Post by stone cold on Jun 8, 2007 15:04:38 GMT 7
LOOK LIKE RUSSIAN RUBLE IS .........
The antithesis of the Abramovich era
From the $64 million man to the $1 dollar man; Chelsea's summer spending has taken a turn that, 12 months ago, was utterly unexpected. Admittedly, Andriy Shevchenko's British record transfer does not quite equate to $64 million, but the cost of bringing PSV's Brazilian defender Alex to Stamford Bridge will be only a single dollar.
Strictly speaking, a closer comparison with Shevchenko is Claudio Pizarro, a possible partner or potential replacement, who has arrived on a free transfer. So, too, has midfielder Steve Sidwell. The last of the big spenders are now the surprise spendthrifts. It is as though Imelda Marcos suddenly renounced shoes, and parsimony does not suit Chelsea.
The perversity of Chelsea is that when all others are paying more, they are spending less. Even if the wages of their trio of recruits will be sizeable and a considerable fee was paid for Alex before he was farmed out on loan to PSV Eindhoven, it will be three new faces in the squad for $1. It is tempting to suggest that little more than 50p should be required to secure a better central defender than Khalid Boulahrouz.
Yet this comes when Manchester United's expenditure is around £50 million, even before the addition of a striker, and Liverpool's could be in the same bracket, if Rick Parry can actually secure Rafael Benitez's chosen targets. It is also at a time when the upwardly mobile Tottenham, Aston Villa and West Ham seem intent on speculating to accumulate.
Chelsea's transfer policy, once noted for blank cheques, is now greeted with blank looks. Last year, besides Shevchenko and Michael Ballack's arrival on a Bosman, £16million was committed for John Obi Mikel, £8million paid for Salomon Kalou and, including William Gallas in part-exchange, £5million for Ashley Cole. And, in many respects, that represented an average summer for Chelsea.
Now they are set to have three players for $1. Then factor in Glen Johnson, returning from a season's loan and Portsmouth, and Tal Ben Haim, the January target whose contract at Bolton expires in the summer, and it could be five newcomers at an average cost of 10p. Twelve months after Chelsea's costliest signing was Shevchenko, now it is Danny Philliskirk, the £200,000 teenager from Oldham who, it is to be presumed, will not be in first-team contention just yet.
But Chelsea's expenditure in the January transfer market was non-existent. Roman Abramovich insists his commitment to Chelsea has not lessened, but the money granted to Jose Mourinho appears to have done.
The sheer scale of his wealth suggests the Russian is an astute businessman. Chelsea have long declared their ambition to break even by 2009. Two years ahead of schedule, they should make a profit on their transfer dealings this summer if, say, any of Boulahrouz, Paulo Ferreira, Shaun Wright-Phillips or even Shevchenko are sold.
Besides their minimal cost, the newcomers have another thing in common: none are African. With Mourinho set to lose Mikel, Kalou, Didier Drogba and Michael Essien for a month of next season due to the African Nations Cup, that seemed a priority.
Moreover, after their flirtation with superstars, in the shape of Shevchenko and Ballack, an evident failure of last summer, it is a reversion to the lower-profile signings Mourinho seems to prefer. Nonetheless, at least one bigger buy was anticipated - perhaps Carlos Tevez or David Villa - to lessen the goal-scoring load on Drogba. Chelsea may still require more inspiration in attack, but a fully fit Joe Cole and Arjen Robben may provide that anyway.
If Drogba appears the epitome of a Mourinho signing - criticised initially for his price tag and his behaviour, followed later by Essien and, to a lesser extent, Ricardo Carvalho - the manager was vindicated by the Ivorian's excellence last seasSON
Could Pizarro emulate him? At 28, his age upon arrival is nearer to that of Shevchenko and Ballack than Drogba and Essien, who had more time to acclimatise. He arrives, at least, with a proven goalscoring record, albeit with a reputation as a reserve.
The move for Sidwell, targeted by many of the Premiership's ambitious middle class, at least secures a proven performer in England, though he has a solitary season in the top flight. Yet Alex, on the basis of his defensive dominance for PSV and Chelsea's desperate requirement for cover for Carvalho and John Terry, appears to be the best. Nonetheless, it is highly possible that none will figure in Mourinho's first-choice team, and especially unlikely Sidwell will do.
There is an element of opportunism in capitalising on the Bosman ruling and it is plausible that Mourinho, ever keen to foster a siege mentality, would relish succeeding on a limited budget; yet, while Manchester United look for the long-term successors to Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs, Chelsea seem short-termist in their approach.
That, in itself, suggests instability is not at an end, even if Mourinho's suggestion that the age of his key players, Claude Makelele apart, means he need not think about replacements yet. An alternative explanation is that it is easier to forge a team without the super-sized egos of the superannuated.
Nonetheless, while it was conceivable that Arsenal could endure a summer without spending, few imagined Chelsea could. In many respects, it is the antithesis of their approach in the Abramovich era. It would also confound the orthodoxy of the football transfer market if the best buys were free. Jose Mourinho certainly hopes that his will be.
