Chelsea "hell-bent on ruining football"

PHB

mid to late 90's bar maybe rooney

That's just stupid.

In the last 4 years

VDS
Heinze
Rooney
RVN
Rooney
Ronaldo

Are all undoubtedly good buys.

Where Fergie has failed is in replacing the midfield, and it's been a terrible failure.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

That's just stupid.

In the last 4 years

VDS
Heinze
Rooney
RVN
Rooney
Ronaldo

Are all undoubtedly good buys.

Where Fergie has failed is in replacing the midfield, and it's been a terrible failure.

u wish u had 2 rooneys tbh

VDS - why wasnt he singed 2 years prior when it obviously wouldnt have broke the bank, instead u had taibi, howard and barthez who's reliability i'd rank below david james

heinze - yeah fair enough, great buy so far

ronaldo - utterly useless, sorry, i just dont see what his contribution is. maybe he sells shirts or puts asses in seats, i dunno

RVN - he was hardly a discovery in all fairness, but yeah a great contribution, fergie dropping him and threating him like a mong all season though? whats that about? then expecting 15 million for him? someones bonkers in old trafford

the money for rooneys and rvn's aside, do u think fergie is capable of making cheap finds like sissoko or anelka or viera?

Jimi-Spandex

el rabitos wrote:

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

United's quality signings since summer 99:

Mikael Silvestre
Quinton Fortune
Ruud Van Nistelrooy
Rio Ferdinand
Cristiano Ronaldo
Louis Saha
Alan Smith
Gabriel Heinze
Wayne Rooney
Edwin Van der Saar
Ji Sung Park

I'd say that's a reasonable return. Granted we've needed to sort out the midfield for about three years now and it still looks unlikely we'll get it sorted this summer.


EDIT: Took my time, with that one, didn't see the above two posts.

PHB

he was hardly a discovery in all fairness,

Tell that to Chelsea after they sold Kezman

sissoko or anelka or viera

Well the last two were bought in 96, back then, Fergie had a bit of success in buying top talent aswell, Keane and Ole come to mind.

As for Sissoko, moved to Liverpool for €8 million. Benetiz met him before, when he was part of his title winning side.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

Tell that to Chelsea after they sold Kezman

kezman was played as sub like 29 times or something and still scored 9 goals for them including the winner in the carling cup.

rvn got a chance, kezman didnt cost 20 odd million so he wasnt given a chance.

PHB wrote:

Well the last two were bought in 96, back then, Fergie had a bit of success in buying top talent aswell, Keane and Ole come to mind.

As for Sissoko, moved to Liverpool for €8 million. Benetiz met him before, when he was part of his title winning side.

ur dealing in euro's now? sissoko cost £5 million or so. bargain.

u want me to list all wengers bargain buys in more recent times or something?
it might get embarassing compared to fergies

Benedict XVI

growler wrote:

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.

So basically the top team in the country cannot sell out their games cos it’s too expensive. If that is not a sign that the game is in serious trouble I don’t know what is.

growler wrote:

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

If I was a sponsor of a team and over the period of my sponsorship realized that the numbers attending games was decreasing, therefore my product is being exposed to less people. At the end of the sponsorship contract I would
1) Consider not renewing it
2) Renew it at a lower price.
Therefore the club is worse off a result.

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.

Spot on

gosplan wrote:

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.

Exactly, some sort of regulation is the solution, however I don’t see the FA, or UEFA on a European scale, having the balls to do much.

TheMonster

If Chelsea start winning the CL there is only 1 outcome - the G14(think its 14) clubs will start their own Europena league and guess who won't be invited?;)

iregk

Swings and roundabouts lads thats pretty much it. The united fans are all of a sudden moaning about how its unfair etc... well now you know what it was like in the 90's when United only had to declair an interest and your player had all of a sudden no intention of signing for you.

Paybacks a bitch.

