What's fourth place worth - to Chelsea?

[Such Small Portions]

The 14 players that represented Chelsea last night cost nearly a quarter of a billion pounds.

£230m, actually.

Average cost per player - £16.5m. And that's with two 'freebies' thrown in (Terry and Cole - although they'll pull in about a quarter of a million in wages a week between them).

£16.5m, why that's just chump change short of our record signing. In other words, they're playing with a team and a subs bench packed with our record signings.

Okay, they're not, but you get the maths.

As I've said before, buying the title for a quarter of a billion is vulgar but kind of understandable. Buying fourth place for a quarter of a billion is just plain grubby.

 

[Marty]

**This thread belongs in General Football.**

But I have to say that I knew their team was expensive, but on average the same as our transfer record? That's insane.

Fourth place is worth everything to Chelsea, I think (hope) Roman might get bored with his hobby and try to sell up if he can't watch them play in the Champions League. Of course the fear then is that the Qatari Royal Family or someone will buy them and they'll carry on their free-spending ways but we can always hope...

 

[ghetto_spur]

I like how we're doing it don't get me wrong but I wouldn't mind a massive influx of cash to sort out the stadium and get a top class CF in.

You know, still the tottenham way but better and quicker

 

[DEFchenkOE]

To me this shows that either we're punching way above our weight or Chelski's players are hugely overpriced and overpaid. Probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[dimiSpur]

I don't think we're punching above our weight. Chelsea aren't underperforming either.

We have players that are now worth the money Chelsea have paid for their players. Difference being we signed them before they became global superstars whereas Chelsea had the advantage of being able to buy finished products. Man for man, we have a starting XI capable of winning the League, and a squad to back it up. We lack that monster CF to compete with Man Utd and Arsenal for the title.

As for Chelsea, they are not underperforming. They are a team on the decline. Their talisman, Lampard, is what, 32 now? Terry the same. Cole 30. Drogba similar age. Then they signed an out of form Torres. He was out of form + pressure of huuuge price tag = fail (temporary at least). Then you look at their manager. Hardly got them playing to their strengths. Watching Chelsea I get bored easily (unless they're losing). They have no width bar Ashley Cole marauding down the left on occassion.

I was sure they'd win last night, however I don't expect to see them climbing out of our reach. If we hit form (Defoe starts banging em in), I strongly believe we will finish 3rd. If we continue as we are we have a battle for 4th.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Who really cares how much they have spent? It doesn't make our case for fourth so much better because we haven't got the cheque book out.

 

[Such Small Portions]

Who really cares how much they have spent? It doesn't make our case for fourth so much better because we haven't got the cheque book out.

Just an interesting talking point, really. I think there's a difference worth between a team who wins a league/cup/qualifies for CL or whatever having spent, say, £250m, and one who's spent, say, £50m. I think it tells us interesting things about the game in general and those clubs in particular.

 

[scoobydoo]

I was interested to see how much we had spent on assembling our first 11.

I have tried to put together the most expensive team we could possibly field.

Gomes - £8m

Hutton - £9m
Bassong - £8m
Woodgate - £8m
Bale - £10m

Bentley - £17m
Palacious - £12m
Van der Vaart - £8m
Modric - £16.5m

Defoe - £15m
Pavlyuchenko - £14m

By my reckoning that comes to £125.5m for the team or £11.4m per player.

If you then look at what I would consider our best team. Swapping in Corluka, Lennon, Dawson, Assou Ekotto and taking out Hutton, Bentley, Woodgate, and Defoe.

The total cost comes down to £94m or just £8.55m per player.

Whilst I commend the club on keeping the transfer fees down and searching for bargains. I think one area the difference is most notable is the strikeforce. If we are serious about competing for entry to the Champions League each season and even mounting a title challenge then we need to break the bank and pull in a top drawer striker in the summer.

 

[Woland]

Football economy doesn't work like that. Hence, your comparison is futile.

You can't just sum the original pricetags - this set of players has won trophies, a number of them. It's called Return On Investment. Read on depreciation of assets as it relates to football players here or scroll through this thread.

If you want to make a (invalid anyway) point involving money spent, it's more accurate (i.e. less pointless) to compare wages, not transfer fees. Or, when you're having a geek weekend, you can calculate 'price per trophy' for Chelsea and Spurs based on wages of featured players.:wink:

I can't be bothered doing it myself but I can smell the bottom line won't be flattering for us.

 

[cockjol]

it's also silly to take Chelsea's spending on players and just talk about their return on this season...most of their players have been there for several years and have won three titles and a few cups...mind you there is no doubt they're not getting value for money this year