Andy Hamilton: ‘Chelsea are the poster boys for where football has gone wrong’

And may all the bankrolled teams at the moment end up like Blackburn.

How so? It seems more stable from the players perspective, they have these nice long contracts so they know they're still a part of Chelsea despite being bounced from club to club and country to country on expiring contracts.

Roman was just as scummy as they are

sorry, no matter how you dress it up an Oligarch isn't as scummy as a state that has executed hundreds of people, commits human rights abuses, and creates humanitarian disasters in other countries

Do you know how they're involved?

Saudi PIF are using Clearlake Investment's investment services, because Clearlake are good at what they do which is why they can afford to buy Chelsea. Shocking.

Brighton are sponsored by American Express, so of course they have ties with every criminal that uses American Express, right?

Exactly the equivalent of saying Man U have ties with Russia, because some russian officials use TeamViewer and they sponsor Man U.

Besides, Arsenal are sponsored by Emirates and had the whole "Visit Rwanda" travesty. How TF are you on a high horse?

Your loan example doesn’t really make sense. Why would the choice be between loaning 10k at 10% or 100k at 2%? You’d loan ten lots of 10k at 10% and make 10k profit rather than 2k.

And profits don’t go to the board, the board is just representatives for shareholders.

Didn't need to. Sports washing worked perfectly. Cleaned through billions of money in Chelsea. Along with that probably opened up many legit business opportunities. Cherry on the cake has thousands of people now like him.

It's like people not remembering Leeds. That was a disaster. Or Sunderland...

The government was helping Real 20 years ago with some shady deals.

Honestly, the biggest criticism about Real and Barca hurting the sport/la liga were negotiating their own tv deals instead of doing it as a whole. We see the EPL now reaping those benefits when small teams in the EPL have bigger budgets than most La Liga teams

Malaga

Racing de Santander

Deportivo La Coruña

Chelsea aren't the "poster boys for when football goes wrong" at all, that title sits squarely with Manchester City, Newcastle and PSG, I think.

Oh look, another kid who forgot Abramovich.

You're not allowed to mention that, Milan fans will get pissy and defensive

paying ridiculous amounts with money loaned from banks.

That's how most of these transfers are paid though. It's particularly obvious with release clauses.

Clubs offer better value for transfer with a significant amount upfront. The buying club hasn't got that money but the interest they pay will be lower than the premium the selling club wants for more installments. Take out a loan and it's ok. Clubs are fairly low risk in terms of lending. Even a club massively in debt will almost always pay their loans eventually.

And what was the Chelsea Loan Army beyond a "farm" system? It's the same thing lol

No Chelsea are the most recent trailblazers who’ve been overtaken by the poster boys

The poster boys are City, PSG and Newcastle

Can't support a financial group mate

Or maybe Saudi Arabia owning a club, Qatar owning a club, or clubs like Bury that have gone out of busiensss due to shitty owners should be in & around no 1

As a Chelsea fan, it’s been depressing watching other Chelsea fans justifying what we have been doing.

Chelsea was the first to bring it to a ludicrous scale

The 10 year before Roman

After 3 years with Roman

There's like a million football teams in England that don't make any money and play purely for pleasure man. If you say that "football" has gone wrong because one club is making money, then it says something mostly about what you see as football, not the actual whole football lol.

Seems like a lot of people understand that statement as "omg they are the worst" but as i see it, it's more like "football is fucked in so many ways, and these guys somehow check nearly all boxes"

You’re singled out because you spent a billion pounds in a year how is the difficult for some chelsea fans to understand. And then to further the singling out after spending untold money you are remarkably bad.

Lol okay

In the case of Chelsea, both ways of understanding the statement are correct.

how so?

You don't even need 5 years. They're salary cap is now set at £270M while they are currently spending £400M with the smallest squad in the league

Hilarious, their fans are toxic

Link to free version of the article

This post was tagged by the OP as a "long read" link. Please avoid low-effort jokes and read the material before commenting. You'll be able to reply to the post after 5 minutes.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Blackburn's benefactor was a guy born in Blackburn, who made his money with a business based 5 miles from Ewood Park.

There's a huge difference between this and what Man City, PSG, et al are doing.

I just want to see fun competition. Eredivisie is high enough a level for me.

I do recognize I'm in the minority, though.

Cherry on the cake has thousands of people now like him.

And? What does that do for him? Sports-washing accusations work for Saudi clubs who are clearly trying to raise the image of their country on the world stage so that they're in the conversation for larger tourism and global events etc.

It doesn't fit with Roman's ownership of Chelsea because he didn't do anything during his time to obviously try to boost his own image, or even that of Russia, and I'd argue that the public perception of both Russia and of Abramovic is lower now than it was in 2003.

Maybe he just wanted a foreign asset, but he made a huge financial loss owning Chelsea. Maybe he was genuinely just a fan.

I was wondering if it was that Andy Hamilton. Loved Bob and Margaret in the 90's

Like what?

Yeah they just did that slightly earlier than other clubs, earned lots of trophies and international fans and now you cannot criticize the clubs because of their "prestige"

Chelsea aren't close to the first to be bankrolled by an outside party.