The Muppet

iregk wrote:

Swings and roundabouts lads thats pretty much it. The united fans are all of a sudden moaning about how its unfair etc... well now you know what it was like in the 90's when United only had to declair an interest and your player had all of a sudden no intention of signing for you.

Paybacks a bitch.

Thats just not true. There are plenty of players that united wanted to sign but were beaten to by other clubs, Shearer and campbell immediately spring to mind.

As I said earlier what Chelsea have been doing for the last few season is completly new to the premiership, over £300 million spent on players in 3 years and leaving the majority of them on the bench or not even in the squad. Any players United Liverpool or Arsenal have purchased have been to improve their team with cash the club generated, they never purchased players just to prevent other teams signing them. Again I say the only peoplethat do not admit to the damage Chelsea is doing to football are Chelsea fans whoo appear to hold a win at all cost mentality.

Nalz

TheMonster wrote:

If Chelsea start winning the CL there is only 1 outcome - the G14(think its 14) clubs will start their own Europena league and guess who won't be invited?;)

I want to sway the argument a bit this way if ppl dont mind. What do you all think of what TheMonster just posted? It is possible in 2-5 years time? Chelsea aren't in that group of teams I believe (not uptodate with the G14)...very interesting comment (apols if it was mentioned earlier!!)

gosplan

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.

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.

My point wasn't to disagree with this idea. To be honest I'm looking at the premiership as having one team less for the next few years.

All I'm saying that is if(when) Chelsea win the thing for the next five years due to their undeserved roubles then the FA will have to change something.

Chelsea are exploiting the fact that there no money limitations in football, to be honest it was going this way for a while and it was always going to end up with some backer coming in who had practicaly limitless sums to blow on a football team. This in turn will eventually prompt the FA to change things in favour of bringing back competition.
I'm not a Chelsea fan and I thoroughly dislike what they're doing but to one degree or another teams like United, Arsenal and Blackburn have used a financial advantage to buy the league I'm not saying they're talentless but they're good becuase they have money which in turn leaves them higher in the table with more money etc. There's always been competition but it's a long way from when the money used to be divided between 4 divisions equally and anyone could go up or come down or win the thing. If you look at all the big decisions in football over the last few decades they're all about making life easier for wealthy clubs, premier league and redistribution of wealth, foreign player limitation etc. It was waiting for someone with limitless cash to come in and exploit this, not chelseas fault but they are profiting from it.

gosplan

el rabitos wrote:

u wish u had 2 rooneys tbh

VDS - why wasnt he singed 2 years prior when it obviously wouldnt have broke the bank, instead u had taibi, howard and barthez who's reliability i'd rank below david james

heinze - yeah fair enough, great buy so far

ronaldo - utterly useless, sorry, i just dont see what his contribution is. maybe he sells shirts or puts asses in seats, i dunno

RVN - he was hardly a discovery in all fairness, but yeah a great contribution, fergie dropping him and threating him like a mong all season though? whats that about? then expecting 15 million for him? someones bonkers in old trafford

the money for rooneys and rvn's aside, do u think fergie is capable of making cheap finds like sissoko or anelka or viera?

This is my point, Fergie can find good players but he pays for them. I realise there's been some gret finds but on the whole a lot of the players would be English based who wanted a move upwards or foreign based who wanted a move to the premiership.
As I've said for a long time there was no one that could match united. Shearer for example, what Alan Shearer did in moving to Newcastle was not the norm, why? Because United wanted him and everyone went to United when they came calling.

TheMonster

Trilla wrote:

I want to sway the argument a bit this way if ppl dont mind. What do you all think of what TheMonster just posted? It is possible in 2-5 years time? Chelsea aren't in that group of teams I believe (not uptodate with the G14)...very interesting comment (apols if it was mentioned earlier!!)

Chelsea aren't in it and are detested by those in it so there is no way they will be admitted - it something that Kenyon wants badly.

iregk

The Muppet wrote:

Thats just not true. There are plenty of players that united wanted to sign but were beaten to by other clubs, Shearer and campbell immediately spring to mind.

