Chelsea "hell-bent on ruining football"

dannyd20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/5205800.stm

"The question I posed is that if it's correct that they've signed 30 African boys how are they all going to get a game? That was my point."

Anyone know if they have signed 30 African boys? Or what Fergie is on about?

el rabitos

touch of sour grapes?

mike65

The Red Devils are in South Africa on a pre-season tour during which they have beaten Orlando Pirates 4-0 and Kaiser Chiefs 1-0.

Pretty good showing by the band I thought!

Mike.

kaisersose77

they had a good few players with obi mikel up in norway and they probably have lots of others elsewhere. And 99.99999% of them probably wont make it seeing as chelsea will just buy another worldclass player for whatever position they need.

But looks like it's all goona change! :

Wycombe capture Chelsea youngster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/w/wycombe_wanderers/5200144.stm

Wycombe are the big boys now!

KdjaCL

kaisersose77 wrote:

they had a good few players with obi mikel up in norway and they probably have lots of others elsewhere. And 99.99999% of them probably wont make it seeing as chelsea will just buy another worldclass player for whatever position they need.

So pretty much what Man Utd did in the 90s?


kdjac

kaisersose77

i dont think they had lot and lots of africans did they?

And an awful lot more young united liverpool, arsenal players have made it through to the first team than chelsea ever will. There are just signing up all the best young talent just like all the worldclass players they can get, even though they probably dont give too whoots about ever playing them.

WhiteWashMan

surely fergie was thinking of arsenal signing every ivroy coast player they can?
no?

the usual mind games before the season.

The Muppet

kaisersose77 wrote:

i dont think they had lot and lots of africans did they?

And an awful lot more young united liverpool, arsenal players have made it through to the first team than chelsea ever will. There are just signing up all the best young talent just like all the worldclass players they can get, even though they probably dont give too whoots about ever playing them.

True and they are not all African players either, Remember Glen Johnson , Sean Wright Phillips ? Excellent young players with promising careers who have made the mistake (in footballing terms) of moving to Chelsea and lived to regret it.


Why was the mis quote "hell bent on ruining football "used in the thread title?

el rabitos

WhiteWashMan wrote:

surely fergie was thinking of arsenal signing every ivroy coast player they can?
no?

the usual mind games before the season.

well i guess when nobody wants to join your club, mind games are all u got left

Rikand

The Muppet wrote:

Why was the mis quote "hell bent on ruining football "used in the thread title?

The BBC wrote:

Johannesburg Star journalist Rodney Hatman was a guest at the charity dinner for 700 guests at Turffontein racecourse.

He said: "Ferguson was asked what he thought about Chelsea and in the midst of his answer he said that they were 'hell-bent on ruining football'.

-edit-

sorry, i didnt see you say mis-quote

The Muppet

It no big deal whether he said it or not (many people would have a similar opinion)but AFAIK Fergie denies that he made the comments attributed to him.

WhiteWashMan

el rabitos wrote:

well i guess when nobody wants to join your club, mind games are all u got left

?

zAbbo

So thats Fergie's excuse for not being able to buy anyone.

Poor old Fergie

mr_angry

I think his point is that Chelsea are signing youngsters purely on the basis to prevent their rivals getting them (Shaun Wright-Phillips being an excellent example), which is to the detrement of both other clubs, and the young players themselves. Obviously enough, the plight of other clubs is of no concern to them, but the well-being of their own young players should be. Its irresponsible, and everyone knows it. Thats probably the point that Fergie was trying to make initially, although no doubt he was paraphrased by the media.

1huge1

KdjaC wrote:

So pretty much what Man Utd did in the 90s?


kdjac

well ya but man united are not nearly doing it to the same extent to what chelsea are doing now you have to admit

Rollo Tamasi

The Muppet wrote:

Why was the mis quote "hell bent on ruining football "used in the thread title?

becuause it's relevant to the thread...