I’m just amazed how they always pick the perfect Boehly photo for any topic.

So what does their state now actually have to do with the roman era? They barely have players from that era, different manager different staff.

It's more or less a different club. And the article was about him not caring about the club after the Todd era.

Eh, high quality football is also “””boring””” and data driven. So many cool football moves are as good as outlawed. You don’t need to look further than classic nr. 10 being a dying breed, replaced by players best described as ‘pressing machines’.

Much bigger problem/reason is that lower leagues aren’t media talking points(let’s face it, sports are men’s reality TV shows), finding a broadcast is hard, etc. It’s just much harder to get into if you aren’t local.

Football went wrong years ago, it’s not a working mans game anymore. It’s a business for the big clubs, not a sporting enterprise, hence the superleague.

Thats exactly how washing money works. He will have lost some but has cleaned through legit money now. It also opens up loads of opportunities with legitimate business with the west.

Don't worry he will get his money. Even if he doesn't the intent to sportswash was still there.

Can't argue with that

Neither me or the person I responded to mentioned loans to pay wages. Did you mean to respond to someone else?

You left Arsenal out of that list. It's owned by an american holding company.

Once clubs went to be owned by billionaires, it was over.

The thing is the drop in talent and quality is significant. People want to watch the best players and teams playing at an elite level

Chelsea are the poster boys for where Chelsea have gone wrong

are you assuming that Roman kickstarted it despite Blackburn doing the same ‘overspending’ a decade prior.

Ties as in Saudi have money handled by Clearlake? i’m sure every team has someone tied to them that’s dodgy if that’s the thread you want to pull at.

Suppose Arsenal have one of those good billionaires that exist despite there being not a whole lot of difference between him and Todd

*Man City

Other billionaires will do what Boehly has done and Chelsea are setting a precedent. Look at how Newcastle have done their transfer business, that is how City started off before doing what they do now. Chelsea are not even close to what City are doing because City would never overpay to the same extent, nor would they offer contracts at such ludicrous lengths.

Until they disappear because of shitty owners

It's a lot more okay because it indicates his intentions are more likely to boost his local team of which he was presumable a lifelong fan.

It's a far cry from Abramovich using Chelsea to shore up his political and personal security, or the UAE using Man City as a sportswashing vessel to for PR gain for their theocratic police state.

I'm not pissed about teams with rich backers spending more money. I'm pissed about what interests are being furthered by football clubs being used as cynical political tools.

He was an ex kgb agent surely they would have known he wasn't a good person yet.

We were buying quick success in 03-04 and it ended up being a huge success

I mean, ignore my flair for a bit, but that's how loans usually work. 10% interest on 10k loan is 1k profit. 2% interest on 100k loan is 2k profit.

That is just doing simple calculation without factoring in duration of loans.

Also, RM and Barca(till recently) have been able to pay all those loans easily (except in some situations), and again they still pay whatever they make. There's no State/Billionaire pumping 10-20 mil in bogus sponsorship to bail them out(again, until recently).

What you're alternative is let RM make 100mil a year but they can only pay 30mil to their staff/players combined. What would they use 70mil for ? To pay dividends? Which they do btw. But I would rather see those pushed to employees (players/staff) than going into board's pocket.

And the result of this is that we can afford to offer thise wages, even taking loans, which btw, we took for renovation of Bernabeu.

I cannot think of one example where we took loan to pay wages as suggested.

Cant even win that title as an United fan. The rivalry is on.

Do people just randomly forget that some clubs used to be owned by banks and that’s how they are where they are today?

I’m not going to be an hypocrite and say Chelsea doesn’t have a role to play in the current state of football but if it wasn’t Chelsea it was going to be another club.

Current state of football was inevitable. It was going to happen regardless.

Wow, you sound intelligent.

Brits invent football and have been whining about it ever since.

The hate for Saudis and American's is 100% warranted

Juxtaposing those two together is completely unreasonable. Whataboutism and sports washing in action.

Boehly and Chelsea's transfers have been absurd, the Glazers are leeching money out of ManU, but the rest have been more or less the same as any other group of owners?

Arsenal is at a high point they haven't been at for a while, and Liverpool had an incredible run of success under FSG. I also think ownership at Villa, Palace, Fulham, Leeds, and West Ham has been fine? As a whole I don't think those owners are any better or worse than those at Spurs, Wolves, or Brighton.

Can we convince Boehly to sign the Glazers?

Let’s be realistic, where would all that money Chelsea spent on players go if they didn’t spend it? To the fans? To the community? No. It would still be in the bank account of a billionaire. If they want to splash £100m on a single player from a club deemed smaller, then I don’t see the issue. A club like Brighton can easily spend that £100m on a decent replacement and then some. Also doesn’t guarantee Chelsea trophies and doesn’t wreck a club like Brighton. Brighton also seem to spend that £100m on obscure but high potential players from much smaller clubs abroad, which helps those clubs.

Yes, that's the point, it's intentionally hypocritical. I wasn't just taking a shit on Chelsea.