What Shearer did at the time was totally against the run of play. He was the first big name that stook two fingers up at Fergie and hence why Fergie has hated him ever since, he had to face rejection. Campbell was at the time picking the better option, the united then were not the united in Shearers time.

The Muppet wrote:

Any players United Liverpool or Arsenal have purchased have been to improve their team with cash the club generated, they never purchased players just to prevent other teams signing them.

Is that not what you are doing when you purchase any player, preventing other clubs from signing them?

So tell me honestly, name one player where you have complete 100% proof that Chelsea signed soley with the purpose of preventing anyone else from getting him? Your going to say SWP and im assuming your ignoring the fact that the entire country was fighting for him at the time and he was very hot property. Add to the fact that Cheslea were the first club to come in for him, but dont let that get in the way of your anti Chelsea destroying football rant.

Why not live outside the Premiership buble for a change? How are Cheslea destroying football? The entire world is really coming down now because of Chelsea isn't it? Wake up and realise that football is a global sport not just a sport in England. Attendances were also on the downward spiral before Roman ever came into play so explain that?

spockety

TheMonster wrote:

Chelsea aren't in it and are detested by those in it so there is no way they will be admitted - it something that Kenyon wants badly.

It's for clubs with a significant pedigree and history in Europe, not for clubs necessarily with the most cash at a single moment in time.

The Muppet

iregk wrote:

What Shearer did at the time was totally against the run of play. He was the first big name that stook two fingers up at Fergie and hence why Fergie has hated him ever since, he had to face rejection. Campbell was at the time picking the better option, the united then were not the united in Shearers time.

Shearer was by no means a once off but he does blow a hole in your theory about united gazumping other teams for the best players.

Out of Interest if Shearer was at his peak now do where do you think he would be playing? I would be fairly confident that Chelsea would offer him so much money that he just couldn't refuse as a striuker like Shearer would make them virtually invinsible imo. Newcastle were able to offer him in and around the same terms as united did when he both clubs tried to sign him in the 90's.

Sol Campbell signed for Arsenal in 2001 , United had just been crowned league Champions so there goes another excuse. I dont expect you to accept my comments, I may be making the same argument/excuses that you are if the situation were reversed. I would be wrong though.

Mark

An article I dug up from a few months ago on G14, it's quite illuminating.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8305-2097709,00.html

The name that strikes fear in the hearts of Europe's elite clubs: Bolton

It is not greed that motivates the G14 clubs. It is fear. Fear that they are not good enough, writes Martin Samuel, Sports Writer of the Year

It is not greed that motivates the G14 clubs. It is fear. Fear that they are not good enough. Fear that their players are overpriced and overrated. Fear that the coach is not as smart as he thinks he is. Fear that the guy with the money isn’t as rich as he needs to be. Fear in the megastore. Fear in the marketing department. Above all, fear in the boardroom, where the petrified men in suits gather, trembling. They don’t fancy it. Their bottle has gone. They can barely look. It is their very own Blair Witch Project. Oh my God, what was that? There’s something out there. Did you hear it? What’s that noise? Bolton Wanderers? Osasuna? Werder Bremen? Oh, please, Lord, help.


The bogeyman for G14 is the well-run small club. The type that might steal that last Champions League spot then turn them over in the knockout rounds. The G14 elite like to paint themselves as the future when, in fact, they are rooted in the past. They are the industry’s dinosaurs. They have had it their own way for decades and do not want change.


There are 18 clubs in G14, but, like Orwell’s barnyard society, some are more equal than others. Votes are apportioned according to European trophy wins, so Real Madrid get 20 (two points for every European Cup, plusonepoint for each Uefa Cup) and Arsenal one (for winning the Cup Winners’ Cup in 1994). By G14’s preposterous logic, Real, whose recent history could be collated under the chapter heading “How Not To Run A Football Club”, deserve the greatest say in the direction the game in Europe should take because they were very good 40 years ago.

