Home > Football > Abramovich's mercenaries have no right to call themselves Chelsea
by Pete Lyons-McCarthy on 14 May 2007
Email this Article (44) Comments
Free £10 bet when you register at
Am I the only one who thinks that Chelsea fans should be excluded from an opinion about the Premiership?
All other fans contribute toward their respective teams by way of items bought or season tickets being purchased way in advance, which in turn contributes to that side's activity in the transfer market early in the transfer window. Those same fans are fully entitled to complain when things are not going well, and gloat when things are going swimmingly, as in a small way, they've paid for it.
Chelsea, on the other hand, are in a completely false position if you take Roman Abramovich's money out of the equation.
On many sites, you listen to or read Chelsea fans constantly saying: "It's not only about the money." Sorry Blues' fans, it is utterly and completely only about the roubles. Would Jose Mourinho have elected to join Chelsea had he not been offered two huge wads initially - one for him and one to purchase whichever mercenary was available at the time, and make him an offer he couldn't refuse!.
Perhaps the only answer is for teams to only be allowed to purchase players, dependent on their profitability, which with Chelsea's losses amounting to the debt of a banana republic, would mean a derby with Windsor and Eton rather than Fulham.
I have watched football for more years than I care to remember, and have seen domination by Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool - and through gritted teeth could do no more than doff my cap with respect and say, "You deserved it". I cannot in Chelsea's case, because they don't! I always have a mental picture of Abramovich getting bored playing LMA or Premiership Manager, getting resoundingly beaten, then phoning up the cheatline and buying all of them.
As the team have no bearing on the the support, do they even have a right to call themselves Chelsea? Surely not. Perhaps, like MK Dons, they should be renamed Roman's Mercenaries or perhaps you could think of a better title, as Chelsea is inappropriate, don't you think?. Equally, how can a Chelsea fan possibly feel part of his or her team's success knowing they haven't contributed toward it one iota?
Again, you wonder where and who these 'fans' are. According to the radio stations I listen to, the real fans cannot afford to attend matches any longer. Confusing, isn't it?
It wouldn't be as bad if they at least played a brand of football that you could say was special. You can't admire this team. The antics of many players on the field are pathetic, to say the least, and they have a manager who is good at telling everyone who'll listen just how wonderful he and his team are, when in essence, perhaps they are not.
Hopefully, with plenty of cash coming in next term, clubs will not forced into parting with their prized assets so readily, and a slightly more level playing field will ensue. Here's living in hope - but I doubt it, somehow.
Comments (44)
by Sam on May 14, 2007
Very boring. Why has it taken you four years to express these feelings? p.s. Chelsea don't have the highest priced tickets
by Elliot on May 14, 2007
I see your points but this has always been there. Look into the history of any profressional club that's around 100 years old and you'll find they were started by businessmen (ok typically local ones) and run at a loss just like today the businessman with the most money got the best players. What's new in football is clubs being run as businesses where they have to answer to shareholders, etc. Chelsea spent a lot but always said they wanted to try to break even which you can see by the fact that last summer they spent around £50m and sold nearly £30m of players. Elliot
by Rob on May 14, 2007
In all the years that you were, according to your article, watching football, it probably never crossed your mind that the "mercenary available at the time" could quite cheerfully describe, say, Alan Kennedy. Or Kenny Dalglish. Or Eric Cantona. Or Thierry Henry. Or... oh, for Christ's sake, I don't know why I waste my time responding to ha'porths like you.
by JT Mears on May 14, 2007
The heading says enough for me. The chimp & the typewriter spring to mind.
