Are we right to put Man City and Chelsea in the same bracket?

The general consensus is without the Sheik's hundreds of millions being ploughed into Manchester City the club itself would still be hovering around the mid table positions come the end of a Premier League season. I agree totally with this thought and it's highly unlikely that City would have become the force they are today whilst operating within their own means. As big a club as they were it would have been difficult to have seen them gatecrash the 'big four'.

As soon as it became apparent that Mr Mansour was going into this venture whole heartedly (signaled by the signing of Robhino) we then began to hear the sentence "they are going to be another Chelsea"

However...

Is the whole 'they are going to be another Chelsea' a lazy and ignorant claim?

Before winning this years F.A cup City had failed to win a trophy since the 1976 League Cup. We also know they had fallen as far as the third tier of English football. In a way the City post 76 to pre Mansour were pretty much what Newcastle United are today....a big club with massive support but a frustrated following.

Regarding Chelsea it's almost impossible to tell whether they would have gone on to win a Premier League title without Roman Abramovich's wonga but...

Chelsea pre Abramovich were a pretty decent side. He brought a club that had just finished fourth in the table therefor claiming a Champions League place in doing so. Okay there were mutterings within the media that the club were heading into a financial mess but I doubt any of us know the true facts of that matter.

But the difference between Chelsea and City before the billionaires came to play was that Chelsea had a 'recent history' with trophies to show. Two F.A Cups, one League Cup and European Cup Winners Cup triumph. Also going into the 1998/99 season they were actually joint favourites for the title after capturing Marcel Desailly, Pierluigi Casiraghi, Albert Ferrer and Brian Laudrup who all were at the time were marquee signings.

So whilst Sheik Mansour brought a sleeping giant and woke them up Roman Abramovich purchased a football club with a competent squad used to success who may well have gone on to win a title or at least the odd cup here and there without his funds being made readily available. Who is to say that Chelsea wouldn't have continued to win silverware without his money whereas it's doubtful that City would have won an F.A Cup or qualified for the Champions League without the Sheiks brass.

So in closing...are we right to put Man City and Chelsea in the same bracket?

Cheers guys.





[u][/u]

I agree to an extent. But before Abramovich, it definitely seemed that Chelsea were fading and falling away from the top three at the time.

They certainly prevented a trophy threat in the cups -- but they would never have been a favourite over Arsenal, United or Liverpool. They wouldn't have troubled the leaders in the league either, for me.

There is a chance, too, that they may have been able to invest in the squad after receiving the CL money -- look at Spurs for effective use of that cash. Without Abramovich though they wouldn't have 3 league titles now.

City needed more investment in their squad, but on the plus side have the infrastructure to grow as a club. They couldn't really have dreamed of being where they are now without the money they were handed, but you can't deny that Chelsea delivered silverware quickly on the back of the investment -- City will be expected to do the same now.

I think they are in the both bracket, while you put forward a good argument that Chelsea were already a good club and just got a push from Roman, they won the league with a squad pretty much entirely paid for by Roman Abramovich. Their starting 11 (according to what wikipedia has, made up of who made the most appearences) of the 2004-5 season, the first time they won the league just 3 players were there before Roman came along...so whether or not they were good before hand is irrelevant as it seems they didn't even use that good foundation they had, instead just building a whole new team.

Man City are exactly the same, of their squad now I think 3 would be probably be around the number of people there before the Sheik as well. The difference is that Roman's money brought success quickly and efficiently where as City have struggled, I think that's the only thing that Chelsea's previous position has made a difference, better players were willing to move there as even if Chelsea didn't improve they'd still be in a good position.

sodhat wrote:I agree to an extent. But before Abramovich, it definitely seemed that Chelsea were fading and falling away from the top three at the time.

They certainly prevented a trophy threat in the cups -- but they would never have been a favourite over Arsenal, United or Liverpool. They wouldn't have troubled the leaders in the league either, for me.

There is a chance, too, that they may have been able to invest in the squad after receiving the CL money -- look at Spurs for effective use of that cash. Without Abramovich though they wouldn't have 3 league titles now.

City needed more investment in their squad, but on the plus side have the infrastructure to grow as a club. They couldn't really have dreamed of being where they are now without the money they were handed, but you can't deny that Chelsea delivered silverware quickly on the back of the investment -- City will be expected to do the same now.

They only way there can be compared is the fact they both have owners who are prepared to invest alot of money in their squads. Before Abramovich took over at Chelsea they were a top four side who would always come up short in the title race but would win their fair share of cup competitions whereas when Sheikh Mansour took over Man City they weren't long back in the Premiership after a few seasons in the football league. City are now at the level Chelsea were pre Abramovich, in short a good cup team who will finish around the top 3-6 in the league. Maybe in 5 years or so they might be genuine title contenders but I don't think trying to sign any top player and paying them upwards of 150k a week is going to improve the team enough. You only have to look at Shevchenko and Torres at Chelsea and Robinho, Dzeko and Balotelli at City, they cost too much, get paid too much and haven't really performed.
As for using Spurs as an example of investing CL money into the squad I have to disagree as last season was their first season in it and as yet haven't bought anyone of note, granted they did well in the transfer market last summer with Van Der Vaart but I will be surprised if they get anyone as good for the same sort of money.