The second most powerful voice is Liverpool’s, a club dubiously qualified to advise the rest of the Continent on the business of football, having been annihilated financially by Manchester United from a position that should have been unassailable in the early 1990s. It is 16 years since Liverpool won the domestic championship, but failure is no handicap for a G14 club, either. Bayer Leverkusen have never won the Bundesliga, Paris Saint- Germain have claimed Le Championnat once in 20 years, while Inter Milan must rewind to 1989 to find their most recent triumph in Serie A despite buying a Who’s Who of world football.

The G14 clubs are in fact the enemies of excellence because they want the rewards without the hard work. They seek more Champions League matches guaranteed because they are frightened of defeat in the ones they have; they want qualification for Europe on a plate, so finishing fourth or first becomes inconsequential; they want to be paired with the most feeble or naive opponents in case challenging the mighty is too much for them.

Ferran Soriano, the vice- president of Barcelona, wants extra games inserted into the Champions League format, which can only mean a return to the torpor of the second group stage — an idea that came close to killing the competition as a spectacle the last time, and would do so again.

Adriano Galliani, of AC Milan, believes that the knockout stages should be seeded, based on performance over five years, with first playing eighth and so on. In other words, newcomers such as Chelsea or Bremen would be constantly pitted against wealthier, experienced clubs, reducing their chances considerably.

This is the rationale of the gibbering coward. Given every advantage imaginable, Goliath still wants David to fight with an arm tied. Having manipulated the tournament until the cost of reaching the later stages for any newcomer is roughly £250 million — and it looks as if Chelsea need to add another £50-100 million to win the final — they are still not satisfied.

This racket is necessary to shield the inadequacies of the self-appointed elite. Without a freak set of circumstances, Everton would have taken Liverpool’s Champions League place last year and there is still time for Bolton to nip ahead of Arsenal over the next two months. This would be a financial disaster for any big club. So the G14 cartel is not truly about the desire to progress, but the need to thwart that progress in others. The well-run small club must be shut out: in the qualification process, at the draw, by rearranging the format to the benefit of the select few.

Yet the names on the G14 roster are as random as any snapshot taken at a particular moment in football’s history — and one name in particular. G14 was formed in September 2000, when Leverkusen happened to be moderately successful, having finished runners-up in the Bundesliga three times in four seasons. Losing to Real in the 2002 Champions League final, they remained ever the bridesmaids, yet the invitations were out and they were among the second-tier clubs invited to swell G14’s numbers to 18. Why should this be? Leverkusen are elite in neither achievement nor popularity. On February 18 they drew a capacity crowd of 22,500 to a home match with Duisburg, their local rivals. That weekend, Hannover attracted 49,000, Hertha Berlin more than 50,000, Eintracht Frankfurt 47,500 and Borussia Mönchengladbach 54,019. The previous week, SV Hamburg had drawn 52,081, FC Cologne 50,000, Werder Bremen 36,218 and Schalke 04 61,524.

None of these teams is in G14, despite also eclipsing Leverkusen’s success. In total, Leverkusen’s eight rivals lay claim to one European Cup, four Uefa Cups, two Cup Winners’ Cups, 14 Bundesliga titles, 23 German Cups, four West German league championships and 11 German national championships. Still, Leverkusen have two trophies (the 1993 German Cup and the 1988 Uefa Cup) and were quite good five years ago, so they deserve a say in the future of world football. And that is G14’s brains trust in action.

Hamburg were among the three non-G14 clubs who won the old European Cup in its final ten years. In the 13 years it has stood as the G14-approved Champions League, though, it has been a closed shop. So G14 players are best? Not necessarily. On June 14, 2004, the starting date of the last European Championship tournament, G14 took out a full-page advertisement in The Times. “GO FOR IT” the headline read.

Despite working against international football at every opportunity, G14 was clearly not against using national pride to promote its overblown stars. “G14 members are providing a third of all players at Euro 2004,” it boasted. “We are confident G14’s players will help to make this year’s Championship the best yet.” Below was a list of 139 footballers. The advertisement it would have been nice to see would have appeared on July 5. Beneath the headline “GOING, GOING, GONE”, the copy would have read: “G14 members provided one player in the Greece squad that were crowned European champions yesterday. His name was Giorgos Karagounis and he was suspended for the final. Bugger.”

