Last night Chelsea were linked with a move for Roma’s Daniele De Rossi, the latest in a long line of puzzling rumours that has stretched from Pirlo to Beckham.
As Chelsea have continued to be linked with ageing central midfield players (not that De Rossi is ageing) this summer, I’ve become increasingly frustrated and critical of Ancelotti’s supposed transfer plans. Having always been slightly cynical of his record at Milan (you can read a little of what I thought of him back in June here) and the older players brought into the San Siro team in that time, I began to concern myself that our new manager never achieved what he should have done with the resources available to him.
Following a comment from a reader last week however, I thought I’d take a closer look at Ancelotti’s transfers while at Milan. At least my suspicions would be based on more than a hunch. What I found was actually a little surprising - there's another, entirely different, way to look at his record.
There’s a whole debate about what influence Ancelotti had over transfers at his former club. But the fact remains that Ancelotti had relatively meagre resources to deal with throughout his tenure at Milan, meaning his return of two European cups, one Serie A and one domestic cup trophy isn’t a bad haul. 
Between 2002 and 2009 Milan spent around £128m on new signings, largely through buying or loaning older players supposedly past their prime (eg. Ronadinho, Zambrotta, or Beckham) or bringing in younger players with something to prove (eg. Flamini, Senderos or Borriello). In that time however, they also received nearly £90m in sales, meaning that the total investment required over that period totalled just £40m. Over seven seasons, that’s less than £6m a season. A pittance.
Compare that pittance to Chelsea’s spending record and the contrast is remarkable - £402m spent, £118m received meaning investment of £284m. It’s not a dissimilar picture at Man Utd either, whose total investment in that time came to £136m (£254m spent, £118m received). Liverpool’s total investment is marginally lower at around £120m. Most interestingly, the closest comparison to Ancelotti’s comparative thriftiness is Arsene Wenger at Arsenal, where the figures are almost identical to that of Milan (£129m spent, £91m received, total investment £38m).
The comparison with Arsenal doesn’t end there. Both are big clubs with big fanbases, on a limited budget and, in latter years, falling behind their biggest rivals. Where Arsenal went for youth however, Milan went for big names and experience – neither coming with a cheap wage bill attached. But no-one can argue that Milan haven’t had superior success to Arsenal over that period.
So in conclusion, Ancelotti had a low budget, limited control over transfers and various scandals to deal with at Milan, but still managed to mould a team that could pick up trophies. Perhaps that’s why the newly budget-conscious Chelsea (and an ‘involved’ Abramovich) saw so much potential in him. Regardless, hopefully the logic that follows is that, with the purse string loosened a little longer-term, he’ll be able to achieve at least similar success at Chelsea.
But who said logic had anything to do with football…
You might also be interested to read:
- Could steering clear of injuries be the biggest factor in success for Chelsea? A look at Dimichelis
So far... there are very encouraging signs from Mr. Ancelotti. For one during the Community Shield he made some excellent adjustments in the second half and essentially won a game that with Scolari last year we would have lost. With the exception of the Rooney goal we played a very solid half. If he is able to do that for the remainder of the season we are going to be in good shape.
Second, I think what I like best about Ancelotti is during his time at Milan he rarely complained about not having players. He made due with what he had. I think he is taking the same approach with Chelsea. Scolari complained he so desperately wanted Robinho, and when it didn't happen it seemed the wind came right out of his sails. Ancelotti knows how to win with the crop of players he is given.
Of course as you say... logic and football rarely follow each other... time will tell
Posted by: Michael Hepp | 11 August 2009 at 16:58
think this is a really interesting perspective - one i hadn't heard before.
having said that though - i think that winning just one championship in 10 years (with juve and milan) still isn't really good enough.
arsenal haven't not won things just because they've not spent - it's also because they havne't spent in the right places. shoudl be relatively simple for them to bring in more experiencd midfield enforcer and defender, for example.
maybe ancelotti didn't buy the right players at meelan...
Posted by: chelsfan | 12 August 2009 at 12:44
Michael - thanks for the comment, and also as I think it was you who provided the original inspiration for the post!
Glad that there are people out there more positive about next season than I. One point that you are dead right on - his lack of complaining about (probably) very trying circumstances at Milan. I'm sure Roman, who seems to be re-engaging, sees that as a definite plus.
Chelsfan - I'm with you, totally, being the pessimistic person I am. And the players we've been rumoured with - eg. Pirlo - haven't really appealed to me personally so I question as you do whether he's made the 'right' signings.
As Michael says though, the guy's won two European cups so he can't be all bad, and his man management skills are top notch.
Posted by: Russell Saunders | 12 August 2009 at 17:09