Why Manchester City are well-equipped to follow Chelsea model of success

A ruble for your thoughts, Mr Abramovich? When you woke up this morning, were you feeling as smug and as contented as usual? Or were you feeling an unfamiliar sense of anxiety, having found yourself gazumped for the first time since you changed the landscape of English and world football by buying Chelsea?

For the past five years, nobody - at least not in the football industry - had been able to do to Chelsea what the prospective new owners of Manchester City did yesterday. Abramovich thought that only time or Real Madrid could stop him bringing Robinho, the young Brazil forward, to Stamford Bridge. But then it emerged last night that City had outbid Chelsea and then, two minutes before midnight, that Robinho had joined the Eastlands club in a British record £34.2 million deal.

It was an extraordinary day and an extraordinary night, but more important are the extraordinary times ahead. The Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment (quickly forgiven by City's supporters for the faux pas of using the U-word) appear intent on doing what Abramovich did to Chelsea, which is to say doing things far beyond their supporters' wildest dreams.

There is already a post on today's Times website from a Mr John V in Athens, who writes: "Manchester City the next Chelsea? I severly doubt that! Chelsea were already a force to be reckoned with before Abramovich took charge. City have nothing to show (including a charismatic manager) and so will prove difficult to attract the best players. Still, thumbs up for English football."

I agree that the Chelsea revolution began in the mid-1990s, John, with the signings of Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli and Gianfranco Zola, but, by the time Abramovich turned up in July 2003, the London club was in danger of going to the wall. Do not underestimate how grim Chelsea's prospects were before Abramovich came along.

Without Abramovich's wealth and without that influx of players in the mid-1990s who made them "sexy", Chelsea would be a smaller club than City. Some will disagree with that, but I firmly believe it. If you compare the two clubs in terms of their fanbase, potential or otherwise, or their history, City come out on top.

Here, dug out from a very useful website http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk, I have listed the two clubs' average league attendances going back to 1989-1990. I will not list them all, but will look to give you a good idea of what happened in the 1990s. 1989/90: City 27,975, Chelsea 21,783; 1991/92: City 27,688, Chelsea 18,780; 1993/94: City 26,709, Chelsea 19,211; 1995/96: City 27,941, Chelsea 25,598; 1996/97: City (in Nationwide League division one) 26,710, Chelsea (with Gullit, Vialli and, later, Zola) 27,617; 1998/99 City (in Nationwide League division two) 28,273, Chelsea 34,751.

In spite of dire performances and two relegations, City's attendances remained almost constant throughout the 1990s because they have a huge, loyal and, according to some of them, sado-masochistic fanbase. Chelsea, by contrast, were a run-of-the-mill London club with a far smaller fanbase until the Premier League years brought Gullit, Vialli and Zola to Stamford Bridge and turned it into a fashionable place to be seen on a Saturday afternoon (but not a midweek evening in the Champions League, interestingly).

Maybe these figures are not current enough for you, so let us look at the past five seasons, since which Chelsea's stadium has been expanded and City have relocated to the City of Manchester Stadium. 2003/04 City 46,834, Chelsea 41,234; 2004/05 City 45,192, Chelsea 41,870; 2005/06 City 42,856, Chelsea 41,902; 2006/07 City 39,997, Chelsea 41,542; 2007/08: City 42,126, Chelsea 41,397. Yes I know that Stamford Bridge is full to capacity almost every week and that supply cannot meet demand, but just look at those City figures throughout yet more lean years and imagine how many supporters they could attract if they actually became successful.

This is the kind of thing that Garry Cook, City's executive chairman, was talking about a couple of weeks ago. He said that the strategy was to "own" Manchester, to become "relevant" in Europe and to create a global awareness. He talked of the need to sign a "superstar" or two. And some of us cringed when he said that.

But, perhaps more than the planned signing of Ronaldinho, the deal to sign Robinho (which happened almost before these new investors had got their feet under the boardroom table at Eastlands) is, as Mark Hughes puts it, a serious statement of intent. It seems to have signified the rousing of one of football's true sleeping giants. And, while Cook and others should be careful before announcing that City can be as big as Manchester United, nobody should doubt that they can be bigger than Chelsea. In fact, some might say they already are.

****

Final thoughts on this summer's transfer deals in the Premier League. Arsenal: too complacent. Aston Villa: some good deals but big net spend brings pressure. Blackburn Rovers: hard to judge but will miss Friedel and Bentley. Bolton: Elmander looks overpriced but will improve the team. Chelsea: will they rue the one that got away? Everton: late Fellaini deal should quell some of the discontent. Fulham: should be stronger for sweeping changes. Hull City: indisputably stronger than in May, but maybe not strong enough. Liverpool: not enough top-quality to take them to where they want to be. Manchester City: could genuinely be a force once Jo and Robinho click. Manchester United: keeping Ronaldo was even more important than signing Berbatov. Middlesbrough: yawn. Newcastle United: anticlimax, but some good deals. Portsmouth: looked like they could be going places until the money dried up. Stoke City: see Hull City. Sunderland: see Aston Villa; Tottenham Hotspur: shame Berbatov and Keane had to make way for some very talented players. West Bromwich Albion: see Stoke City. West Ham United: see Middlesbrough. Wigan Athletic: see Fulham.