Sadly, G14’s 138 also-rans turned out to be knackered, laughably overestimated or, in the case of the strikers, unable to cope with basic man-for-man marking. Still, that has not stopped their bosses attempting to sign them up for even more football. Provided that it is not in the shirt of the national team.

Among the least palatable aspects of G14 policy-making is its total disdain for the international game. A court in Belgium is considering a claim by Royal Charleroi that injury to Abdelmajid Oulmers, one of their players, while representing Morocco against Burkina Faso, cost them the 2005 domestic championship (even though he was injured in November, making Charleroi the ultimate pipsqueak one-man team).
Naturally, G14 supports Charleroi because the case will further its claim to have player wages paid while on international duty. This would bring football’s World Cup in line with its rugby union equivalent; and make it about as interesting. In Australia in 2003, countries such as Fiji and Samoa, who could have posed a threat to rugby’s big eight, were weakened because they could not afford to buy their best players out of their contracts with professional clubs. The quarter-finals were depressingly predictable as a result.
Now imagine if Ivory Coast had to pay Didier Drogba’s Chelsea wage this summer, plus that of Kolo Touré, of Arsenal, and team-mates dotted at clubs all over Europe. It would be the end of the World Cup as a spectacle, certainly the death of its ability to surprise. Those who indulge G14’s logic probably think that Africa should be grateful for European colonialists plundering the land, rather than the other way around.

“The voice of the clubs,” is G14’s slogan, but it is as false as the claim to superiority. G14 is not the voice of Bolton or Bremen, nor even of Chelsea, kept out by this quivering elite for daring to challenge its monopoly. It is not the voice of the World Cup or of the champions of Europe. It is not the voice of anybody who cares for football or for the level playing field. It is the voice of lawyers, of faceless political manipulators, of shortsightedness and reckless self-interest. Above all, it is the voice of frightened little men. Frightened that they are not good enough. And on this, for once, they are right.

growler

Benedict XVI wrote:

If I was a sponsor of a team and over the period of my sponsorship realized that the numbers attending games was decreasing, therefore my product is being exposed to less people. At the end of the sponsorship contract I would
1) Consider not renewing it
2) Renew it at a lower price.
Therefore the club is worse off a result.


.

you've heard of television I presume?



Can't believe even the most ardent Pool / Utd. supporter would wish a G14 based competition on us all, that would be the end of football, in fact why even bother playing just share the trophy amongst yourselves.

TheMonster

growler wrote:

Can't believe even the most ardent Pool / Utd. supporter would wish a G14 based competition on us all, that would be the end of football, in fact why even bother playing just share the trophy amongst yourselves.

Why not if it removed a monster intent on killing the game from the equation, maybe even allow them in but have strict financial rules in place.(something FIFA, UEFA or FA are willing to do). It is in every clubs interest to have a healthy rivalry.(as someone else said look what happened in F1). Woudl you really want Chelsea to win the next 5 leagues by 15/20 points and the CL in each of them seasons also?

Benedict XVI

growler wrote:

you've heard of television I presume?.

Have you noticed that not every Premiership game is on live TV, therefore attendance is an important factor in sponsorship, and as a result an important factor in clubs revenue.

I would also hazard a guess that Sky’s live coverage of games involving non top 4 teams (which they are contacted to cover a certain amount of over the season) does not pull anything near the ratings of games involving Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool.

No sponsor is going to keep putting put money into an increasingly poor product, and in my opinion the Premiership is a poor product, no matter what Sky try to tell us.

growler

TheMonster wrote:

Woudl you really want Chelsea to win the next 5 leagues by 15/20 points and the CL in each of them seasons also?

think I could live with that

sprinkles

Mark wrote:

An article I dug up from a few months ago on G14, it's quite illuminating.

