This is a consequence of the sums of money spent on the club, but it is also evidence of the way money was spent. look with envy, that takes your breath away.
That's what Abramovich always wanted for Chelsea. That's why he pursued Guardiola for so long, which is why he named André Villas-Boas in 2011, allegedly cut from the same fabric, and why he brought Sarri along last summer.
It is not only a latent aestheticism, but also an economic argument. The kind of identity City has produces results. Not always, not every year, but in the long run. It helps to attract new players and it shows who exactly these players should be. It eliminates the need to fire managers every year, tear down the blueprint, start over, search the transfer market for new players, or ask old players to learn new tricks. A defined identity diverges from the turbulence of a bad shape of a disappointing season – the difference between a detour and a road to nowhere. That is, there can be certainty where else doubt might exist.
The problem, of course, is that it takes time. Even Guardiola, as it turned out, needed a year to make City what he wanted, and that was with a team that had been built before joining the team. It requires patience and understanding. It can not be conjured over a summer or over a season. It will not happen if you keep firing your manager.
That's the choice Chelsea faces. Fire Sarri and the boom-and-bust cycle will be extended. And maybe that would be the right decision: maybe he's too inflexible to succeed in England; perhaps what he has achieved in Napoli can not be repeated; Maybe his tactics were worked out by opponents and he has nothing up his sleeve.
At some point, however, Chelsea has to do the opposite. It will have to stay with someone to accept that time is as important as money to go through a fallow year in the hope that the reward follows. It wants what the city has. To get it, it has to start what the city does.