Yep wev won it all and got our owner taken away by the government becuase of a war.... keep hating we dont care.

We will be back and you can hate us soke more Hamilton you prick

yeah but his analogy sounds more fun and exciting

Barca literally sold their future income and merchandise rights for quick money. The gambled on short term success.

No one who gets to the point where they can buy a club is a good person

Scenes when Chelsea recruit Thomas Crimp and Scumspawn as their new COOs

I remember a certain fascist who was the owner of an Italian team in the 90s when they had huge success.

for players its fantastic, their future is secured for a long time and they are in a (hopefully) stable environment. For the club its a massive risk to make such long commitments

A well run sports washing machine aye

No, Chelsea is the proof of football going right. Thinking they could buy quick success and end up in failures.

City are the true poster boys for where football has gone wrong.

This shit is just lazy journalism at this point. There are many things wrong with football. Spending idiotically for no trophies doesn’t even make the top ten

That logic just makes no sense. The reason chelsea are the poster boys, is because they went from a stable club owned by a dirty oil Oligarch, who then due to geo politics was forced to sell, and he did so to American finance men who are just oligarchs and middle eastern billionaires with more governmental restrictions. And those men took transfer spending to a level no one ever could’ve imagined ball in 1 year. Not only that, but they have been utter shit. Spending a billion and still being so bad is horrific.

I kinda of feel Poch will turn it around, he is a really good coach and works the best with a group of young players

Ok so by your logic

American billionaire who spends a lot = oligarch

American billionaire who is cheap = not an oligarch

That makes a lot of sense

Newcastle were before Chelsea. I'd say the reason for their recent takeover was the previous sugar daddy period

9 months, when the transfer window is actually open. Talk all you want now but Barca already couldn't spend anything on transfer fees this last summer after selling future revenue to make ends meet

Personally I think Man City, PSG, Newcastle and RB Leipzig/Salzburg are better examples but Chelsea are definitely up there

There was massive public backlash when Roman took over.

How is Barcelona being in debt "where football has gone wrong", or how does it affect other clubs?

You seem to imply that cash injections from shady owners is better than the levers which are just the club selling it's own assets

So funny to see english fans argue who the worst team is in their league. Meanwhile, football is fucked anyway and its a business first and a sport second, so no matter if its the Saudis sportwashing or an American pumping billions into it, the image of that pure, innocent and local football sport is long gone.

They may be owned by a bloodless, money-obsessed US billionaire but at least they aren't just another state-backed sportswashing operation.

E: sigh... /s ... yes it's a joke about Kroenke ffs

This is true. What my point was no loan has ever been taken to pay wages. As far as I am aware. I would be open to stand corrected with valid sources though.

They aren't even in the top 10 of where football has "gone wrong".

Overpay FC.

Basically: "My team isn't hoovering trophies up anymore, I don't want to watch it".

I disagree with this, there is something wrong with whole vibe of club. It’s nothing to do with winning trophies. These fans were there before Roman arrived.

It’s the cardinal rule of Reddit

Roman got a weird free pass in the press for his role in helping a dictator take power.

Ohh yeah, sorry. I am at work and saw wages pop up in some comments, and replied as per that. But I do agree, loans are taken to pay for transfer fees. It's standard for every major transfer irrespective of the club.

Yes, when oh when will somebody finally say something bad about Manchester City.

The Championship is a superb league. The quality might not be as good in terms of talent compared to the PL, but it is far more entertaining.

Chelsea were the most recent large club before the oil state clubs to use owner wealth to successfully break football apart

Other clubs have done it before (Blackburn rovers for example), Chelsea are just the most notable recent ones who took it further than it had gone before, until the oil clubs overtook them.

The oil clubs are doing the financial doping but also it’s much darker with them since they’re sportswashing as well - abramovich might have been a bastard but he’s leagues behind Saudi Arabia and the like in terms of crimes against humanity - hence those clubs are the new poster boys

Holier-than-thou? Andy Hamilton is a Chelsea season ticket holder, or at least was until last year. He is one of your own saying this, its not rival fans trying to banter you, or the media getting their knives out for the club.

Chelsea poster boys

I love how local and lower level football really does answer nearly all of everyone's concerns but they'd rather pretend the Prem was the only football league on Earth and they're forced to put up with it. Absolutely self-inflicted.

"People get inordinately angry. Sure, I grew up in a time of hooliganism, which was a manifestation of tribalism. What football is now is a 24/7 angry tirade. Now everyone has an opinion about everything, but it’s a destructive relationship. Spending your whole life getting worked up about Harry Maguire? Come on, that is not healthy.”

Dead right.

I fail to understand your point. How is getting a loan "ruining the sport"?

Also where do you get that they get loans with hardly any interest, if any? What kind of bank or financial institution is gifting money away?

Feel like most of the other commenters didn’t actually read his article…

I pretty much agree with everything he’s saying. Football has been going downhill extremely quickly over the last 20-30 years. It’s so far out of touch from what it once was.

Between the nation states owning clubs and the hyper-capitalists making the fan experience downright dreadful it’s worrying to see how far the sport has fallen.