Chelsea V Man. Utd. - 1230 SS1

WhiteWashMan

ZENER wrote:

No. The biggest wallet won it.

ZEN

no, the best team did win the league.

i didnt see the wallet at any point on the pitch. it was not involved in the celebrations, and it did not score any goals.
it was all players on the pitch.

the best team won the league.

you obviously just dont like it and so refuse to recognise it. fair enough.

el rabitos

i didnt see the wallet at any point on the pitch. it was not involved in the celebrations, and it did not score any goals.
it was all players on the pitch.

i think you took the wallet thing just a bit too literally

chelsea have bought their success, and anyone that thinks otherwise is dillusional. they bought the success from the 25 million on drogba to the 20 grand a minute or whatever it is mourinho is being paid.

before they signed big players past their prime and only won the odd cup. now they paid huge money to get big players in their prime and are winning the league, theres a trend there.

WhiteWashMan

el rabitos wrote:

i think you took the wallet thing just a bit too literally

.

dont eb stupid. i was being facetious.

el rabitos wrote:

chelsea have bought their success, and anyone that thinks otherwise is dillusional. they bought the success from the 25 million on drogba to the 20 grand a minute or whatever it is mourinho is being paid.

so what.

they are the best team in the league. perhaps we should start saying that liverpool bought their third place spot?

el rabitos wrote:

before they signed big players past their prime and only won the odd cup. now they paid huge money to get big players in their prime and are winning the league, theres a trend there.

so what again?

chelsea are the best team in the league this year.

same old shíte arguments over and over again.

let have another 'liverpool are nearly there' thread, and lets discuss how liverpool are still building their team, eh?

get over it. chelsea won the leagu. they won it fair and square, and they won it by playing better than everyone else.

A Dub in Glasgo

el rabitos wrote:

i think you took the wallet thing just a bit too literally

chelsea have bought their success, and anyone that thinks otherwise is dillusional. they bought the success from the 25 million on drogba to the 20 grand a minute or whatever it is mourinho is being paid.

before they signed big players past their prime and only won the odd cup. now they paid huge money to get big players in their prime and are winning the league, theres a trend there.

The trend was not spotted this year, the vast majority of clubs who win their league do so because they manage to buy better players/manager than the other teams. That usually, but not exclusively, involves plenty of money.

KdjaCL

el rabitos wrote:

i
before they signed big players past their prime and only won the odd cup. now they paid huge money to get big players in their prime and are winning the league, theres a trend there.

Raneiri got the average age from 32 to 23 in his time, then had one season of money and jose had 2, there is still parts of Raneiris best 11 playing so they are a team. They were the best over the seaso and league tables never lie.

kdjac

PHB

Chelsea Football Club may have bought their success, but their team has not.

county

what you mean?

PHB

The players and managers earnt their success

el rabitos

dont eb stupid. i was being facetious

dont eb stupid? you were being a fetus?

so what.

Raneiri got the average age from 32 to 23 in his time, then had one season of money and jose had 2, there is still parts of Raneiris best 11 playing so they are a team. They were the best over the seaso and league tables never lie.

The players and managers earnt their success

i'm not disputing that the players and mourinho deserve everything. they definitely earnt their success and have to be given credit for doing it on the pitch.

they are the best team in the league. perhaps we should start saying that liverpool bought their third place spot?

thats where the money comes into it. liverpool players postions are not under the same threat that chelsea's players are, chelsea players know its no problem for them to be replaced even if they play well, because the club can buy players on a whim that can play better. the money is a huge motivation and if people dont think the money casts a major shadow over the club and its players then they're blind

liverpool, man u and areseal cant afford to literally buy and sell the whole team. they have to work within a realistic budget, chelsea dont have a budget.

and liverpool, arsenal and man u EARNED wherever they finish, those clubs have history, a legacy of being winners, they werent just blessed with big revenues, these clubs developed over the past century.

