Discussing the success of teams

First, I am not dissing clubs like Man City and Chelsea, I am simply discussing the trend.

Ok, here goes;

First, the meaning of being elite:
1-Being a constant trophy competetion.
2-Trophies you already have.
3-Brand name.
4-Pulling power.

Not all these need to be there, but an elite club needs at least three of those.

A number of clubs are already establishedin Europe as elite clubs,
most of these clubs became elite a long time ago,
Let us look at how these clubs became elite in the first place:

Real Madrid:
As a founding side in what became the La Liga, and as the main c;ub in the capital, Real's success came as no surprise. Never taking too long to end a trophy drought, RM always were an elite team. Hence, RM came into the economical era of football (1990) already a top club.

Barca:
Unlike RM, Barca were not as successful pre 1990. However, they were still considereda top spansih team. What cemented their elite status however, was their strong entry into the economical era of football (1990). With the begening of the 90's bringing a lot of success there way, Barca became financialy secure, and continued to florish in a way they were not able to in their first 80 years.

Liverpool:
Like RM, coming into the economical era of football (1990), Liverpool was the most successful English team. And even though they have not replicated their success post 1990, they still are a huge brand.

Man U:
Like Barca, but even with less honors, MU did not have much success pre 1990. And like Barca, their early 90s success propelled them into becoming an elite club. And they never looked back again.

Arsenal:
Arsenal came into the economical era of football (1990) as the second most successful team in England. However, they did not become an elite club untill their success in the Wenger era. Which also reflects in the fact that Arsenal are probably the least "elite" of the teams in this list.

Juve:
Same as the RM scenario, which is why they always have the funds to stand up again (if not the brains to do so properly).

Milan:
Milan was only the second club in Milan, but they were elite enough then to attract owners like Berlu. Hence, Milan started strongly into the economical era of football (1990). If it did not do so then, I doubt Milan would be as it is now.

Inter:
As the second most successful team in Italy pre 1990, Inter becoming an elite club is no surprise, and their continuation as a brand despite a trophy drougt is testemant to the power and duration of becoming elite.

Bayern:
Like the RM scenario.

Conclusion:
The clubs that are considered elite were either the most successful in their leagues, or the ones that started 1990 strong. With the exception of Arsenal, who are probably the less "elite" team in the list.

Some semi-elite clubs like Roma and Valenci exist, but the revenue of both clubs is not stable and their brand is not well known. In the last 20 years, only Chelsea managed to be a constant threat, and there finances are tied to one man.

The question is, can Chelsea become elite in the next 10 years?

Looking back at the elite criteria, Chelsea does not have the trophies, but they are currently getting them. Hence they will imrpove their trophy count, brand name, and pulling power.

Certainly, with enough money a club can eventually become elite, but the amout of money needed today is ten fold the amount of money needed then, espicially when you take no history clubs like Malaga.

What does this meen for football:
Man City, with enough resources and dedication can become an elite club, they already are a competetive club, but their brand name is weak. Today, more than ever, pulling power is strongly affected by a club's finance, hence Man City more easily can attract top players than Everton.

However, with limited CL spaces, and trophy affected economics, this essentialy means that another elite team will fall. More bandwagoners are invading the game, and if a club stays too long in the shadows, its brand may cease to exist. Man city, with their infinite money will continue pushing untill they take an elite spot. This is similiar to musical chairs, so Arsenal and Liverpool shouldbeware, history can only carry you so far.

Is this for the good of the game. In my opinion, rich dudes sinking millions of dollars into a blackhole of expense (football is a bad investment) just because they are bored is a bad thing. Man City becoming strong will do no good for humanity. It might become more intresting, but what will most likely happen is:

The 1990's:
The 1990's witnessed the influx of money into the game, this caused clubs like Parma, Lazio, Valenci, Deportivo, and more to become a challange. Of course, the influx only came to the top leagues at the time, so slowly the poorer leagues died away as the 2000 came close (Ajax, Dynamo). Of course, the 1990 was an exciting period in football because of all the influx, but what happened is a stablization caused by the scarcity of success. In the end, only the elite survived, causing the monopoly of success 2003 onwards, with the failed investment laboring under debt.

This will probably happen now, as we see an influx of green into the game, similiar to the 1990's.

