Over his first two summers as Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich changed. Perhaps he learnt to delegate to the right people. Perhaps the tingling buzz of a new transfer stopped hitting quite as well. Perhaps – and this is more likely – he saw the improvement under Claudio Ranieri after a wild transfer spend and realised that the league title would be a doddle if Chelsea simply refined everything a little and got the right manager.
The summer of 2003 at Chelsea was about limitless opportunity and seemingly limitless money. They bought sensibly in places but also just because they could in others. Hernan Crespo, Juan Sebastian Veron, Claude Makelele – all stars and all aged 28 or over. Then he appointed Jose Mourinho, worked to the new manager’s transfer list and disappeared into the shadows to – how shall we say this? – concentrate on other priorities. Three of the players Chelsea signed in Abramovich’s second summer won the Champions League with them in 2012.
Todd Boehly suggested that he may be different: more public-facing, less soft power grab, more Americanised smarts and less blank cheque books. Speaking shortly after his takeover at the SuperReturn International conference in Berlin, Boehly rejected ideas that he would fund a similarly expansive post-arrival spend. He spoke of the limitations ensured by beefed-up Uefa financial fair play rules and namechecked the Liverpool model specifically: generating significant revenues from player sales to fund spending was the key.
Do as I say not as I do? Chelsea certainly started this summer according to Boehly’s principles. They invested significant money on 31-year-old Kalidou Koulibaly who would have little resale value, but he was merely replacing the outgoing Antonio Rudiger due to a contract impasse that the new owner inherited. They signed Raheem Sterling, but at a price that made sense if the role was right, given Sterling’s proven output at an elite Premier League club.
Since then, things have gone a little rogue as Chelsea jumped into the transfer window left field. Timo Werner was sold at a significant loss on his initial transfer fee (yes, I’m aware of the amortisation-related financial gymnastics). Romelu Lukaku, signed for £100m a year ago, has been loaned out for two years. Chelsea then paid £60m for Marc Cucurella to gazump Manchester City, a remarkable fee that City wouldn’t pay for a player signed for £16m and £10m in each of the last two summers. Chelsea will sell more fringe players, but currently have four left-backs (Alonso, Chilwell, Cucurella and Rahman) who cost them £147m in transfer fees.
At which point, the transfer policy appeared to split into two. At the lower end, they have spent £37m on three teenagers – Carney Chukwuemeka, Cesare Casadei, Gabriel Slonina. The scouting department have presumably done their research, but it’s hard to see their route to the first team. Chelsea’s previous strategy was to recruit players in their low-teens (or earlier) and avoid buying teenagers for significant fees.
Then out came the scattergun. Wesley Fofana has proven himself to be a very capable central defender, but paying £80m – as they will eventually have to do – is an astonishing investment given that Chelsea have already spent £180m on new players this summer and Fikayo Tomori was sold for less than 30 per cent of the reported Fofana asking price. Cucurella’s fee was explained by Chelsea supporters because he would play as a left-sided central defender with Ben Chilwell at left-back, but signing Fofana for £80m would surely mitigate that theory.
Anthony Gordon… well, who knows what this means. Ostensibly you have a promising 21-year-old who has looked dangerous as an attacking winger after breaking into the team who is now touted to become the fourth most expensive English footballer in history after just over 30 top-flight starts. At the same time, Chelsea are preparing to loan out a promising 21-year-old (Callum Hudson-Odoi) who looked dangerous as an attacking winger after breaking into the team. Everton are keeping a straight face, but their supporters cannot fathom the interest at the price. Demarai Gray is… better?
More from Football
Wiegman names England squad for World Cup qualifiers with injured Kelly and Kirby absent and Nobbs recalled24 August, 2022
The Premier League's new pressing monster is a perfect fit for resurgent Leeds24 August, 2022
Inside Bodo/Glimt's rise to the Champions League, from a fighter pilot coach to ski days out24 August, 2022At the same time, Chelsea – who had spent the summer creating a forward line of attacking midfielders and wide forwards that Gordon (if you ignore the fee) would fit – are reportedly trying to sign Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang. Aubameyang left the Premier League because Arsenal were effectively so convinced by his lack of use that they were reportedly prepared to pay a lump sum to end his contract and allow him to leave for free. And now Chelsea would pay a transfer fee of around £15m to a club that desperately needs to raise funds?
It provokes more questions than answers. What is the thinking on Gordon, or are Chelsea merely resorting to the George Mallory approach to transfers – “because he’s there”? If the plan was to build a freeform, Manchester City-like forward line, hence letting Werner and Lukaku leave cheaply, why is Aubameyang a target? And if that’s because Thomas Tuchel wants a centre forward, why on earth don’t you spend the Gordon and Aubameyang money on someone younger and better?
More pertinently, has Boehly abandoned his initial principles in favour of short-termism and the desperate desire to appease Tuchel? If so, that strikes as populist leadership rather than sensible planning. Following Abramovich’s success always made populism a risk, but strength is demonstrated through commitment to your plan, not lurching from it three months down the line.
So we wait, for news of Gordon’s mega-transfer, of Aubameyang’s unlikely return to the Premier League’s Big Six at 33, of how Tuchel plans to improve an attack that has managed fewer shots on target than 12 other teams and a defence that has conceded as many goals as they did in their first 12 league games last season. And to find out whether Chelsea are now spending in accordance with a strategy, or whether the strategy is simply to spend.
from Football | News and analysis from the Premier League and beyond | iNews https://ift.tt/YkItG0m
Post a Comment