Between 97 - 03 Chelsea had a group of players more than capable of winning at least one Premier League title but due to, in my opinion, bad management they came up short. In hindsight Claudio Ranieri was an awful appointment.

I agree with braveheart in that the current City side is on a par with the Chelsea team pre Abramovich though that's not to say they won't improve further.

Perhaps until, and it's still an if, City win the title can they be bracketed with Chelsea in terms of this argument?

I think it's irrelevant whether or not Chelsea's squad was good enough to win the league pre-Abramovich as the squad that won the Premier League was pretty much entirely bought by him, just like City's squad now.

invincibleILeak (CL-6WF) wrote:I think it's irrelevant whether or not Chelsea's squad was good enough to win the league pre-Abramovich as the squad that won the Premier League was pretty much entirely bought by him, just like City's squad now.

Bar Lampard, Terry, Gudjohnsen and Gallas. All key players in their first Premier League triumph. Two of whom are still there now 8 years later.

Still that's just four players out of the squad just two years later who were main players in the squad before Roman came in, that is hardly that far away from City.

Chelsea were successful with their money though.

City need more than a solitary FA cup win to move up to Chelsea's bracket.

braveheart101 wrote:

sodhat wrote:I agree to an extent. But before Abramovich, it definitely seemed that Chelsea were fading and falling away from the top three at the time.

They certainly prevented a trophy threat in the cups -- but they would never have been a favourite over Arsenal, United or Liverpool. They wouldn't have troubled the leaders in the league either, for me.

There is a chance, too, that they may have been able to invest in the squad after receiving the CL money -- look at Spurs for effective use of that cash. Without Abramovich though they wouldn't have 3 league titles now.

City needed more investment in their squad, but on the plus side have the infrastructure to grow as a club. They couldn't really have dreamed of being where they are now without the money they were handed, but you can't deny that Chelsea delivered silverware quickly on the back of the investment -- City will be expected to do the same now.

They only way there can be compared is the fact they both have owners who are prepared to invest alot of money in their squads. Before Abramovich took over at Chelsea they were a top four side who would always come up short in the title race but would win their fair share of cup competitions whereas when Sheikh Mansour took over Man City they weren't long back in the Premiership after a few seasons in the football league. City are now at the level Chelsea were pre Abramovich, in short a good cup team who will finish around the top 3-6 in the league. Maybe in 5 years or so they might be genuine title contenders but I don't think trying to sign any top player and paying them upwards of 150k a week is going to improve the team enough. You only have to look at Shevchenko and Torres at Chelsea and Robinho, Dzeko and Balotelli at City, they cost too much, get paid too much and haven't really performed.
As for using Spurs as an example of investing CL money into the squad I have to disagree as last season was their first season in it and as yet haven't bought anyone of note, granted they did well in the transfer market last summer with Van Der Vaart but I will be surprised if they get anyone as good for the same sort of money.

I concede the Spurs argument may have been weak in this instance. I do think though that it gives them impetus in the transfer market and I expect them to make moves soon for players to keep them challenging.

I think City have joined the same bracket as United and Chelsea though. For all their faults, they have backed the manager for 2 years and with a good squad would have to be considered championship material.

I think they are both in the same bracket as both sides have tried to buy success, Chelsea just bought better than City have.

i would put both in the same category, i dont believe chelsea pre roman were good enough to win the prem otherwise they would have done it, the league table doesnt lie and the best team wins the league. although at the time there was a great arsenal team and a great united team knocking about. just dont feel they would have been able to bridge the gap if it werent for roman.

the other point you have to consider is that with chelseas spending they stopped there rivals from strengthing there squads as easy. arsenal were always unwilling to pay in a inflated market and would chelsea had a chance to steal robben from under uniteds nose without roman, i doubt it. robben at united would have been a great signing

FreekShow wrote:Between 97 - 03 Chelsea had a group of players more than capable of winning at least one Premier League title but due to, in my opinion, bad management they came up short. In hindsight Claudio Ranieri was an awful appointment.

I agree with braveheart in that the current City side is on a par with the Chelsea team pre Abramovich though that's not to say they won't improve further.

Perhaps until, and it's still an if, City win the title can they be bracketed with Chelsea in terms of this argument?

Obviously City will keep spending and bring in more top players, apparantely Aguero has stated he wants to sign for them, but how will Mancini keep Tevez, Dzeko, Balotelli and Aguero happy. They all cant play every game as Mancini has said that if they sign Aguero they will only play two striker so will the same happen as with Robinho and one or more of them will be sulking on the bench for some or all of the season. Surely that can't be good for team morale.
As for Mancini will he be another manager who becomes a victim of lack of success if he doesn't deliver the title or CL this season?
I have to agree about Ranieri not being the best manager at Chelsea but do you think any other manager could have done better with that squad?

braveheart101 wrote:

FreekShow wrote:Between 97 - 03 Chelsea had a group of players more than capable of winning at least one Premier League title but due to, in my opinion, bad management they came up short. In hindsight Claudio Ranieri was an awful appointment.

