Tweet
Roman Abramovich has spent £457m finding 1,639 new Chelsea fans... no wonder the Russian is trimming his investment
By Martin Samuel
Last updated at 11:38 PM on 20th September 2010
In the seven years before Roman Abramovich took over at Chelsea, the club spent £106million on players and drew an average gate of 39,784.
Since Abramovich arrived, £457m has been poured into the transfer market and attendances have risen - to 41,423.
That is a difference of just 1,639 people, or £278,828 per fan. No wonder the talk is that Abramovich is trimming his investment, introducing cost-cutting measures and reduced transfer budgets at Stamford Bridge.
Never forget that three league titles have been won in his time, and an equivalent number of FA Cups. The League Cup has been won twice and Chelsea have appeared in the last four of the Champions League on no fewer than five occasions.
There are obviously contributory factors, not least the capacity at Stamford Bridge. It is likely that for certain big matches the club could have sold considerably more than the 42,449 permitted.
Yet Chelsea's average gate since Abramovich came in would still not constitute a sell-out. The fact is that while the significance of Chelsea has grown in Abramovich's seven years, the size of the club has remained largely unmoved.
It is not familiarity that has bred this contempt, either. Over the preceding decades the supporters hardly had the opportunity to grow weary of the heights of European football, yet it is noticeable that the ground is rarely full for Champions League group games.
Sizing down: Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich
Chelsea should have exploded in Abramovich's time, making a move to bigger premises essential. He has done everything right. He has invested substantially in players of good quality, who have in turn delivered success. He has encouraged entertaining football, and 44 goals in 11 games this season suggest an ambition fulfilled there, too.
He even froze ticket prices for four years prior to this season, equating to a net deduction of 15 per cent, with inflation considered. So what is Chelsea's problem? Strangely, there isn't one. They are simply proof of how incredibly hard it is to grow a club organically beyond its traditional size.
Arsenal moved from Highbury, where the capacity at closure was 38,419, to a new stadium at Ashburton Grove holding 60,355, and filled it instantly. Yet Arsenal have long been established as the biggest club in London and at the time of leaving Highbury had a 20,000-strong waiting list for season tickets, closed for some time. This, in part, prompted their move. The board knew that, in essence, Arsenal were a club with a following of 60,000; it was just that 22,000 of them couldn't fit inside the stadium.
Part of the reason Tottenham Hotspur are so desperate to upgrade White Hart Lane is to accommodate their own substantial waiting list. Yet on June 9, Chelsea announced season tickets were available to any 2010/11 member with 67 loyalty points or more, the equivalent of having attended every home match last season, using a ticket purchased on free sale.
Chelsea continue to look at plans to expand, but without the enthusiasm that exists elsewhere. Their big leap came between 1989 and 2003 when the average gate rose from 15,957 to 39,770. They hit the 41,000-mark the following year and have remained there since.
Bruce Buck, the chairman, is a realist. Abramovich is too, in his way. Beyond swapping lunacy for financial responsibility, his enthusiasm does not wane. Even with unprecedented success and £457m lavished on players, Chelsea find growth hard, yet Abramovich has not lost interest, as many expected.
But how many will follow him, once UEFA's poorly-conceived financial regulations take hold? If Chelsea's progress in joining the traditional upper echelons of European football is so dauntingly slow, imagine how difficult it will be when clubs are denied the potential of fast-tracking through owner investment? The transition from small to middling, middling to elite, will be glacial, and considerably more problematic than it is already.
If Abramovich cannot do it, who can? And more importantly, who will be bothered?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...#ixzz1073b6geP
By Martin Samuel
Last updated at 11:38 PM on 20th September 2010
In the seven years before Roman Abramovich took over at Chelsea, the club spent £106million on players and drew an average gate of 39,784.
Since Abramovich arrived, £457m has been poured into the transfer market and attendances have risen - to 41,423.
That is a difference of just 1,639 people, or £278,828 per fan. No wonder the talk is that Abramovich is trimming his investment, introducing cost-cutting measures and reduced transfer budgets at Stamford Bridge.
Never forget that three league titles have been won in his time, and an equivalent number of FA Cups. The League Cup has been won twice and Chelsea have appeared in the last four of the Champions League on no fewer than five occasions.
There are obviously contributory factors, not least the capacity at Stamford Bridge. It is likely that for certain big matches the club could have sold considerably more than the 42,449 permitted.
Yet Chelsea's average gate since Abramovich came in would still not constitute a sell-out. The fact is that while the significance of Chelsea has grown in Abramovich's seven years, the size of the club has remained largely unmoved.
It is not familiarity that has bred this contempt, either. Over the preceding decades the supporters hardly had the opportunity to grow weary of the heights of European football, yet it is noticeable that the ground is rarely full for Champions League group games.
Sizing down: Chelsea owner Roman AbramovichChelsea should have exploded in Abramovich's time, making a move to bigger premises essential. He has done everything right. He has invested substantially in players of good quality, who have in turn delivered success. He has encouraged entertaining football, and 44 goals in 11 games this season suggest an ambition fulfilled there, too.
He even froze ticket prices for four years prior to this season, equating to a net deduction of 15 per cent, with inflation considered. So what is Chelsea's problem? Strangely, there isn't one. They are simply proof of how incredibly hard it is to grow a club organically beyond its traditional size.
Arsenal moved from Highbury, where the capacity at closure was 38,419, to a new stadium at Ashburton Grove holding 60,355, and filled it instantly. Yet Arsenal have long been established as the biggest club in London and at the time of leaving Highbury had a 20,000-strong waiting list for season tickets, closed for some time. This, in part, prompted their move. The board knew that, in essence, Arsenal were a club with a following of 60,000; it was just that 22,000 of them couldn't fit inside the stadium.
Part of the reason Tottenham Hotspur are so desperate to upgrade White Hart Lane is to accommodate their own substantial waiting list. Yet on June 9, Chelsea announced season tickets were available to any 2010/11 member with 67 loyalty points or more, the equivalent of having attended every home match last season, using a ticket purchased on free sale.
Chelsea continue to look at plans to expand, but without the enthusiasm that exists elsewhere. Their big leap came between 1989 and 2003 when the average gate rose from 15,957 to 39,770. They hit the 41,000-mark the following year and have remained there since.
Bruce Buck, the chairman, is a realist. Abramovich is too, in his way. Beyond swapping lunacy for financial responsibility, his enthusiasm does not wane. Even with unprecedented success and £457m lavished on players, Chelsea find growth hard, yet Abramovich has not lost interest, as many expected.
But how many will follow him, once UEFA's poorly-conceived financial regulations take hold? If Chelsea's progress in joining the traditional upper echelons of European football is so dauntingly slow, imagine how difficult it will be when clubs are denied the potential of fast-tracking through owner investment? The transition from small to middling, middling to elite, will be glacial, and considerably more problematic than it is already.
If Abramovich cannot do it, who can? And more importantly, who will be bothered?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...#ixzz1073b6geP
Comment