24 May 2016 21:03:30
ED002,
Could I ask you to shed some light on why Chelsea, as club of similar standing, can, according to some people in football, no longer compete with Manchester City when it comes to attracting prospective players or, indeed, managers, despite Manchester City having already been fined for breaching FFP rules.
I would really appreciate if you could help me understand it because it annoys me when I hear people say that Chelsea don't have the spending power of the Manchester clubs, with United I understand, but not with City.
I just find it confusing as to why people seem to infer that Manchester City are a bigger and better club than Chelsea, such as when Mourinho returned and he was asked why he did not take the City job, even though I know it was probably not an option. All of this happens with some people despite them not having any data or reasons to justify it? Is it not fair to conclude that Chelsea have many attributes as a club that make it just as much as an attractive prosposition as Manchester City when the two are in the Champions League which hopefully will occur as of next year?
Thanks for your time.
{Ed002's Note - Chelsea are not looking to spend money simply for the sake of it, but financially and FFP they are well placed to buy whichever players they want. Manchester United have a far higher turnover and are more constrained by wage restrictions than the cost of players. Manchester City has income boosted significantly from one of their sponsors and will be more restricted in the future due to caps that will be introduced. As for managers, I don't really understand the concern. Mourinho was not going to return to Chelsea this summer. Guardiola considered his options and chose the MC job.}
24 May 2016 23:35:09
I like our philosophy in relation to the way we spend money on transfers! Manchester city cannot maintain there level of spending long term imo. We're a well run club with sensible people making decisions (for the most part) frivolous spending is not the way to go long term!
24 May 2016 21:49:15
Thanks for the response.
I was just confused as to why some people in football seemingly write Chelsea's chances of acquiring a player off as soon as Manchester City register an interest in the same player despite Chelsea being in good financial health and having just as much to offer to any prospective player despite them having the magnet that is Guardiola.
I understand that Guardiola to City was probably, at a pure guess, agreed in principle with their football director some time ago due to them having everything seemingly set up for him to come to the club, so Chelsea probably never stood a chance when it came to competing for him even if they made him or his representatives aware of their position.
With Mourinho I know that it is probably over between him and Chelsea for good since what happened in December and I am sure he will be more than happy to coach Manchester United.
Could I just ask you finally ED002, are the club conscious of the lack of homegrown and English players that are currently in the first team squad at present comaored to years gone by. That is one of the reasons I thought they may have tried to sign players such Shaw and Stones in the past but obviously with both it was not meant to be?
Do you think the club's promising academy players such Loftus Cheek and Christensen, if he returns, can help with this matter since trying to acquire the best English talent seems to be not worth the grief that goes with it all and having to compete in bidding wars which leads to overpaying vastly for the players due to their shortage in the market?
Thanks again.
24 May 2016 22:57:58
ED02 this geezer ain't Chelsea. He's giving it large with his posts.
26 May 2016 16:09:47
Furious Spending isn't the way to go either. Too many new players can really kill off the squad's chemistry and affect dressing room atmosphere. Usually one or two big signings maybe three would be sufficient to improve our side and get back into the Top 4.