chelsea did nothing, they were millions in dept and a russian bought the club. *clap* *clap* ....clearly liverpool, arsenal and man u need to go into dept and get themselves a russian sugar daddy with a yaught or 5

blu_sonic

fair play to chelsea the best tem in england, though they bought the best players their money couldn't make them play, that was all down to spirit and heart. A well earned title

ZENER

It's well known that CFC buy players simply to stop them going to rival teams. E.g Wright-Philips, Parker and their attemp to stop Man U getting Obi Mikel. This is not sport any more it's a game of who has the most money and at the moment it's Chelsea.

Others think this way too.

ZEN

astrofool

Does anyone in the world think that if Abramovich had not pumped so much money into Chelsea, that they would be premiership champions twice in a row? Even say, had they kept their spending to the level of say Manu, or L'pool or even Tottenham of late (who benefit by generally not having to pay inflated prices).

With the squad Chelsea had three years ago, with maybe 4-6 big signings only (2 per summer).

WhiteWashMan

el rabitos wrote:

dont eb stupid? you were being a fetus?

eh?
looks like an insult to me.

is that the best you can come up with as a reponse to an argument.
petty and pretty poor to be honest.

but of course, as youve shown, you dont like me, so obviously there is no need to be civil eh?

well, reported anyway, and lets hope you get the ban the charter demands eh?

el rabitos wrote:

i'm not disputing that the players and mourinho deserve everything. they definitely earnt their success and have to be given credit for doing it on the pitch.

oh, i get it now. if someone else says it, then its ok, if i say it, then it was the money.
good argument there....

:rolleyes:

el rabitos wrote:

dont eb stupid? you were being a fetus?

so what.





i'm not disputing that the players and mourinho deserve everything. they definitely earnt their success and have to be given credit for doing it on the pitch.



thats where the money comes into it. liverpool players postions are not under the same threat that chelsea's players are, chelsea players know its no problem for them to be replaced even if they play well, because the club can buy players on a whim that can play better. the money is a huge motivation and if people dont think the money casts a major shadow over the club and its players then they're blind

show me your proof and i will believe it.
just because you believe it does not make it true. and from what ive read of your footballing analysis on these threads, your knowledge on anything football is far from useful anyway.

el rabitos wrote:

liverpool, man u and areseal cant afford to literally buy and sell the whole team. they have to work within a realistic budget, chelsea dont have a budget.

i fail to see what that has to do with anything...

el rabitos wrote:

liverpool, man u and areseal cant afford to literally buy and sell the whole team. they have to work within a realistic budget, chelsea dont have a budget.

yep, 30 million for ferdinand was a small budget.
how much will rooney cost eventually? 40-50 million?
realistic budget there.
how much did liverpool spend in the years that houlier was there? far too much on mediocore players. add it up and let me know.

el rabitos wrote:

and liverpool, arsenal and man u EARNED wherever they finish, those clubs have history, a legacy of being winners, they werent just blessed with big revenues, these clubs developed over the past century.

you mean chelsea dont deserve to be there.

excuse me while i laugh.

yes, chelsea that team that was formed in 2003 have no history.yes, liverpool and man utd and arsenal have not got big revenues.
yes, chelsea did not earn the league this year.
must have been that big wallet playing on the right that won it eh
:rolleyes:

el rabitos wrote:

chelsea did nothing, they were millions in dept and a russian bought the club. *clap* *clap* ....clearly liverpool, arsenal and man u need to go into dept and get themselves a russian sugar daddy with a yaught or 5

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


youre boring now.

el rabitos

just because you believe it does not make it true. and from what ive read of your footballing analysis on these threads, your knowledge on anything football is far from useful anyway.

oh i forgot, your the only one on boards whose opinion is always right and holds the most weight. your obviously the master-debater around here.

well, reported anyway, and lets hope you get the ban the charter demands eh?