by Joe on May 14, 2007
The best way a fan can contribute to the cause of their club is by offering their encouragement and loyalty to the cause. With this, comes financial input in the club but only as a result. To suggest that Chelsea fans are'nt true fans because their financial input does'nt make a difference because of what another fan (Abramovich) has to offer is absurd. As for ticket prices, Chelsea prices are certainly not the most expensive, with Arsenal charging £90 for a top priced ticket, and are simular with fellow top English sides. The rest of your argument, very much in line with all other anti-Chelsea rants, seems to be born out of bitterness, jealousy and frustration at the Chelsea juggernaut. The situation at Madrid for the last few years lays to rest your idea that cherry picking the 'greatest players' leads to guaranteed success. Chelsea have succeeded recently because of their fantastic team spirit coupled with individual class. United have shown this season that those who don't spend as much as Chelse
by tel on May 14, 2007
sold out every home game and maybe looking for a larger venue suggest that you are talking from very little experience as a journalist and no common sense...chelseas money may also have indirectly kept west ham in the premier league, now that really pisses me off
by shedder on May 14, 2007
rubbish. no douubt you must be a spurs fan
by Bitterandjealous on May 14, 2007
New week, new day, same old rubbish Lets not forget how much money ManU have spent on players .. £30 million for Rio, £20odd million for Rooney, £20 odd million for Vanisteroy etc etc. Its not like spending money is purely a Chelsea thing.
by Rajo on May 14, 2007
Chelsea actually sold out every home game through general sale. Most big football clubs have enough members (fans) who buy tickets before they can go on general sale. I know a lot of working class Chelsea fans who can't afford to go to matches. The difference with Arsenal is due to a 60,000 seater there is a very large amount of tickets still priced between £38-45, so its not an issue that there some high priced areas. The Bridge isn't big enough to have enough "affordable" tickets. You can't blame Abramovich though, he didn't become a billionnaire through caring did he? Why should he care that many real Chelsea fans are zoned out?
by James C on May 14, 2007
I'm a season ticket holder at the Bridge and live in a flat on Chelsea Village. The whole "selling out" thing is a farce. Many prem games this season havent been a full house. I don't get where most of these stats come from. I think its pathetic how we cant fill up the Bridge,Ive walked outside my flat and seen tickets on sale 10 mins after kick off. Fellow Chelsea fans can u please get facts right and go to games instead of tossing off over match of the day.
by Laughing Lillywhite on May 14, 2007
Is that your side are reflective on you as so called supporters, and you play exciting and attractive football.That with Roman roubles you would be successful had Bates not sold out. That you would have still attracted high priced players to the Bridge, your not running at a huge loss, and your teams future is in safe hands?.....Dont think so!
by epoxy on May 14, 2007
Anyway who the hell wrote this article? The Chelsea fans were rite to say it's not about money. "It's" must be about winning. You don't see chelsea bought ronaldinho? nor kaka? pirlo? eto'o? messi? even if they wanted to except for veteran Ballack and Sheva. They ended up with 'rising' stars that clearly overpaid bcoz of the media hype and so on.. If stealing is in your mind, better point it to arsenal, grabbing young players worldwide like it was their sickness. Maybe that's wat jose means of the word voyeur. How chelsea wins must come from jose, clearly the lord of tacticians. How many times this season you see jose made tactical changes in the middle of the games, or even substitutions that immediately impact the course of the game?? I'm really proud of Chelsea this season. I can call it Chelsea's Fighting Season. Especially in their rearguard, yet each and everyone support each other. How many times did you see a central midfielder play as a central midfielder and perform it really well? Congrats Chelsea
by bert on May 14, 2007
"How many times did you see a central midfielder play as a central midfielder and perform it really well?"
You didn't buy Ronaldinho, Kaka, Pirlo, Messi, or Eto'o because they wouldn't have come to you! You think if Ronaldinho said "I want to come Chelsea" Roman wouldn't have spent up to 80m for him!?
by Sir Cecil on May 14, 2007
This idiot complains it's all about money... and then says everything should be linked to profitability (in other words... money!). His concern isn't actually about money being a factor – it's just that he wants to pick and choose which big clubs have it.
by PeteLyons McCarthy on May 14, 2007
Its about teams who can create their own wealth, idiot!, unlike your team who clearly have neither the fan base, or marketing skills to do so,Chelsea merely rely on hand outs , or did that element of the article require a little thinking on your part?
by Keef on May 14, 2007
Nobody really cares, if they really did and they wanted to make it a fairer competition they would have the same transfer kitty\wage bill for everyone. Then watch the the likes of Sp*rs being replaced by the likes of Norwich..then see how you like it. Or just put up with it and be in your lofty 5th position, which of course you would be in without the cash you have. What a load of bollocks.