Bateman

Chelsea are making multi-millionaires about these young players who have joined the club and decided they want to fight for their place in the team, who are we to say that they made mistakes? Shaun Wright Phillips has had one quiet season, it's not as if his career is over or anything. :rolleyes:

wheres me jumpa

First off ill admit in recent years im beginning to feel what it was like to be a non United fan back in the 90's. We had that command of signings that Chelsea have now and its a humbling experience.

However Chelsea have taken it to a new level. NOt even United can cope with them financially. Not only in terms of the money they are throwing around but also in the way they play.

Theres no freedom in the way they play. Mourinho has found a method that will guarantee him success at any club. A robotic style of play where every player is limited to a certain amount tasks/duties in a game. He took the explosive element out of Duff, SWP and Essien.

Yes it is jealousy to a certain point. But it is also a fear of where the game is going. The Premiership is no longer the exciting league it was. Look at teams like Bolton and Blackburn. Physical teams whos football is not very pretty. More and more teams are going to go this route.

herbieflowers

There were always physical teams in the Premiership (like Blackburn and Bolton). It's not a new phenomenom, it's just a way a team plays if they're outclassed on paper. It's effective and players (especially from Arsenal) who like time on the ball / like to have the ball find it difficult to play against this style. I wouldn't necessarily blame Chelski for this. Physical teams have always been about...

growler

last season people criticised chelsea for not developing their own talent and relying on their money to build a team, then they go and sign (assuming the report has any basis in fact) a load of youngsters and they get criticised for investing in young talent (with a view to developing future stars). One of the key parts of chelsea's longerr term strategy was an aggressive youth policy, glad to see they are now acting on it.

PHB

You can't buy everything, see CL, wait till Mourinho leaves, see how Chelsea do then

Benedict XVI

PHB wrote:

You can't buy everything, see CL, wait till Mourinho leaves, see how Chelsea do then

They'll just go out and get the best club manager in the World (who ever that may be at at the time) and wave loads of cash at him. Then ever summer and January they will wave loads of cash at the best players around (or the ones other clubs are tyring to sign) and win the EPL again.

As long as Chelsea continue to have access to Abromavich's money and no other club can compete on finincial term then the Premiership will be a 1 horse race every year, and that will ruin football.

Chucky the tree

How will it "ruin" football? will people stop supporting it?

Benedict XVI

Chucky the tree wrote:

How will it "ruin" football? will people stop supporting it?

Yea,
It will become predictable, clubs will try and compete on a finincial scale with the biggest and as a result the price of watching football (in the Premiership) will continue increase and become too expensive for people.
As a result of the lack of competition TV ratings will drop and the price of future TV contracts will fall, thus leaving clubs with less money.

Look at 2005/2006 and the amount of empty seats at Premiership games, expect to see a lot more this coming season

Chucky the tree

How come this never happened when united ran away with the leagues in the 90s?

Benedict XVI

Chucky the tree wrote:

How come this never happened when united ran away with the leagues in the 90s?

Between '93 and '00 three teams won the league and no team won more than twice in a row (I can see Chelase winning 5 in a row if the Russian remains involved)
A number of Utds players were home grown and even though they were dominant they never had the same sense of invincibility that Chelsea have. Utd at the time could never go out and by the equilivent of Ballack and Schevinchko(sp) in the same week as Chelsea have done.

Also the Premiership was still growing in the '90s, crowds were on the way up, not on the way down as we see today, it reached a peak somtime in the last few yaers and without some sort of re-invention it's going to slide further.

I

kaisersose77

they didnt buy the league as quick as chelsea? theres a difference between starting to win competitions and generating money to buy new and better players to make you more successful over a number of years, than spending hundred's of millions in 3 yrs or so. Would chelsea be able to afford these players without roman's money if they had to depend on success on the pitch before he arrived?

It'll all fall apart eventually just like what seems to be happening now with utd.

growler

Benedict XVI wrote:

Between '93 and '00 three teams won the league and no team won more than twice in a row (I can see Chelase winning 5 in a row if the Russian remains involved)
A number of Utds players were home grown and even though they were dominant they never had the same sense of invincibility that Chelsea have. Utd at the time could never go out and by the equilivent of Ballack and Schevinchko(sp) in the same week as Chelsea have done.

