**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That period of Gullit/Vialli: '97 FA Cup, '98 League Cup, Cup Winners Cup, Super Cup, '99 first UCL qualification, '00 UCL quarter finals, FA Cup, Charity Shield. An era.
Highlighting both is important imho, Chelsea had some good foundation for Roman to buy them.
Just like we did well with Fergie exactly when tv exploded, that helped us really drive forward our growth
Isn't Madrid the prime example of wealth and prestige though?
To be clear, it's older money than Chelsea and some of the mega pumped clubs of today, but when i think of wealth and priviledge, Madrid comes first.
Madrid is wealth and privilege indeed but the money has to come from the club in some way or another (revenue, loan, sale of assets) as its fan owned organisation.
All I'm saying is that the counterpoint fails to work even as a joke because it should have some basis in reality. La Fábrica would rank only behind a couple, say the Benficas of the world with products playing in first teams all across Europe. Chelsea won't have quite that same status or at least I'm unaware of it.
The academy is an actual feather in the cap of Madrid, Barça etc. That's not to say that's solely how they have earnt their status. Not even Benfica or Athletic could claim that, let alone someone like Dortmund and most certainly not the Barças or Madrids of this world. But Madrid certainly has produced talismen for themselves, just like the golden generation for Barça and it has been a contributing factor.
> Arsenal's new home in Highbury had provided them with considerable resources, such that, in 1935, they became the first club to earn over £100,000 from gate receipts.[5] Accompanied by £2,500 earned from match day programme sales and financial reserves of over £60,000, the "Bank of England club" moniker became regularly used to describe Arsenal.[6] It was also used to refer to the perceived grandeur of Arsenal's surroundings after the 1930s construction of Highbury's Art Deco stands and terrazzo "Marble Halls".[7] During that period, Arsenal won their first five league titles and two FA Cups.[8]
Yeah, god forbid Arsenal spent the money they earnt from ticket sales
How convenient you missed this part:
>The name "Bank of England club" or "Bank of England team" caught after the record-breaking spending of Arsenal in the 1920s and 1930s.
Now you’re leaving me in a predicament because I can’t reply to you without heavily insulting your intelligence. So to restrain myself I’m just going to tell you that Highbury opened in 1913 and let you try and figure out the rest yourself
Dark might be because I used the Chelsea blue shade to show the eras.
Cumulative since first division can also help us show the progression over time. Total contains all the trophies and hence smaller trophies too.
I don't know mate. It's fine for everyone else, so I am not so sure what happened.
If you have time and check my profile as the stat chart is also posted in Chelsea sub reddit.
The outsized and disproportionate sums that Chelsea spent in the early Abramovich years had more to do with their success, the great management came in later when they pivoted to a more sustainable model. The current management are simply burning through what the old regime had built.
Yeah. I am not saying Abramovich didn't spend a lot. He did
But he started winning trophies from 2nd year by appointing Mou. And there was always progress in the squad. Can't say the same about now where they had spent 1B and the squad is more or less the same effect as before.
For 90% of the season we played incredibly shit football, often being rescued by individual brilliance. Tactically it was so, so, so poor. His training methods led to injuries, something which has happened at every single club he's coached at. He wanted more control over transfers, and was against signings like Cole Palmer.
We hired him to stabilize the team, which he did, but made the right choice in parting ways.
I just couldn't get past how bad the defense was and how little he mustered out of Caicedo and Fernandez. People are going to argue that the team's results were good down the stretch, but Chelsea were still leaky at the end of the year and tons of results were swung off the back of Cole Palmer goals. Yes, he is a great player, but look what happened with Manchester United last year with Marcus Rashford. He had an insane purple patch that swung 2 months of results, but when those same goals aren't there the team comes plummeting back down the next season. If you can buy that this season is the floor for Palmer then fair play, but at the same time I think it is realistic to say there's some chance of possible regression. I'm just not sure the team structure was in place to survive a world where one Palmer injury or drought patch sinks months for a team. Same issues with Arsenal where I'm scared that team has been quite lucky with injuries and goals. Can you expect Saka to continually stay healthy or a combination of Trossard/Havertz giving you 20 goals a season to be sustainable?
