So the FA inquiry into Chelsea's "tapping up" of Ashley Cole has come to its conclusion with everyone found guilty, everyone punished and everyone considering appeals against the judgement. For Arsenal supporters it is hard to reach any firm conclusions about the whole sorry episode at the moment because it seems so much dust has still yet to settle.
Commenting on this story when it first broke, I expressed the disappointment that all football supporters periodically have to face when the illusion that their players care as much for their teams as they do is shattered. Players can tell us they love our clubs but how many would love them as much if they were not getting paid many thousands of pounds a week for the privilege of playing for them? In this time of footballers receiving stratospheric wages and rock star adulation, the days of the "local hero" and the "one-club man", who were tied to their clubs as much by love and loyalty as money, have long gone. Now, with very few exceptions, it is all about money.
It is a sad fact that the only reason why Ashley Cole entered into a liaison with Chelsea was for money. Whether it was to secure more by actually moving to Chelsea or whether it was to use their interest as a bargaining tool in his negotiations to renew his contract with Arsenal, money was still the motivating force. Certainly, it would be extremely difficult to for Cole to claim that a move to West London would further his footballing ambitions. Chelsea may very well be on the cusp of some great times, but under the guidance of Arsene Wenger, Arsenal have developed into one of the best footballing teams this country has even seen and have won Premierships and FA Cups on a regular basis. The Champions League remains a huge target, but Arsenal are as capable as winning that tournament as Chelsea are. (If the current Liverpool team can win the Champions League, then anyone can!)
With two years to go on his contract, it was correct that Arsenal and Ashley Cole should have entered into negotiations to extend his time at the club. Having come up through the ranks at Highbury, Cole has developed into one of the best left backs in Europe and he is a player who would have been one of the first names on Arsene Wenger's teamsheet every week. However, what Arsenal offered to pay him fell short of his expectations. Those expectations would have been fuelled by not only what the likes of what Patrick Vieira and Thierry Henry were earning at Arsenal but also what his England peers, Frank Lampard, John Terry and Wayne Bridge were on at Chelsea. It might have been hard for Cole to argue a case that would put his salary on a par with Vieira and Henry. After all, these are players who have won trophies on the international stage as well as domestically. However, benchmarked against the Chelsea trio, and in particular his England understudy Bridge, he may have felt his claims were justified. Herein lies the crux of the problem for Arsenal and every other Premiership team. How can you compete with Chelsea when they have the financial backing to pay what they want to anyone they want?
Much has been written over the last month about Malcolm Glazer's takeover of Manchester United. United fans fear the destruction of their club and many pundits have expressed the view that were Glazer to dismantle the current collective television deal, the future of whole professional game in this country as we know it could be in jeopardy. When the then unknown Roman Abramovich came to Chelsea there were many similar apocalyptic predictions. However, Abramovich is now described as a man who has "fallen in love with Chelsea" and who "loves football", whereas Glazer is described as a self-interested profiteer with no interest in the game at all. Over the last month, the Russian has been portrayed as a force for good in the game and the American a force for evil. However, who really is the more destabilising influence in the English game? The investor who will have to run his club by the natural rules of business and have to make the club successful to return a profit? Or the investor who can provide a bottomless pit of money for his club where all natural business rules can be broken without impunity putting them on playing field on their own and financially out of reach of all of their competitors?
Chelsea have been criticised for having endless resources in the transfer market and even accused of buying their way to the title. However, the Ashley Cole episode has revealed a more subliminal cancer that Roman Abramovich's money is spreading through the game. As in any walk of life, a person can only really judge their financial worth and their salary by what the next man has got. Chelsea's false business situation and ability to pay over-inflated wages has totally poisoned the market. Of course, Ashley Cole thinks he should be on more money than Wayne Bridge - he is a more proven performer and has achieved more in the game. However, how can Arsenal offer Ashley Cole a comparable salary to Wayne Bridge's when Chelsea play by different financial rules to every other club in the country? For Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck to then claim that Arsenal have brought the Ashley Cole situation upon themselves by not paying the player what he is worth is an obscenity. It is his club that has warped the market and set a rolling juggernaut of increasing wages in motion.
Chelsea claim that they have a plan to be self-supporting and not requiring of Roman Abramovich's handouts within ten years. However, in ten years time, having upped the ante on transfer fees and players' salaries so much, will there be anyone left to play?
