clubs

2. Force teams to actually sell players, instead of relying on their rich chairmen for money (again, Chelsea and City)

and

3. Avoiding rich teams creating so called "super teams", which will make sure the league is more fair, providing more competitive and interesting football.

Like I said.. The loophole around this is lying about the transfer price to foreign clubs who aren't bound under such a silly rule.

Man Utd sells Rooney to Real for 70m, they pay Real off to claim it was actually 90m

Man Utd buys Messi for 90m, they pay Barca off to claim it was actually 70m.

Man Utd weasles the system to gain 40m edge.

That's the whole point! Having a big stadium and big sponsor deals is something you earn, while a rich chairman can be seen as "cheap money" IMO. Especially when it comes to clubs suddenly spending like City and Chelsea, who have extremely rich chairmen who pump money into the club.

The "spend what you earn" policy will

1. Stop teams from collecting bench-warmers, which will improve the leauge quality as players will be guaranteed first team appearances in lesser clubs

2. Force teams to actually sell players, instead of relying on their rich chairmen for money (again, Chelsea and City)

and

3. Avoiding rich teams creating so called "super teams", which will make sure the league is more fair, providing more competitive and interesting football.

Right but it would impose unfair limits on teams. Chelsea and Man City will never approach the level of support that United have. It was build for decades, and if a spending policy like that is incorporated then it will stay that way.

If a spending limit were to be imposed, then it must be a flat cap that is equal for all teams regardless of their revenue. Similar to the salary cap in the MLS or A-league, albeit at a much higher ceiling.

Of course not every team would be able to approach the cap, but at least there wouldn't be United at the top raking in more cash than anyone else and nobody else allowed to even come close in spending limits.

Like I said.. The loophole around this is lying about the transfer price to foreign clubs who aren't bound under such a silly rule.

Man Utd sells Rooney to Real for 70m, they pay Real off to claim it was actually 90m

Man Utd buys Messi for 90m, they pay Barca off to claim it was actually 70m.

Man Utd weasles the system to gain 40m edge.

There are lawyers presents, a lot of official documents, etc. It's not that easy to just "get" 40m

Though I personally am a chelsea fan and am looking forward of the prospect of Aguero and or Ribery and i may be biased, you guys are forgetting one MAJOR thing about football.

Money doesn't win you trophies on its own, there is A LOT more to it than that. Chelsea might be getting an injection, though it only totals 100million of transfer, and 500k a week of wage budget. Not to mention that chelsea was invisible in both transfer markets *apart of zhirkov*, and money sort of stacks up, making the injection really 50 million to what they originally had, and that would most definately include the money they receive from the league which will total around 20 million if they win.

I think by watching teams such as Barcelona, Arsenal, Manchester Utd and even Chelsea. We realize that money is only a small part of success. If this was not true, Manchester City would be 1st and Real Madrid would dominate everything, Valencia would be dead last, etc.

I honestly don't think the league is "Broken" as you may say. There is only ONE solution to this problem, if you really do consider it being a problem, and its by adapting the Spanish League rules, where you can have only 5 or 6 foreign EU players in your league. This encourages home-grown players and even encouraging the players to remain in the league rather than going abroad.

Though I personally am a chelsea fan and am looking forward of the prospect of Aguero and or Ribery and i may be biased, you guys are forgetting one MAJOR thing about football.

Money doesn't win you trophies on its own, there is A LOT more to it than that. Chelsea might be getting an injection, though it only totals 100million of transfer, and 500k a week of wage budget. Not to mention that chelsea was invisible in both transfer markets *apart of zhirkov*, and money sort of stacks up, making the injection really 50 million to what they originally had, and that would most definately include the money they receive from the league which will total around 20 million if they win.

I think by watching teams such as Barcelona, Arsenal, Manchester Utd and even Chelsea. We realize that money is only a small part of success. If this was not true, Manchester City would be 1st and Real Madrid would dominate everything, Valencia would be dead last, etc.

I honestly don't think the league is "Broken" as you may say. There is only ONE solution to this problem, if you really do consider it being a problem, and its by adapting the Spanish League rules, where you can have only 5 or 6 foreign EU players in your league. This encourages home-grown players and even encouraging the players to remain in the league rather than going abroad.

Chelsea didn't originally have any money though it's a club that runs at a massive loss.

Not a single quote in that article, and there's been numerous discussions about how Chelsea are allegedly going to sign Aguero and Ribery for a looong time now. Nothing has come from it. This is just like any other speculation article that's full of it.

There are lawyers presents, a lot of official documents, etc. It's not that easy to just "get" 40m

Do I really need to go dig up all the transfer scandals that have taken place over the past decade?

thank god for their sugar daddy.

...and yes, the article is just a pile of speculation, though the money figures are not surprising so those might hold up, but i have doubts on them being able to even get a hold of ribery, and aguero seems like a mission at this moment and i think we all know Abrom. won't want to make another mistake as he did with Shevchenko, so i also doubt they'll get aguero unless Atl. Madrid will agree to a reasonable price.

But it does give them a lot of other options people seem to be overlooking, those two arn't the only world-class players out there but its just about a certainty that there will be at least 1 striker coming in to join the blue army soon.

Not a single quote in that article, and there's been numerous discussions about how Chelsea are allegedly going to sign Aguero and Ribery for a looong time now. Nothing has come from it. This is just like any other speculation article that's full of it.

I concur. It's the same with Valencia, only the opposite; They're always supposedly in financial trouble which gives the media an excuse to post BS stories about all their good players leaving. It's just some journalists playing fantasy manager with real players. Pathetic

I concur. It's the same with Valencia, only the opposite; They're always supposedly in financial trouble which gives the media an excuse to post BS stories about all their good players leaving. It's just some journalists playing fantasy manager with real players. Pathetic

I keep hearing those yet the expansion or their new stadium has continued construction a couple months ago, and that no cheap task.

Would a salary cap work in Europe if it was set across all UEFA countries? I have seen it work across a couple of sports here in Australia but I can see it not working correctly because of different economies in Europe. It would need to be the same across all countries and rather large (say US$100m) to cover teams like Barcelona and Real Madrid then again it could be much lower to force lower contracts of players and more player movement and much more even teams

So far, only one club literally breeds players and that is Arsenal. The rest buy thier players. Im a big fan of either breeding players, or spending low on quality players.

This is why I like the A-League. I live in Australia and the salary cap, while Im not a big fan of it, stops clubs from spending too much money and everybody is in with a shot as they all can spend the same amount of money. Only the marquee player is payed out of the cap.

Arsenal have pretty much bought just about every youngster they have. I cant really think of too many in there team at the moment who have came through the ranks of Arsenal. walcott, Ramsey and even Fabregas were all bought from other clubs. I am not a fam though so i am sure somebofy will no doubt point out a few that have.

Also the Salary cap is something that i dont see making a lot of difference in Australia (i live in Brisbane). Pretty much Melbourne have dominated the league in recent years and Sydney still seem to be able to attract all the other clubs better players. Another point against it is that all the really good players end having to be sold to Japan, Korea and the other Asian leagues as the clubs cant afford to keep them thus keeping the level of the league at a poor level.

Should be in the Off Topic forum.

Should be in the Off Topic forum.

We know that.

If a mod comes by, we can argue that we're talking about how it would fit into the game, and whether or not SI would add it, okay?

You can argue that, but there is little evidence in the thread, so discuss this in the Football Forum please.