;D ;D ;D..COME ON..CHESKI..SHOW US YR BIG NAMES..
The antithesis of the Abramovich era
From the $64 million man to the $1 dollar man; Chelsea's summer spending has taken a turn that, 12 months ago, was utterly unexpected. Admittedly, Andriy Shevchenko's British record transfer does not quite equate to $64 million, but the cost of bringing PSV's Brazilian defender Alex to Stamford Bridge will be only a single dollar.
Strictly speaking, a closer comparison with Shevchenko is Claudio Pizarro, a possible partner or potential replacement, who has arrived on a free transfer. So, too, has midfielder Steve Sidwell. The last of the big spenders are now the surprise spendthrifts. It is as though Imelda Marcos suddenly renounced shoes, and parsimony does not suit Chelsea.
The perversity of Chelsea is that when all others are paying more, they are spending less. Even if the wages of their trio of recruits will be sizeable and a considerable fee was paid for Alex before he was farmed out on loan to PSV Eindhoven, it will be three new faces in the squad for $1. It is tempting to suggest that little more than 50p should be required to secure a better central defender than Khalid Boulahrouz.
Yet this comes when Manchester United's expenditure is around £50 million, even before the addition of a striker, and Liverpool's could be in the same bracket, if Rick Parry can actually secure Rafael Benitez's chosen targets. It is also at a time when the upwardly mobile Tottenham, Aston Villa and West Ham seem intent on speculating to accumulate.
Chelsea's transfer policy, once noted for blank cheques, is now greeted with blank looks. Last year, besides Shevchenko and Michael Ballack's arrival on a Bosman, £16million was committed for John Obi Mikel, £8million paid for Salomon Kalou and, including William Gallas in part-exchange, £5million for Ashley Cole. And, in many respects, that represented an average summer for Chelsea.
Now they are set to have three players for $1. Then factor in Glen Johnson, returning from a season's loan and Portsmouth, and Tal Ben Haim, the January target whose contract at Bolton expires in the summer, and it could be five newcomers at an average cost of 10p. Twelve months after Chelsea's costliest signing was Shevchenko, now it is Danny Philliskirk, the £200,000 teenager from Oldham who, it is to be presumed, will not be in first-team contention just yet.
But Chelsea's expenditure in the January transfer market was non-existent. Roman Abramovich insists his commitment to Chelsea has not lessened, but the money granted to Jose Mourinho appears to have done.
The sheer scale of his wealth suggests the Russian is an astute businessman. Chelsea have long declared their ambition to break even by 2009. Two years ahead of schedule, they should make a profit on their transfer dealings this summer if, say, any of Boulahrouz, Paulo Ferreira, Shaun Wright-Phillips or even Shevchenko are sold.
Besides their minimal cost, the newcomers have another thing in common: none are African. With Mourinho set to lose Mikel, Kalou, Didier Drogba and Michael Essien for a month of next season due to the African Nations Cup, that seemed a priority.
Moreover, after their flirtation with superstars, in the shape of Shevchenko and Ballack, an evident failure of last summer, it is a reversion to the lower-profile signings Mourinho seems to prefer. Nonetheless, at least one bigger buy was anticipated - perhaps Carlos Tevez or David Villa - to lessen the goal-scoring load on Drogba. Chelsea may still require more inspiration in attack, but a fully fit Joe Cole and Arjen Robben may provide that anyway.
If Drogba appears the epitome of a Mourinho signing - criticised initially for his price tag and his behaviour, followed later by Essien and, to a lesser extent, Ricardo Carvalho - the manager was vindicated by the Ivorian's excellence last seasSON
Could Pizarro emulate him? At 28, his age upon arrival is nearer to that of Shevchenko and Ballack than Drogba and Essien, who had more time to acclimatise. He arrives, at least, with a proven goalscoring record, albeit with a reputation as a reserve.
The move for Sidwell, targeted by many of the Premiership's ambitious middle class, at least secures a proven performer in England, though he has a solitary season in the top flight. Yet Alex, on the basis of his defensive dominance for PSV and Chelsea's desperate requirement for cover for Carvalho and John Terry, appears to be the best. Nonetheless, it is highly possible that none will figure in Mourinho's first-choice team, and especially unlikely Sidwell will do.
There is an element of opportunism in capitalising on the Bosman ruling and it is plausible that Mourinho, ever keen to foster a siege mentality, would relish succeeding on a limited budget; yet, while Manchester United look for the long-term successors to Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs, Chelsea seem short-termist in their approach.
That, in itself, suggests instability is not at an end, even if Mourinho's suggestion that the age of his key players, Claude Makelele apart, means he need not think about replacements yet. An alternative explanation is that it is easier to forge a team without the super-sized egos of the superannuated.
Nonetheless, while it was conceivable that Arsenal could endure a summer without spending, few imagined Chelsea could. In many respects, it is the antithesis of their approach in the Abramovich era. It would also confound the orthodoxy of the football transfer market if the best buys were free. Jose Mourinho certainly hopes that his will be.
;D ;D ;D..COME ON..CHESKI..SHOW US YR BIG NAMES..