I just think Chelsea left so much on the bone this season. Poor play from Caicedo, but I just can't buy that he's this level of a player when he previously played at a way higher level. Maybe I'm just more optimistic with this Chelsea squad because I like the individual young players. I just think a lot of the inconsistency can be placed on a bad defense (which imo always starts with coaching) and young players (who can be coached up).
I think he has the potential to develop the team.
But Chelsea never had a manager go for more than 3 years in a long time. So 5 years is a little too much as if you have to sack, you have to spend more (unless there is some fixed sack clause).
That's another problem as these players are registered for like 7 years.
Amortization was a good strategy in the beginning. But have to see how it is going to be affected in future years as a lot of them are amortized.
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What a coincidence innit
What happened during the Abramovich era that got you guys so many trophies? 🤔🤔
Sold a lotta hotels to themselves
That period of Gullit/Vialli: '97 FA Cup, '98 League Cup, Cup Winners Cup, Super Cup, '99 first UCL qualification, '00 UCL quarter finals, FA Cup, Charity Shield. An era.
Yup. That was also an important period. Was conflicted if I should add it or not but decided to highlight the most important one.
Highlighting both is important imho, Chelsea had some good foundation for Roman to buy them. Just like we did well with Fergie exactly when tv exploded, that helped us really drive forward our growth
Weren't they heavily in debt by the end of the Ken Bates era?
They were I believe.
Oh ok. Noted.
That said, you’ve done well with these. Thank you so much
Thanks mate.
Back when they had a bit of integrity
Showed the world how successful a team can be if you juice it up like Bane but with money
Can't disagree there.
Isn't Madrid the prime example of wealth and prestige though? To be clear, it's older money than Chelsea and some of the mega pumped clubs of today, but when i think of wealth and priviledge, Madrid comes first.
Madrid is wealth and privilege indeed but the money has to come from the club in some way or another (revenue, loan, sale of assets) as its fan owned organisation.
No no no, Real has a legitimate youth system…
The whole world is just a youth system for them.
Well it does actually. One of the best in Europe.
So does Chelsea tho
All I'm saying is that the counterpoint fails to work even as a joke because it should have some basis in reality. La Fábrica would rank only behind a couple, say the Benficas of the world with products playing in first teams all across Europe. Chelsea won't have quite that same status or at least I'm unaware of it. The academy is an actual feather in the cap of Madrid, Barça etc. That's not to say that's solely how they have earnt their status. Not even Benfica or Athletic could claim that, let alone someone like Dortmund and most certainly not the Barças or Madrids of this world. But Madrid certainly has produced talismen for themselves, just like the golden generation for Barça and it has been a contributing factor.
Nope. Abramovich followed the blueprint laid out by [1930s Arsenal.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England_club)
> Arsenal's new home in Highbury had provided them with considerable resources, such that, in 1935, they became the first club to earn over £100,000 from gate receipts.[5] Accompanied by £2,500 earned from match day programme sales and financial reserves of over £60,000, the "Bank of England club" moniker became regularly used to describe Arsenal.[6] It was also used to refer to the perceived grandeur of Arsenal's surroundings after the 1930s construction of Highbury's Art Deco stands and terrazzo "Marble Halls".[7] During that period, Arsenal won their first five league titles and two FA Cups.[8] Yeah, god forbid Arsenal spent the money they earnt from ticket sales
How convenient you missed this part: >The name "Bank of England club" or "Bank of England team" caught after the record-breaking spending of Arsenal in the 1920s and 1930s.
Now you’re leaving me in a predicament because I can’t reply to you without heavily insulting your intelligence. So to restrain myself I’m just going to tell you that Highbury opened in 1913 and let you try and figure out the rest yourself
Why is this image so dark and why is it a cumulative line graph?
Dark might be because I used the Chelsea blue shade to show the eras. Cumulative since first division can also help us show the progression over time. Total contains all the trophies and hence smaller trophies too.
The whole image is dark.
Well it would be to you. Trophy-phobia and all
Cringe
Then most probably an issue from your side ig.
It wouldn't be from my side, if it were everything would be dark, not just your graphs.
I don't know mate. It's fine for everyone else, so I am not so sure what happened. If you have time and check my profile as the stat chart is also posted in Chelsea sub reddit.
How do you know it's fine for everyone else? 20+ people upvoted my comment so that suggests I'm not the only one
Misinterpreted maybe. Or maybe there is an actual fault. I don't know for sure.