I agree with braveheart in that the current City side is on a par with the Chelsea team pre Abramovich though that's not to say they won't improve further.

Perhaps until, and it's still an if, City win the title can they be bracketed with Chelsea in terms of this argument?

Obviously City will keep spending and bring in more top players, apparantely Aguero has stated he wants to sign for them, but how will Mancini keep Tevez, Dzeko, Balotelli and Aguero happy. They all cant play every game as Mancini has said that if they sign Aguero they will only play two striker so will the same happen as with Robinho and one or more of them will be sulking on the bench for some or all of the season. Surely that can't be good for team morale.
As for Mancini will he be another manager who becomes a victim of lack of success if he doesn't deliver the title or CL this season?
I have to agree about Ranieri not being the best manager at Chelsea but do you think any other manager could have done better with that squad?

I think you have answered that question yourself by saying Ranieri was not the best manager.

No, not at all, Chelsea competed recently before they had the money to splash, Man City were nothing but a team who finished mid table if they were lucky, they are ruining the game and have spent well over £150 million but produced 1 FA Cup, they are obsessed with United which will play a huge part in them NOT winning the PREMIERSHIP imo.

As already been mentioned I think Chelsea were gonna be among the Euro places without Abramovich and who knows what they would have done had Roman not come in, they may have still won the league but probably not as quickly as they deed after the takeover.

City on the other hand even after their last takeover when Sven was there were nothing special despite having some money. Now with the new money they're spending money as if its going out of fashion, and even the most die hard of City fans would have been happy with them just beating us at Old Trafford, cup wins and title challenges were only dreams.

I would also say that Chelsea spent their money better, Frank Lampard, Ashley Cole, Drogba, Cech were all top signings. City are more like a kid in a sweet shop, they see what somebody else is getting and decide they want it as well and because of their funds nobody can really compete. You just have to hope that a player would look at all options open to him instead of just the money

I will say however as long as City don't over indulge in the transfer market again this summer and try and bleed loads of new players into the first team, I can see them making a strong push for the league, and it was Chelsea's second season after the takeover when they won their first title.



P.S I hope Fifa pull City up over this stadium sponsorship thing. Surely that must be a breach to the fair play rules

gazzyD wrote:
P.S I hope Fifa pull City up over this stadium sponsorship thing. Surely that must be a breach to the fair play rules

Of course it should but seeing as its income from sponsorship they will probably get away with it. Would be interested to know how much Arsenal get from Emirates Airlines sponsorship deal though.

braveheart101 wrote:

gazzyD wrote:
P.S I hope Fifa pull City up over this stadium sponsorship thing. Surely that must be a breach to the fair play rules

Of course it should but seeing as its income from sponsorship they will probably get away with it. Would be interested to know how much Arsenal get from Emirates Airlines sponsorship deal though.

A hundred million over 15 years.

FreekShow wrote:

braveheart101 wrote:

gazzyD wrote:
P.S I hope Fifa pull City up over this stadium sponsorship thing. Surely that must be a breach to the fair play rules

Of course it should but seeing as its income from sponsorship they will probably get away with it. Would be interested to know how much Arsenal get from Emirates Airlines sponsorship deal though.

A hundred million over 15 years.

correct me if im wrong but thats for stadium sponser as well as the shirt sponser i think, arsenal bent over a barrel because they had no money to build the stadium on there own.

Definitely the same bracket in my opinion. I agree Chelsea had a better team and more success than City before investment but Chelsea wouldn't have got to the positions they have without Abramovich. City are going through the same route as Chelsea by building an expensive team. Chelsea bought plenty of expensive players in the first few seasons after Abramovich arrived and not all were successful - just like City. Eventually City will have a strong core group of players and will probably go on to win more trophies.

The only difference is that City are spending more money due the the inflated prices caused by Chelsea's big spending a few years ago. Also, they have had and will have more competition. Chelsea's investment came when there was a 'big four'. City's has come when there is potentially 6 teams fighting for the top 4 spaces.

Id say definitely NOT the same bracket. Yes both had money injections that propelled them further up the table however, Chelsea had broken into the BIG 4 before the Roman era.

Case in point the team that got Chelsea into the champions league places ahead of liverpool. Players such as Zola, Lampard, Terry, Gallas, Hasselbaink and others had already propelled Chelsea from a Top 7 team to one which was challenging for trophies every season. IMO, Chelsea would have gone onto win trophies without the takeover but we'll never know. Furthermore, we mustn't forget that Chelsea were in a financial mess before Roman and so it was inevitable at the time that Chelsea would be bought.

I think Man City are far easier to compare to the Blackburn team that won the premier league as well as to Man United's transfer policy at the beginning of the 00's (Veron, Djemba Djemba, etc).