Also the Premiership was still growing in the '90s, crowds were on the way up, not on the way down as we see today, it reached a peak somtime in the last few yaers and without some sort of re-invention it's going to slide further.
I

The 90's were all Man U and Arsenal, I was sick to death of watching them share the glory every season.

Crowds may be falling, but I don't think revenues are, particularly for the big clubs and as a business that's what matters to them, football brought on the deise of crowds by allowing sky to televised so many games, if the games weren't on tv then they would proabbaly all be sell outs. WSky = more cash = less crowds = more high priced seats = less hooligans = better image for the game = more sponsors = more cash.

Benedict XVI

growler wrote:

if the games weren't on tv then they would proabbaly all be sell outs. WSky = more cash = less crowds = more high priced seats = less hooligans = better image for the game = more sponsors = more cash.

Games at 3pm on a Saturday are not on TV for the very reason that people would not go to them or lower league games, so I can't understand your if the games weren't on tv then they would proabbaly all be sell outs theory

So by the reckoning football clubs and the Premier League are happy to see loads of empty seats at games becuase less crowds = more high priced seats = less hooligans = better image for the game

Oh, and who is going to sponsor a team that attaract small srowds.

The price of the TV contract will go down in the TV comapines see that less people are attaending games or tuning in on TV, and that means less money for clubs

AnCapaillMor

I hate chelsea with an unequaled passion but growler makes a great point about it being arsenal\united for 8 years. I'm a gunner and liked the winning but it did get tiresome, a 4 way title fight is better than a 2 way. although it just a 1 way at the moment.

although maybe it is'nt all that bad.

Read this http://www.Chelseablog.com/2006/06/0...-a-human-face/

cournioni

mr_angry wrote:

I think his point is that Chelsea are signing youngsters purely on the basis to prevent their rivals getting them (Shaun Wright-Phillips being an excellent example), which is to the detrement of both other clubs, and the young players themselves. Obviously enough, the plight of other clubs is of no concern to them, but the well-being of their own young players should be. Its irresponsible, and everyone knows it. Thats probably the point that Fergie was trying to make initially, although no doubt he was paraphrased by the media.

Exactly.

The Clown Man

I love the way everyone assumes Chelsea are going to run away with it again. Just like the way everyone assumed Blackburn were going to be the new big boys in 94. That Man Utd were always going to be the first team in the prem in 99. That there would be no stopping Arsenal in 04.

Ballack and Sheva could be absolute disasters. Mourinho might have a fall out with Kenyon. Chelsea could have a woeful start or finish to the season and Arsenal or Man Utd or Liverpool may have an amazing run that eclipses anything that Chelsea will do.

Every year football followers decide how the season is going to be and almost every year there is a shock and a reversal of fortunes. You'd think they would learn but no.

I'd absolutely disagree with the theory that it is a one horse race. I'd say that Fergusson, Wenger and Benitez would also disagree. (And Roeder and Jol will silently fancy their chances this year too.)

Fergusson and Wenger will of course bemoan that it is not as easy for them any more but let them.

What used to be a 1-2 horse race every single year is now a 4-6 horse race with one favourite, three serious contenders and two very plausible contenders. In sport the favourite position is the worst one to be in at the start. Being the favourite means very little. And no sport is predictable. That's why it's fun.

Anything can happen. Though being a chelsea supporter lets hope the slightly more likely does!

AnCapaillMor

Actually i heard mourinho and kenyon don't talk to each already.

el rabitos

AnCapaillMor wrote:

Actually i heard mourinho and kenyon don't talk to each already.

u heard that huh? wow

i hear not talking to the man buying the players is how all the best teams operate

growler

Benedict XVI wrote:

So by the reckoning football clubs and the Premier League are happy to see loads of empty seats at games becuase less crowds = more high priced seats = less hooligans = better image for the game

Oh, and who is going to sponsor a team that attaract small srowds.

do you honestly think companies sponsor football teams to promote their brands only to those people physically at games?