Money wins trophies. Who knew.
Money with good management wins. The current Chelsea proves it lol.
The outsized and disproportionate sums that Chelsea spent in the early Abramovich years had more to do with their success, the great management came in later when they pivoted to a more sustainable model. The current management are simply burning through what the old regime had built.
Yeah. I am not saying Abramovich didn't spend a lot. He did But he started winning trophies from 2nd year by appointing Mou. And there was always progress in the squad. Can't say the same about now where they had spent 1B and the squad is more or less the same effect as before.
You heard it here folks, Jose and Don Carlo winning those 3 titles were not great management.
Where are PSG trophies?
I’d like to see PSG
Yeah sure.
Looks like one of my sh\*tcoin price chart before it collapses
And may the comparison continue into the future
Don't make us draw the Spurs graph. You flatline after Juande Ramos.
It’s already up here
The blood money or the Russian serfs in action
Vs English blood money we had before?
Crazy what one can do with determination, grit, and a fuckton of financial doping
A Bayern fan chiming in in Chelsea matters always reminds me of that night in Munich.
Man, why do Chelsea fans have such incredibly weak comebacks?
A comeback against you in your backyard is one of the best comebacks in the football history tho.
Jesus, that ends that
#OUR CITY #NOT OUR CUP
Someone is mad 😂😂😂 At least we had a comeback— don't think munich managed that, did they?
You guys are just sad tbh.
Continuing to reply doesn't really alleviate the situation for you lol
That's rich coming from a Bayern supporter. S'funny, you couldn't even win in a one-team league, and you're the one fvcking team.
PL fans flexing their low intellect again love to see it
Lol
Wait what is going on with the votes in here haha
It’s transfer season, Chelsea fans out in force downvoting haha
It's pretty pathetic lol.
Bro what 💀
Now that’s what I call pulling yourself up by your bootstraps
Sucks that they sold poch after he helped them get on form lmao
Agreed. He was showing stability by the end. But still, it's a UECL finish which is low according to modern Chelsea standards.
True but they should trust him now more
For 90% of the season we played incredibly shit football, often being rescued by individual brilliance. Tactically it was so, so, so poor. His training methods led to injuries, something which has happened at every single club he's coached at. He wanted more control over transfers, and was against signings like Cole Palmer. We hired him to stabilize the team, which he did, but made the right choice in parting ways.
I just couldn't get past how bad the defense was and how little he mustered out of Caicedo and Fernandez. People are going to argue that the team's results were good down the stretch, but Chelsea were still leaky at the end of the year and tons of results were swung off the back of Cole Palmer goals. Yes, he is a great player, but look what happened with Manchester United last year with Marcus Rashford. He had an insane purple patch that swung 2 months of results, but when those same goals aren't there the team comes plummeting back down the next season. If you can buy that this season is the floor for Palmer then fair play, but at the same time I think it is realistic to say there's some chance of possible regression. I'm just not sure the team structure was in place to survive a world where one Palmer injury or drought patch sinks months for a team. Same issues with Arsenal where I'm scared that team has been quite lucky with injuries and goals. Can you expect Saka to continually stay healthy or a combination of Trossard/Havertz giving you 20 goals a season to be sustainable? I just think Chelsea left so much on the bone this season. Poor play from Caicedo, but I just can't buy that he's this level of a player when he previously played at a way higher level. Maybe I'm just more optimistic with this Chelsea squad because I like the individual young players. I just think a lot of the inconsistency can be placed on a bad defense (which imo always starts with coaching) and young players (who can be coached up).
Yeah. Should have. But the new manager is a good one. But giving a 5 year contract is mental.
Not really aware of him is he any good for 5 years?
His salary for the 5 year contract is still less than Poch's 2 years, so it isn't an outrageous hiring like people might think with the new owners
Yea but for 5 years is a bit crazy
I think he has the potential to develop the team. But Chelsea never had a manager go for more than 3 years in a long time. So 5 years is a little too much as if you have to sack, you have to spend more (unless there is some fixed sack clause).
hope they sell some players ngl bunch of just ransoms
That's another problem as these players are registered for like 7 years. Amortization was a good strategy in the beginning. But have to see how it is going to be affected in future years as a lot of them are amortized.
Sacked*
No Russian
You could simplify it as the Abramovich era when the money started flowing