Oliver Kay

Comments

[RD, Almeria]

To Niall Orr, Australia.

The point is that MCFC actually does have an enormous fan base - probably the 3rd or 4th biggest in the UK. Massive numbers have been turning up for the last three decades to witness weekly humiliation on the pitch and in the press. If any bunch of fans "deserves" their day in the sun then it is this loyal band. Yes there will be the usual "Johnny come latelys" but who could deny the faithful masses a bit of reward ?

[Niall Orr, Sydney]

I wonder how many Machester City "Fans" we see suddenly popping up saying they've been die-hard supporters since they were kids!

There will be all the excuses like the kids who supported Man Utd at school who used to say "My Dad knows someone from Manchester so I'm a United fan."

Similar to the many Chelsea around these days

[will]

kwikki
whats it gotta do with fifa? the only excuse they have to step in is the fact they cant stand it when england does well. just look at the different reaction to and all english champs league final to the all spanish or all italian finals!
ed and all the others
the prawn sandwich brigade at manu is a mix of southerner and irish, theres no reason why city cant caputure the same glory hunters. after all they are glory hunters loyalty isnt exactly a byword which they can be acurately attached too. you never know the smaller the world gets and with the inevitable foreign matches(although hoepfully better model than an extra game) a whole new american, chines, indian fanbase is probably about to be the next battle ground in the prem.
1 thing i do hope tho, is that these clubs put in place a solid business plan. if an owner gets into financial strife the first spending they will cut is at their club, it would be terrible to see english clubs going the way of accrington stanley and aldershot. but thats just the business man in me, as long as setanta or sky dont go bankrupt, tv money is very secure and the potential foreign markets are phenomenal.

if only the rest of the british ecconomy could follow the premier league model.

[kwikki]

I have said for 2 yrs that Abramovich is the thin end of the wedge. As Arif says, Liverpool next, then Arse, then ManU. All gone to insanely wealthy people. When will FIFA/UEFA step in to bring some sanity to the ownership/finance issue?

[Ed]

Where are City going to pull these fans from? Chelsea were able to draw new fans because the greater London area houses 20 million people. Only a small percentage of these would have to convert in order to significantly increase the number of fans.

However, I am from Manchester and there arn't many people who don't support United/City already. It would be highly unlikely that any of these would change allegance. Then looking around to the north west, I don't think there will be many Scousers converting to City. How about Blackburn, Bolton etc? - Maybe not.

Realistically all of the fringe/glory supporters in the North West are already United fans and are pretty unlikely to change.

[Peter]

And based on your attendance analysis, Man City is a bigger club than Chelsea (based on attendance figures) yet Chelsea would be deemed bigger than Arsenal (based on attendance figures - remember Highbury could not hold more than 38,000)

[Peter]

In the 5 seasons prior to Abramovich taking over Chelsea had won 4 trophies [FA Cup, League Cup, and Cup Winners Cup] and had played in a Champions League quarter finals.

The only clubs who can better that record are Man Utd and Arsenal (Man City haven't won a trophy for over 20 years!)

[dave]

this is the best thing to have happened for city and a great catch for the now new owners.The fact is we do own part of our stadium-The deal was that, as maine road held 34000 and our new ground holds 48000 we only pay rent on 14000-so if 34000 turn up-no rent is payed--this" we dont own it "stuff, came from the rag half of manchester, who themselves own nowt[some bank does}till they pay off that daft mortgage--So our new owners have baught this great club with FANtastic potencial.Also it was on the cards that someone somewhere could see the exitement of taking over a club next to utd as City are historicly the true rivals not Liverpool or Chelsea or Leeds--Now watch them rags squerm cos theres nowhere to hide when we more than match them--PS hope liverpools owners sell to DIC cos we need more wealth in the prem..

[Nick]

The ones to worry aren't Chelsea fans, they have a good team, a good manager, and an owner still willing to shell out.

The ones to worry must be Arsenal and Liverpool i.e. the ones *without* a rich owner. Even Manchester United might feel a little uneasy - who knows what Ferguson's departure might bring, and a couple of poor seasons could be fatal in this brave new world.

Where this leaves the likes of Villa etc trying to "break into" the top four - crying into thier beer I guess.