Healthy Competetion:
"A state of being where close competetion causes both to improve", this is not the case now, as the bid of one club to splurge money into a scarce market of talent, other clubs get worse, which is bad for the neutral.

In short, there is no god given right for the currently elite to stay so. But rising clubs should do so with prudence and patience. Steady wins the race, and this spending spree trend only serves to degrade the game. But what can be done when you have oil fat dictatores with infinite money running clubs.

The Ideal Situation:
Ze German model is the ideal model for a healthy competetive league.

Discuss

1-Being a constant trophy competetion = check
2-Trophies you already have = check
3-Brand name = check (< europe elite club)
4-Pulling power = check (< europe elite club)

conclusion
club atletico boca juniors aka los xeneizes aka los bosteros is an elite club

bump

Chelsea is elite club. They meet all of your criteria.

HAHAHAHAHA you put arsenal as an elite club before Chelsea!? What has arsenal done that chelsea hasn't? arsenal haven't won ANYTHING in 7 years....

TheBlueArmy wrote:HAHAHAHAHA you put arsenal as an elite club before Chelsea!? What has arsenal done that chelsea hasn't? arsenal haven't won ANYTHING in 7 years....

funny, our trophy count is still larger then yours

ali8775 wrote:

TheBlueArmy wrote:HAHAHAHAHA you put arsenal as an elite club before Chelsea!? What has arsenal done that chelsea hasn't? arsenal haven't won ANYTHING in 7 years....

funny, our trophy count is still larger then yours

Funny, our best players don't want to leave us. keep talking about your history, because you don't got a future.

TheBlueArmy wrote:

ali8775 wrote:

TheBlueArmy wrote:HAHAHAHAHA you put arsenal as an elite club before Chelsea!? What has arsenal done that chelsea hasn't? arsenal haven't won ANYTHING in 7 years....

funny, our trophy count is still larger then yours

Funny, our best players don't want to leave us. keep talking about your history, because you don't got a future.

Who wants to leave us? Nasri? Fabregas? Fabregas isn't leaving Arsenal because he doesn't want to play for Arsenal, hes leaving because he wants to play with Barcelona and because they are perusing him, any of your players would leave you in a heartbeat if Barca come calling. Nasri wants money, and were being cheap, but whatever, we bought his replacement if he were to leave and atm , it's just extra depth.

lol, we don't have a future, that's quote worthy , if my quote didn't include a player that is 5x the best player you've ever had, I would've put it.

TheBlueArmy wrote:HAHAHAHAHA you put arsenal as an elite club before Chelsea!? What has arsenal done that chelsea hasn't? arsenal haven't won ANYTHING in 7 years....

Also to answer this, it's called going a season unbeaten.

Btw.. What is Chelsea..? Some idiot billionaire bought it.. Spend millions of money to buy top players.. Won some trophies.. Once his interest dies will go back into the ditch from where it came...
We have stood the challenge of time and 6 years is nothing for a club who has history of 125 years and sustained than 80 years in the top competition...

hahahaha arsenal fans trying to justify the fact that you guys have won shit all in the past 7 years! your future looks bright? okay....If that's what makes you sleep at night

Why are Chelsea and Arsenal fans going at it?
Chelsea have been more successful recently, Arsenal have the better history. Arsenal have a very bright future while Chelsea is in the process of replacing the old guards. To say that Arsenal have a bad future because their recent PAST has had no success is idiotic.

Oh and we won our fair share of trophies in the Vialli, Zola, Di Matteo era. Annoying so many people forget that.

Iceman wrote:Why are Chelsea and Arsenal fans going at it?
Chelsea have been more successful recently, Arsenal have the better history. Arsenal have a very bright future while Chelsea is in the process of replacing the old guards. To say that Arsenal have a bad future because their recent PAST has had no success is idiotic.

Hear hear.

Frankly, Chelsea is not an elite team at the moment. Winning many trophies in the last 10 years is not enough.

Chelsea's brand name is not strong yet, and it is doubtful if they can survive a long trophy drought.

If Chelsea continue this path, they will eventually become elite, and no one remembers how History have been written, they just remember it as it is.

Arsenal in the other hand, showed that they have a strong brand by surviving a long trophy drought, and still attracting fans and players.

And I did not forget the trophies Chelsea won, but those trophies are still not on par with Arsenal. Yet, if the current trend of the two teams continue, we might see a change in that.