If Arsenal or Chelsea don't sell out there wednesday night CL games but it's watched by an extra X million worldwide on TV, what would you think the sponsors would opt for more TV exposure or a full house ?

Nalz

el rabitos wrote:

i hear not talking to the man buying the players is how all the best teams operate

I hear sarcasm is in, best form of communication now. There was stories (tabloid rubbish I'd say) about them falling out over certain players contracts...but like i said tabloid rubbish

growler

The Clown Man wrote:

I


I'd absolutely disagree with the theory that it is a one horse race. I'd say that Fergusson, Wenger and Benitez would also disagree. (And Roeder and Jol will silently fancy their chances this year too.)

Well Roeder and Jol should be silent about it, I honestly don't think either of them have a hope in hell of winning the PL, Spurs have come on a lot in recent times under Jol and deserve to challenge for Europe but I can't see them winning it.

I fully expect Chelsea to dominate this PL season again, I don't believe Man Usa / Pool can challenge our consistency, Arsenal might but I think they're still lacking in a few positions. I just want to win the CL now :-)

Benedict XVI

The Clown Man wrote:

Ballack and Sheva could be absolute disasters. Mourinho might have a fall out with Kenyon. Chelsea could have a woeful start or finish to the season and Arsenal or Man Utd or Liverpool may have an amazing run that eclipses anything that Chelsea will do.

If Ballack and Sheva are a disaster then they will just go out and buy replacements in January

If Kenyon and Mourinho have a falling out then the person that Chelsea see as the best possible replacment will be give an offer they can't refuse and it will be back tio winning ways.

It's all about how much tethe Russia will give the team to spend and by all account that is currentky limit less.

Anyone thinking of backing anyone other than Chelsea winning the PL should hold on to their cash.

Benedict XVI

growler wrote:

do you honestly think companies sponsor football teams to promote their brands only to those people physically at games?

Of course not, but if a premiership team is not filling their ground then there must be something wrong and that will keep sponsors away rather than attacting them.

growler wrote:

If Arsenal or Chelsea don't sell out there wednesday night CL games but it's watched by an extra X million worldwide on TV, what would you think the sponsors would opt for more TV exposure or a full house ?

I was really takling in the context of the Premiership, most English teams that qualify for the CL would be expected to sell out their how games.
I am not as familiar with the CL , I find it far too drawn out, too many matches etc.

gosplan

Firstly it won't ruin football, it will only take the competition out of the premiership. However, having Chelsea and their stars around may well increase the attraction of the premiership to good players, despite the fact you can only finish second.

Chelsea however is not going to be the end of all other clubs, people seem to forget that since Chelsea came along both Liverpool and Arsenal have made it to the final of the big cup.

To be honest the only team to have really suffered are Utd but this is probably cause Fergie and Man Utd have been shown up for having no scouting ability. He spends too much time sitting in his office 3/4 way through a bottle of brandy playing mindgames with his ashtray and not enough time researching and checking out players. Previously in the premiership the choice for good players was either a move to moneybags United or Arsenal who were too prudent with cash to spend lots on finished articles. Now there's more competition from everyone, would Cantona or Keane go to United nowadays with Chelsea and Liverpool aropund and willing to pay the same??

Anyway my prediction is that Chelsea will win for the next few years and just when it gets crap some kind of new rule will be introduced to curb their financial advantage. Happens in sport everytime someone exploits a loophole(i.e having billions to spend helps) and becomes too good for the field. Happened in Formula 1 when Ferrari bored everyone to tears for a few years, they changed the rules and now competition is back.

growler

Chelsea didn't even sell out most of their prem games last season, nor did they sell out some of the less "attractive" CL games, largely because many normal fans can't afford the extra few hundred quid it takes to see all the CL home games of last season, plus its on live TV.

The majority of premiership teams don't sell out every week anyway, yet all are sponsored, so what's wrong with them ?

gosplan

The Clown Man wrote:

I love the way everyone assumes Chelsea are going to run away with it again. Just like the way everyone assumed Blackburn were going to be the new big boys in 94. That Man Utd were always going to be the first team in the prem in 99. That there would be no stopping Arsenal in 04.

