The beauty of having a billionaire benefactor is not so much the money available to spend, but the money available to lose. Look beyond this summer’s acquisition of Andriy Schevchenko and the relentless pursuit of Ashley Cole and consider instead what happened within the space of two unheralded days in July.
Damien Duff and Asier del Horno were ushered out of Stamford Bridge for a combined fee of more than £15-million less than Chelsea originally paid. Time for a change? Didn’t work out? Whatever.
Chelsea’s unlimited stash of ”whatever” money symbolises how they live on a different planet from everybody else. What if Hernan Crespo’s long-term loan suggests they will never see much of his £17-million outlay? Whatever.
How about paying £12-million to Manchester United for a teenager who has never played at Old Trafford for a single second to disentangle John Obi Mikel from his contractual obligations? Whatever.
Since Roman Abramovich began underwriting Chelsea’s accounts, more than £100-million of whatever money has been discarded.
Many players have come and gone, with their values tumbling between entrance and exit. In addition to Duff, Del Horno and Crespo, there was Adrian Mutu, Juan Sebastian Veron, Scott Parker, Alexei Smertin, Jiri Jarosik and Tiago.
Obviously Chelsea can afford to deal with zero consequences. But it is this ability to trade so casually that illustrates the different worlds inhabited by Chelsea Football Club and the rest.
For the other 19 Premiership clubs, £100-million equates to almost six years of TV money — a lifeline in the modern game on an annual basis. Any other club that haemorrhaged a similar sum would be, at best, looking to sack its entire board, or at worst, liquidated. To fritter away £100-million really is something else. If it wasn’t so grotesque it would be admirable in its audacity.
Of course, when it comes to business, Chelsea specialise in the audacious. Locking horns with Arsenal over two players this summer, they will take extra pleasure from winning the battle twice over. They will get to sign Cole and to keep William Gallas should they so wish.
The episode with their unsettled France defender is an interesting Chelsea case study. Relations between Gallas and manager Jose Mourinho have been strained for some time. The player has one year left on his contract, wants out, is only too keen to join Arsenal and has made a stand.
All over the football world that is a guaranteed recipe for a transfer. But not at Chelsea. They can keep him as an exhibition of muscle flexing. If he leaves next summer for nothing on a Bosman, so be it.
”Hell-bent on ruining football” may be a comment Sir Alex Ferguson wanted to distance himself from when it leaked out during the summer, but it sums up the worry that persists outside of London SW6 about Chelsea’s quest for global domination.
It is frightening that the exposure and punishment of a tapping-up scandal did not stop them from going back for Cole, or from approaching three young players from Leeds United, which provoked their old friend Ken Bates to cry foul.
It is not just in England that Chelsea’s practices cause alarm. Bayern Munich’s president Karl-Heinz Rummenigge disapproves of what he calls ”unacceptable”’ lack of budgetary controls, considering the two clubs have a comparable turnover.
”We make a â,¬35-million profit; this is required for our investment. Chelsea can lose â,¬204-million. Mr Abramovich obviously stumped up for it,” lamented Rummenigge. ”This makes for unequal competition, but we play against each other in the Champions League. This is not acceptable.”
In Spain, Barcelona’s Lionel Messi confessed to hating Chelsea more than Real Madrid. In France, last week a teenage prospect the Blues had on trial chose not to swap Marseille for the King’s Road.
Defender Mehdi Benatia turned down their overtures, pointing to the failure of Shaun Wright-Phillips to make an impact as one of his reasons. ”Chelsea don’t trust young players,” he said. ”I could earn a lot of money there, but I would stay on the bench and living that situation abroad is not what I want. Chelsea are impressive, but I am young and I need to play and compete.”
Thierry Henry sings a rare song of praise from Premiership rivals who struggle to resist the blue juggernaut. ”I don’t see money on the pitch,” he said last week. ”I see a team that fights.”
But Henry cannot honestly think the way they fight for supremacy from the boardroom is endearing. When will it stop? Will winning the Champions League be enough to make Chelsea relax sufficiently to loosen up on the megalomaniacal tendencies?
The Champions League is the biggest profile-builder in football. A sparkling run, as Arsenal and Liverpool have discovered, takes a club, in terms of popularity and marketing, to parts of the world other club competitions cannot reach.
Desperadoes searching for reasons why Chelsea can be toppled clutch at the hope that managing a squad of superstars will be problematic. It is hard to see how Ballack and Shevchenko cannot provide even more options of the highest quality. But it is also easy to imagine a few noses being put out of joint.
When Italian football was at its wealthiest, the most consistent problem was monstrously paid players bitching and sniping about who was and wasn’t on the teamsheet. Sooner or later, there may be some more ”whatever” money to add to the pile. — Â