Very good read.

el rabitos

growler wrote:

think I could live with that

wheres the satisfaction? how do u appreciate the success when it wasnt earned in the same way its been earned by other teams? at what point does it start getting redundant and pointless?

sure other teams have had investment and thats the norm, but at what point is the line drawn in terms of reckless spending and reckless investment?

i'm a huge liverpool fan and theres nothing i'd like more that to see liverpool win the league, but i know for a fact i wouldnt want it or even celebrate it to the extent chelsea do when they've won it. i dont see the appeal in being a fan of chelsea, wheres the struggle?

vorbis

jeez, I'm an Arsenal fan and its obvious to me that the Chelsea hype is being completely overblown. They've won the league 2 years in a row. THATS IT! United have done this before and it didn't cripple the league. Chelsea are building a team of superstars just like Inter, AC and Juve try to in Italy and Real and Barcelona try to in Spain. Are those leagues ruined? At the end of the day, each match is 11 versus 11.

Benedict XVI

vorbis wrote:

jeez, I'm an Arsenal fan and its obvious to me that the Chelsea hype is being completely overblown. They've won the league 2 years in a row. THATS IT! United have done this before and it didn't cripple the league. Chelsea are building a team of superstars just like Inter, AC and Juve try to in Italy and Real and Barcelona try to in Spain. Are those leagues ruined? At the end of the day, each match is 11 versus 11.

Yes but if Chelsea keep spening at the pace they are spending, and no other team spends at that pace, then the outcome is inevitable.

Yes they have only won 2 in a row but con current trends the outlook is that they will win many more in a row.

Last year I think Paddy Power paid out on Chelsea after 7 games, I can see the same happening this year.

And over all that is bad for the Premiership.

My solution -
Breakup the Premisership and other European leagues
Form a league with the top teams in Europe (revised G14) and call that the 'top flight'
Crate a 'second flight' (or a third) with the remainder of the Premiership and remainder of other European leagues.
Split 'second flight' into North\South divisions (with some cross over in schedule)
Winner of North v winner of South playoff in end of seson final.
Winner goes to 'top flight', and one 'top flight' team relegated.

Outlandish - yes, bust just an idea

growler

el rabitos wrote:

wheres the satisfaction? how do u appreciate the success when it wasnt earned in the same way its been earned by other teams? at what point does it start getting redundant and pointless?

sure other teams have had investment and thats the norm, but at what point is the line drawn in terms of reckless spending and reckless investment?

i'm a huge liverpool fan and theres nothing i'd like more that to see liverpool win the league, but i know for a fact i wouldnt want it or even celebrate it to the extent chelsea do when they've won it. i dont see the appeal in being a fan of chelsea, wheres the struggle?

I can celebrate it because of the simple fact that we have not had the same illustrious history (as the pool keep reminding us) as Man U, Arse or Liverpool, as a Chelsea fan i never expected to win the league, challenge for European titles or achieve much more than a few cups, a few euopean games etc., you lot (Man U, Arse and Pool) fans have been spoilt by your successes over the years, back in the 90's I'd never have said "what was the appeal in being a utd fan?", football is about winning, we never won very much and now that we are I'm going to revel in it for as long as possible.

That said, it's not quite as interesting going to watch wolves on a wet wednesday as it used to be, i no longer feel any nerves before a game (with a few notable exceptions) , none the less I wouldn't swap success and world class players for our traditional mediocrity and relegation battles, i'm loving it.

el rabitos

growler wrote:

I can celebrate it because of the simple fact that we have not had the same illustrious history (as the pool keep reminding us) as Man U, Arse or Liverpool, as a Chelsea fan i never expected to win the league, challenge for European titles or achieve much more than a few cups, a few euopean games etc., you lot (Man U, Arse and Pool) fans have been spoilt by your successes over the years, back in the 90's I'd never have said "what was the appeal in being a utd fan?", football is about winning, we never won very much and now that we are I'm going to revel in it for as long as possible.