*******************************************************************
Footnote: At the time of writing, news has just broken of the suspension of Frank Arsensen by Tottenham Hotspur following an approach made to him by Chelsea without the permission of Spurs.
Got it from Soccernet
Commenting on this story when it first broke, I expressed the disappointment that all football supporters periodically have to face when the illusion that their players care as much for their teams as they do is shattered. Players can tell us they love our clubs but how many would love them as much if they were not getting paid many thousands of pounds a week for the privilege of playing for them? In this time of footballers receiving stratospheric wages and rock star adulation, the days of the "local hero" and the "one-club man", who were tied to their clubs as much by love and loyalty as money, have long gone. Now, with very few exceptions, it is all about money.
It is a sad fact that the only reason why Ashley Cole entered into a liaison with Chelsea was for money. Whether it was to secure more by actually moving to Chelsea or whether it was to use their interest as a bargaining tool in his negotiations to renew his contract with Arsenal, money was still the motivating force. Certainly, it would be extremely difficult to for Cole to claim that a move to West London would further his footballing ambitions. Chelsea may very well be on the cusp of some great times, but under the guidance of Arsene Wenger, Arsenal have developed into one of the best footballing teams this country has even seen and have won Premierships and FA Cups on a regular basis. The Champions League remains a huge target, but Arsenal are as capable as winning that tournament as Chelsea are. (If the current Liverpool team can win the Champions League, then anyone can!)
With two years to go on his contract, it was correct that Arsenal and Ashley Cole should have entered into negotiations to extend his time at the club. Having come up through the ranks at Highbury, Cole has developed into one of the best left backs in Europe and he is a player who would have been one of the first names on Arsene Wenger's teamsheet every week. However, what Arsenal offered to pay him fell short of his expectations. Those expectations would have been fuelled by not only what the likes of what Patrick Vieira and Thierry Henry were earning at Arsenal but also what his England peers, Frank Lampard, John Terry and Wayne Bridge were on at Chelsea. It might have been hard for Cole to argue a case that would put his salary on a par with Vieira and Henry. After all, these are players who have won trophies on the international stage as well as domestically. However, benchmarked against the Chelsea trio, and in particular his England understudy Bridge, he may have felt his claims were justified. Herein lies the crux of the problem for Arsenal and every other Premiership team. How can you compete with Chelsea when they have the financial backing to pay what they want to anyone they want?
Much has been written over the last month about Malcolm Glazer's takeover of Manchester United. United fans fear the destruction of their club and many pundits have expressed the view that were Glazer to dismantle the current collective television deal, the future of whole professional game in this country as we know it could be in jeopardy. When the then unknown Roman Abramovich came to Chelsea there were many similar apocalyptic predictions. However, Abramovich is now described as a man who has "fallen in love with Chelsea" and who "loves football", whereas Glazer is described as a self-interested profiteer with no interest in the game at all. Over the last month, the Russian has been portrayed as a force for good in the game and the American a force for evil. However, who really is the more destabilising influence in the English game? The investor who will have to run his club by the natural rules of business and have to make the club successful to return a profit? Or the investor who can provide a bottomless pit of money for his club where all natural business rules can be broken without impunity putting them on playing field on their own and financially out of reach of all of their competitors?
Chelsea have been criticised for having endless resources in the transfer market and even accused of buying their way to the title. However, the Ashley Cole episode has revealed a more subliminal cancer that Roman Abramovich's money is spreading through the game. As in any walk of life, a person can only really judge their financial worth and their salary by what the next man has got. Chelsea's false business situation and ability to pay over-inflated wages has totally poisoned the market. Of course, Ashley Cole thinks he should be on more money than Wayne Bridge - he is a more proven performer and has achieved more in the game. However, how can Arsenal offer Ashley Cole a comparable salary to Wayne Bridge's when Chelsea play by different financial rules to every other club in the country? For Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck to then claim that Arsenal have brought the Ashley Cole situation upon themselves by not paying the player what he is worth is an obscenity. It is his club that has warped the market and set a rolling juggernaut of increasing wages in motion.
Chelsea claim that they have a plan to be self-supporting and not requiring of Roman Abramovich's handouts within ten years. However, in ten years time, having upped the ante on transfer fees and players' salaries so much, will there be anyone left to play?
*******************************************************************
Footnote: At the time of writing, news has just broken of the suspension of Frank Arsensen by Tottenham Hotspur following an approach made to him by Chelsea without the permission of Spurs.
Got it from Soccernet
Buy on AliExpress.com