"oh no"

KdjaCL

WWM and El rabitos would you both like to be banned for childish namecalling and trying to get the other banned ?



kdjac

el rabitos

i might be a little heavy on sarcasm 99% of the time but i didnt attempt to get anyone banned, give me some credit.

but i'll take this time to appologise for insinuating that wwm is a fetus

growler

el rabitos wrote:

liverpool, man u and areseal cant afford to literally buy and sell the whole team. they have to work within a realistic budget, chelsea dont have a budget.

and liverpool, arsenal and man u EARNED wherever they finish, those clubs have history, a legacy of being winners, they werent just blessed with big revenues, these clubs developed over the past century.

chelsea did nothing, they were millions in dept and a russian bought the club. *clap* *clap* ....clearly liverpool, arsenal and man u need to go into dept and get themselves a russian sugar daddy with a yaught or 5

You reckon Utd, Arse and Liverpool didn't buy their successes over the years ? It's all about money and the premiership is (and always has been since football became a porfessional sport) all about who's got the cash.


And here we have the "no history" argument, .. maybe you didn't know this is Chelsea's centenary year ? Why do liverpool fans think they have a god given right to win things? It's like the small print on investment ads :
"past performance does not gaurantee future performance"

"chelsea did nothing" ? WTF is that supposed to mean ? I seem to recall Chelsea doing plenty before Abramovich arrived (lovely man, bless him) , yes Chelsea got into a big pile of DEBT in an attempt to compete for the League and in Europe, do you expect every club to not bother competing because they have no "history" ?

el rabitos

You reckon Utd, Arse and Liverpool didn't buy their successes over the years ? It's all about money and the premiership is (and always has been since football became a porfessional sport) all about who's got the cash

yeah i totally agree that the teams with the money usually win the most. but liverpool, man u and arsenal didnt always have money. the had to win the league 1 time, then build on that and bought the right players and have the right managers.

yes Chelsea got into a big pile of DEBT in an attempt to compete for the League and in Europe, do you expect every club to not bother competing because they have no "history" ?

liverpool and arsenal are both competing and neither are in the same dept chelsea were in. the man u situation is a bit different now, but they're success in the 90's was a natural progression, they had the best young players coming through and added good experinced players. chelsea just instantly bought the best players and leap frogged into the position they are in. its just artificial, to me anyway.

i like alot of chelseas players, i like mourinho 90% of the time. i liked them as a club before abramovic came in. i just dont have any respect for how they earned the success to begin with.

iregk

el rabitos wrote:

i just dont have any respect for how they earned the success to begin with.

So now they have earned their success. A minute ago is was bought?

The way I see it is this. It seems to me that in order for other fans to digest chelsea winning and make it easier on them they crack out the "oh but you bought it, you have no history etc..." If that helps you deal with it and helps you sleep and night then fine think that way.

The truth is this has been going on for years. Milan in the 80's, Madrid in the 50's had the best players money can buy and then again in the 90's/00's. The same is still going on. Look at the price of Juv'es, United's, Milans, Barca's team etc... They are all in excess and in most cases closing in on the 200m mark. The reason a lot of these clubs get over looked is that well they are in a different league adn aren't a direct threat. If they were in the prem then you'd cry fowl. Just because your club isn't or can't do it then its not fair. Get over it and move on.

Also a final point. At what point does success become bought? Is it on the amount of money you spend or the amount of players you brought in? At the weekend Chelsea had 1 player playing who came out of the youth setup so the other 10 on the pitch were bought. Liverpool had 2 youth setup players so the other 9 were bought. United had 3 so 8 players bought in. Now regardless of weather the non produced players cost 500m or 50m is it not a team that was still bought in any case?

ZENER

You've totally missed the point !!!

ZEN

iregk

ZENER wrote:

You've totally missed the point !!!

I don't think so. Explain and in doing so please spare the drivel of "others think this as well". As if that completely validates your points.