Ballack and Sheva could be absolute disasters. Mourinho might have a fall out with Kenyon. Chelsea could have a woeful start or finish to the season and Arsenal or Man Utd or Liverpool may have an amazing run that eclipses anything that Chelsea will do.

Every year football followers decide how the season is going to be and almost every year there is a shock and a reversal of fortunes. You'd think they would learn but no.

I'd absolutely disagree with the theory that it is a one horse race. I'd say that Fergusson, Wenger and Benitez would also disagree. (And Roeder and Jol will silently fancy their chances this year too.)

Fergusson and Wenger will of course bemoan that it is not as easy for them any more but let them.

What used to be a 1-2 horse race every single year is now a 4-6 horse race with one favourite, three serious contenders and two very plausible contenders. In sport the favourite position is the worst one to be in at the start. Being the favourite means very little. And no sport is predictable. That's why it's fun.

Anything can happen. Though being a chelsea supporter lets hope the slightly more likely does!

I see where you're coming from and agree with a lot of what you've said but I really think the quality is just too strong. No team has ever had as many class players as this Chelsea team. Arsenal's unbeaten team was built on the spine of Campbell/Viera/Pires/Henry, there were other great players around them but with normal teams it's a mainstay of 4 or 5 brilliant players and then guys who 'do a job'.
chelsea's spine is Chech/Terry/Gallas/Makelele/Ballack/Essien/Lampard/Robben/Drogba/sheva

The 'do a job' guys are J.Cole/Carvallo/Cashley Cole???/Diarra/SWP

They're just too good!!!

Nalz

Do Chelsea need scouting ability? no…and don’t you know that clubs like United employ numerous people to scout. Didn’t United scout Obi Mikel – how much did Chelsea pay for him again? Did you hear of C Ronaldo before United were interested? Vidic even. I could list off a load of players Fergie bought since at United that were bargain/decent buys. but it would take too long. Not great in transfer market recently…and the brandy comment wtf

el rabitos

Trilla wrote:

Do Chelsea need scouting ability? no…and don’t you know that clubs like United employ numerous people to scout. Didn’t United scout Obi Mikel – how much did Chelsea pay for him again? Did you hear of C Ronaldo before United were interested? Vidic even. I could list off a load of players Fergie bought since at United that were bargain/decent buys. but it would take too long. Not great in transfer market recently…and the brandy comment wtf

havent chelsea made a tv show with sky 1 out od their scouting?

didnt united scout veron? and how much did they pay for him?

united struck gold in the 90's when players like the nevilles and beckham and scholes came through, they didnt have to rely so much on fergies eye for talent in the transfer market, now that they do have to rely on it they're not doing so well.

the point chelsea taking arnson(sp?) from spurs was to capitalise on his contacts, that would be a massive move in terms of improving scouting and ability to attract players.

the whole deal with sky for that show is a stroke of genious imo

i doubt they made moves for robben and obi wan just because united wanted them, obviously kenyon had been briefed about them or was involved with them at some stage, so he knew of their talent and made it happen for chelsea.

i'm a big fan of what chelsea have done in terms of scouting, aquiring young talent and taking arnson, they're paying cheap now and saving money in the future, if they ever hope to turn a profit they're going the right way about it.

Nalz

el rabitos wrote:

didnt united scout veron? and how much did they pay for him?

It was reported that United paid 28.1m sterling for Veron, but that included some figure that wasn't needed to be paid (possibly rest of wages in contract - I dunno tbh what it was.)Anyhow the final fee was 23m which of course was still a bad buy considering how things panned out.

Edit:Chelsea bought him for 16.25m or so, loaned him out for 2 seasons after one season and gave him free transfer to Estudientes or whatever they're called.

el rabitos wrote:

united struck gold in the 90's when players like the nevilles and beckham and scholes came through, they didnt have to rely so much on fergies eye for talent in the transfer market, now that they do have to rely on it they're not doing so well.

didnt have to rely on Fergie in transfer market in 90's? :rolleyes: listed below you will find some of the bargains/important signings of players that were vital to Uniteds sucess in the 1990s. In bold are the players that were unknown until they put on the United jersey.