Chelsea is however going in a good direction. But can Chelsea survive if Abramovitch stops spending.

That's pretty well thought out, the OP, sounds fair.

The thing is, there's no time like the present and in the present there are a handful of teams outside the OP's elite group posing some very real challenges on the "elite hierarchy".

But as I said, the chairs are scarce.

If a club becomes elite, another club will cease to be so.

There will be blood

Lord Spencer wrote:But as I said, the chairs are scarce.

If a club becomes elite, another club will cease to be so.

There will be blood

It is such a slow battle that I don't know if there'll be blood... more like a Cold War type of battle x)

Liverpool haven't won the domestic league title for 21 years yet are considered to be elite.
Chelsea have won it three times in the last decade and according to your rather sensible definition are not yet elite. So it's not very dramatic, this battle for the elite chairs.

I know that, I am just joking around.

In fact, this is why I am saying they need much more money and dedication than clubs 20 years ago. Because the media exposure the sport managed to get post 1990 all but cemented the already elite clubs into people's mind. So much that you have die-hard Liverpool fans in Finland (you see what I am doing here) and Indonesia. Even die-hard Milan fans in Somalia.

Clubs like City and Chlesea have a hard time getting into already tapped in markets. However, constant success will eventually attract more fans.

But established fans of other clubs rarely switch sides.

Lord Spencer wrote:I know that, I am just joking around.

In fact, this is why I am saying they need much more money and dedication than clubs 20 years ago. Because the media exposure the sport managed to get post 1990 all but cemented the already elite clubs into people's mind. So much that you have die-hard Liverpool fans in Finland (you see what I am doing here) and Indonesia. Even die-hard Milan fans in Somalia.

Clubs like City and Chlesea have a hard time getting into already tapped in markets. However, constant success will eventually attract more fans.

But established fans of other clubs rarely switch sides.

i think the converse is true.. In Asia and east football is still in the growing stage.. Television telecasts has become a hit only in the recent years.. And those teams who had recent success has an advantage.. As most of them here are new to football...

TheBlueArmy wrote:HAHAHAHAHA you put arsenal as an elite club before Chelsea!? What has arsenal done that chelsea hasn't? arsenal haven't won ANYTHING in 7 years....

This does not represent the opinion of every Chelsea fan here.

To the OP, of course we are an elite club. Ask any player out there, they will say the same because we're competing on the top for many years now (not as much as other clubs but for a good amount) and we have every sign of a top club. Our brand name is increasing and we're increasing our trophy count every year. And the case of whether Chelsea can survive without Roman, of course we can. When you look at both our recent signings and our youth players (Bruma, Kalas, Chalaboh, Van Aanholt, Courtois, Romeu, McEachran, Kakuta, Sturridge, Lukaku, and possibly De Bruyne) all have the potential to be great, and that's just the players coming out now. You will see a lot of Sturridge and McEachran this season and the others will continue maturing and developing and taking the next step when they are ready (all are 19 years old or younger). We have other promising players in the academy but they are far from ready yet. My point is we are now developing young players instead of buying superstars and that is evident based on the fact that everyone said that we're going to spend crazy this summer but we have only bought for the future as of yet. We might sign one top player but everyone knows that if the club was preparing to win the major trophies this season then we would have bought at least 3 top players (RB, CM, LW), but the club's expectations have soften and Villas-Boas is clearly here to foresee the development of the young players and is here for the long run. Roman realizes that to create a side as good as Mourinho created, this time around we will not be able to spend big but instead can pick up the most promising youngsters out there in the market and in the academy and develop them. Doing this hence would drastically lower our reluctance on Roman, which we have to do anyways if we want to qualify for the CL. So there is absolutely no question of whether we can survive without Roman's cash, if you are still not convinced then I suggest you wait and see. Chelsea's policy is changing.

It is not that I am not convinced, my opinion does not change facts anyway.

I said that if Chelsea continues their path, they will become an elite club.

The brand name is still not strong. Winning the CL would look good in the trophy cabinet.

If Chelsea continue as they are, they will be truly elite in 5 years or so. (since their brand then will be cemented all over the world)
I have no doubt Chelsea are considered an elite club in England, but they still are not so in Europe.
Thank you for your well constructed reply.

Arsenal > Chelsea

Not even debatable. When Roman leaves, Chelsea will go back to being 2nd rate like it should be.