[Doug E. Fresh]

As a american this is funny. The baseball team New York Yankees has a pay roll bigger than any PL team. And have nothing to show for it. Its better to be lucky than good.

[Sylvester Ikpotokin]

We don't have to worry about Man City. Big or Small money is not a problem bcoz Man United is the only club that can handle all situation. Arab man would spend all his money on Man City without any position in the top 4. Long reign Man United Long life we the fans

[Nemo]

You could throw trillions of pounds at Halifax Town and turn them into a top 4 team - it's got nowt to do with history.

[carl]

Looks like another Mutu, Crespo, Veron, Sheva style purchase to me. Just jump in without thinking.

All the best to Man City, it should make it more interesting at the top, and it pleases me (as a Chelsea Fan) that the likely losses will be Liverpool or Arsenal.

One thing that should be noted is that I'm sure Real Madrid prefered to sell a player to City, as unlike Chelsea thay are not competition for them (this season anyway in the Champions League).

[Dan]

Stamford Bridge was once the second or third biggest ground in the country. Attendance figures like statistics can be highly selective.
One thing we can probably look forward to is the slow slide to irrelevance of the scousers. City WILL be in the top four sooner rather than later and on current form it looks like L'pool will have to make way.
What goes around comes around as they say.

[Blue Homer]

To follow the proper dark blue approach they need to buy an ageing player from Abu Dhabi for around £30m and pay him £130k p.w.
He will then swan around in the reserves/sick bed until his paternal ex-president recalls him to a life of luxury back in the UAE.
This will cause a bust up between owner and manager leading to the appointment as first team coach of Abdul Bin NoQlu, he who teaches blow-football to the owners' children. Opposing fans can sing the traditional refrain "where were you when you were S@*t?", while the home fans mourn the passing of the "Sparky One" .

Unfortunately it is hard to see the light blues reaching 2 cup finals so there the parallels must end.

[Russell]

What yesterday showed Oliver is that Chelsea have learnt a valuable lesson ( finally) and won't be held to ransom anymore.

How many years and failed signings of mercenaries will it take City to get over their new found ' Big Player ' status. Judging on their snap purchase of a player who wanted to be at an other club hours before just so they could make a statement to the world, a few it seems.

The road to the top four may seem easy if you have the money. It's staying there and winning things that make the statement, not which flavour of the season player you have just bought...

Good luck. you'll need it.

[Arif]

Good points Oliver.

Here is another thought -

What if Liverpool FC with their history and success combined with their global fanbase - were taken over by DIC?

The thought is mesmerising and probably frightening for the rest of world football never mind the Premiership.

If only the damn Americans would do the honourable thing and sell up to DIC. That I guess would be too much to ask. They just are NOT honourable and nor do they have the best interests of Liverpool FC at heart just as Thansin had for Man City.

[david]

I think pay-per-view live games via the internet is the financial future of football, and quibbling over 40- or 50,000 at the gates per match a side issue if not an irrelevance. Of course, City could swiftly become the arabian fan's team of choice, but my travels tell me that east of Cairo the current Big 4 are way more popular than any other european clubs (Arsenal and Man U being more admired than Chelsea or Liverpool due to their more flamboyant displays).

Still, money swears in football, and if things don't change fast in the boardroom at Anfield and City's owners walk the talk, as it were, today is a bad, bad day for my team, Liverpool. Fifth richest in the prem = fifth place = nowhere! Our future is the colour of the new away strip ...
and as sure as eggs is eggs the Gerrard + Torres to City rumours will hatch before the next transfer window.

[ed farmer]

number of fans ≠ amount of money
surely it is about money not the no. of fans
I believe the ticket prices are very different/sponcership deals/ TV rights and the way they play.
Brink back sexy football

[Shreyans]

i think manchester city will be a force to reckon wid for the likes of the so called "big four"........they have unlimited cash which was proved by their antics on the transfer deadline day by lining up audacious bids for berbatov,robinho,villa and gomez....
this year wud not be that big...but wait for next year.....that mite be the beginning of something special for man city......
and these words come from a guy whose heart lies in the red of manchester........
just cant wait for the derby........
cheers to english football....

[Peter Bench]

1. Go back over the past 50 years and you will see that the attendance record at Chelsea outstrips Man City.2. Chelsea played in the Champs. Lg in 1998/99 - before Roman. 3 check our cup record (all comps) over the past 15 years (and the 10 before Roman) and you will see how much more successful we were then compared with City.4. Yes Eastlands is a bigger stadium - they didn't have to pay for it, mind. 5. No-one knows what would have happened before Roman arrived - but compared with Leeds for example, our ground receipts were not securitised so funds could have been found. 6. City are not a sleeping giant - not compared with, say, Villa or Newcastle or Atletico Madrid.