PAUL INCE '89 (not in 90's I know but close enough - Ibetter put that in before certain ppl begin the oul smart comments)
DENIS IRWIN '90
RYAN GIGGS '90 (snapped from Citys grasps scouted)
LEE SHARPE '90
PETER SCHMEICHEL '90
GARY PALLISTER '90
ANDREI KANCHELSKIS '91
ERIC CANTONA '92
ROY KEANE '93
RONNY JONHSEN '96
OLE GUNNAR SOLSKJAER '96
TEDDY SHERINGHAM '97

granted there can be an opposite list in the 90's - Cruyff,Poborsky, Prunier, Greening, Wilson, Berg (good player but cost nearly 6m in '98).

Chucky the tree

I dont fergie has been terrible in his transfers over the years. However they cant compete with chelsea financially now. Every manager has bad buys.

Personnally the manger who i think has been the best in the transfer market has been Wenger.

Nalz

Chucky the tree wrote:

Personnally the manger who i think has been the best in the transfer market has been Wenger.

It was Fergie before Wenger came along, and I know Wenger spent very little but give Rafa another 2 years and he could possibly replace Wenger in that statement or at least be spoken on a par with him.

The Muppet

I have two word for to those saying that if the premier league becomes a one horse race it won't ruin it. Formula one.

Even when United were at thier peak the league was never a forgone conclusion before it started. It's also true that United spent a lot of money on players but if you look back over the years all the top clubs have spent in and around the same amont of money money , and the majority of that money ws generated by the clubs theselves. Chelsea are a whole new ball game and the only ones that don't/won't see the problems they are generating for football as a whole are Chelsea Fans.

Nalz

The Muppet wrote:

I have two word for to those saying that if the premier league becomes a one horse race it won't ruin it. Formula one.
..... Chelsea are a whole new ball game and the only ones that don't/won't see the problems they are generating for football as a whole are Chelsea Fans.

AGREED

Chucky the tree

Trilla wrote:

It was Fergie before Wenger came along, and I know Wenger spent very little but give Rafa another 2 years and he could possibly replace Wenger in that statement or at least be spoken on a par with him.

No one could really compete with United money or the attraction. Wenger didnt have much money at Arsenal. Arsenal didnt have a profile as big as Uniteds either.

Rafa is doing well. Hopefully he can find a few more Alonso's instead of Josemi's.

el rabitos

Trilla wrote:

didnt have to rely on Fergie in transfer market in 90's? :rolleyes: listed below you will find some of the bargains/important signings of players that were vital to Uniteds sucess in the 1990s. In bold are the players that were unknown until they put on the United jersey.

PAUL INCE '89 (not in 90's I know but close enough - Ibetter put that in before certain ppl begin the oul smart comments)
DENIS IRWIN '90
RYAN GIGGS '90 (snapped from Citys grasps scouted)
LEE SHARPE '90
PETER SCHMEICHEL '90
GARY PALLISTER '90
ANDREI KANCHELSKIS '91
ERIC CANTONA '92
ROY KEANE '93
RONNY JONHSEN '96
OLE GUNNAR SOLSKJAER '96
TEDDY SHERINGHAM '97

granted there can be an opposite list in the 90's - Cruyff,Poborsky, Prunier, Greening, Wilson, Berg (good player but cost nearly 6m in '98).

maybe i should have been more specific, i was talking of the time when scholes and the nevilles and beckham came through in one year at a time when all those signings bar 4 or 5 were gone. united had lost the league, then without having to spend much at all, replenished the squad with all that top quality youth.

now united are back to that impass where they havent been in a long time, and where liverpool were in 1990, the young players arent there to replenish the squad and they are forced to spend and take risks. uniteds buying has not been very good at all since the mid to late 90's bar maybe rooney

i dont want to come across as though i'm ragging on united, but its very comparable to what happened to liverpool in 1990, it'll be interesting to see how many fans there are when the league isnt being won every year.