by George on May 14, 2007
Roman Abramovich: Without his money what would Chelsea be? (Gettyimages.com) - What would we be indeed. How about being Arsenal or Tottenham Hotspurs. Without the millions of Roman we have been in the top four. And with we are again in the top four. So stop moaning about the money. Get the results.
by ChelseaR on May 14, 2007
Presumably this is a wind up but as you've roped me in I'll give you an answer. I was born 8 miles from the ground on a large council estate where everyone supported Chelsea including my dad and my elder brother. I'm now in my 40s and have had a season ticket for 7 years (not an age I know BUT longer than Abramovich. Let's now get a few things clear. 1. 20 years ago many kids from the estate I grew up on started wearing Liverpool and Arsenal shirts and many wore Man Utd ones. Are these 'plastics' more entitled to talk about footbal than me? 2. I get my season ticket with my wife and son and father in law. I can honestly say that the 4 tickets cost LESS now than they did before kenyon introduced 1/2 price tickets for OAps and kids. Bates and capitalism made Chelsea tickets too dear not Abramovich. (PS I don't think Abramovich made Arsenal and tottenham tickets dearer than Chelsea ones! 3. Of course Abramovich changed things. Without his money I would have been delighted with 2nd in the League th
by Dom on May 14, 2007
aaah you know il admit money changed chelsea but if you all dont know they actually have a goal of by 2010 to b a self reliant club, abromovich will b there but they will be funding themselves with abromovich not doing any funding, but its these things which make soccer great, have you noticed how many rich guys are now coming in and pumping cash into the clubs! portsmouth etc. they are starting building up good squads! jus the thing is that they got no real hunger for the league, look at liverpool! they a great team but are not really a league team ! but in champs league they play soo dam good! aaah but all im saying is that footballs a funny game ! it takes one injury or bad game to make a diffrence in a season
by mark on May 14, 2007
You are a another true twisted Spurs fan (suprise suprise) For your information if you turned back the clock back to pre 2003 (no Abramovich !) Chelsea had been the forth most sucessfull team more or less since the Premiership started. Two FA cups, 1 European Cup winners cup wins and one League Cup (same year) and one Super Cup ! Also 2 champion league qualifications (finishing 3rd and 4th in the league) So how does that sit with you? No we never did anything without Abramovich did we? Before writing such crap remember Chelsea were around before 2003. Or has that been conveniently forgotten by you sheep with your anti-Chelsea rubbish.............. ps your huge, well run massive club has yet to qualify for the Champions league in how many seasons...........mmmmm lets check our history first ?
by Pete McCarthy on May 14, 2007
It's nothing to do with my team, We're doing fine thanks. Oversubscribed, full houses, loyal supporters (not glory hunters), even in mid table.Play good football (100plus goals this season).And gues what minimal spend, we are also solvent, rich and furthermore have potential to buy with money generated by the club.no sugar daddy required thanks. But it's not about spurs, it's about your team, and the constant references regardingly 'true' fans being unable to attend games, read your fans comments, Chelsea fans wrote them, not me!
by Yannis on May 14, 2007
you want to exclude us from having an opinion, love to see that. you must either be 15 years old or just generally stupid. i can see why you're just a bitter spurs fan after Roman turned you down. so we shouldnt have an opinion because of things out of our hands but glory hunting united fans who have never even been anywhere near manchester should? get real petey. you obviously forgotten the trophies we won in the 90's as someone said before. you could'nt compete with us then and its the same now. what was the last trophy you guys won anyway? and i mean any trophy like a tournament in east asia against school boys?
by Pete McC on May 14, 2007
I wanted to lmow how Chelsea fans felt about before and after Roman. Did they feel more part of it before the money or in the case of many who have said in these posts lesss as they seem excluded by being priced out. Is Chelsea still their club, simple enough I thought, perhaps not in your case. As things are today it seems many other are going the way of Chelsea, and many fans will be excluded also?, as stated nothing to do with Spurs merely a portent for the future!, but fools like you are so narrow minded and lacking in inteelgence you cant see the woods through the greed.