That said, it's not quite as interesting going to watch wolves on a wet wednesday as it used to be, i no longer feel any nerves before a game (with a few notable exceptions) , none the less I wouldn't swap success and world class players for our traditional mediocrity and relegation battles, i'm loving it.

yeah, but dont u get it?

chelsea are still that loser team that could only attract old foreign farts when they were done winning things and wanted some cash to finish off their careers.

no offence like, its just true.

PHB

Any players United Liverpool or Arsenal have purchased have been to improve their team with cash the club generated, they never purchased players just to prevent other teams signing them.

That's untrue, they bought Forlan to stop boro getting him

growler

el rabitos wrote:

yeah, but dont u get it?

chelsea are still that loser team that could only attract old foreign farts when they were done winning things and wanted some cash to finish off their careers.

no offence like, its just true.

*%$%



well it must be true: duff, robben, lampard, cole, cech, sheva, ballack, essien, crespo all has beens ... right.

I agree that in the 90's chelsea relied on aging talent to keep us in contention, i thoroughly enjoyed it, got to see some great players that I would not otherwise have seen, I don't regret having watched zola, petit, deschamps, desailly, le boeuf, hasselbaink, di matteo, de hoey and co. they were great times............... and if it hadn't been for that policy chelsea would likely have dissappeared in to the lower leagues and not attracted the attention of RA so it all woked out in the end.

Nalz

PHB wrote:

That's untrue, they bought Forlan to stop boro getting him

PHB - you're havin a laugh;
PHB - you're havin a laugh;
PHB - you're havin a laugh;
PHB - you're havin a laugh;
PHB - you're havin a laugh.

growler

Benedict XVI wrote:

Have you noticed that not every Premiership game is on live TV, therefore attendance is an important factor in sponsorship, and as a result an important factor in clubs revenue.

I would also hazard a guess that Sky’s live coverage of games involving non top 4 teams (which they are contacted to cover a certain amount of over the season) does not pull anything near the ratings of games involving Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool.
QUOTE]


you're obviously an expert in the world of sponsorship marketing strategy and I bow to your intimate knowledge of the subject, silly old me thought that companies with global brands like 888.com were more interested in the exposure (in terms of hours of brand exposure to key target audiences) they get over the course of a season on international television and press than they were in selling gambling to brummies. just goes to show.;)

gosplan

el rabitos wrote:

yeah, but dont u get it?

chelsea are still that loser team that could only attract old foreign farts when they were done winning things and wanted some cash to finish off their careers.

no offence like, its just true.

Ha ha, the only old foreign fart I can think of is Glazer.


Sorry but this is bollocks. I'm not a Chelsea fan but as I've said sooner or later someone was going to enter the world of football with limitless cash and buy everything, he just happened to be doing it with Chelsea.

Whats to get??? The fact that Chelsea used not be this good? The fact they don't have lots of titles behind them??

What is there to be proud about as regards Man U?? Fans should look at the fact that they're owned by a rich Amercian with no intrest in football, they've changed strips more times then anyone can remember and were amoung the first to start paying footballers really rediculous sums of money(like Keane). When the 'finance can buy success' thing worked in their favour there was no complaints, just a chinese kid that came out and played in their far east tour every year.

Liverpool aren't that clean as well, Noel White being in bed with Dein when the two of the approached the FA to start the breakaway league. Why??? Because they were tired of sharing the cash with other divisions, they forsaw the big sky windfall coming and the sucess it would bring. Throw in Grobbelar and Heysel and they don't look to good either.

Arsenal, well they've got Dein who was more responsible then anyone for turning English football into the money driven game it is nowadyas. They also bought their way into the top flight wayyyyy back in 1919, taking advantage break due first world war to talk and pay their way into the first division despite finishing only 5th the previous season(this was at spurs expense which explains a bit).

Just to let you know, if currently a big club in England then you've a financial advantage over the last twenty years.

It's funny how Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool fans are pissed off about Chelsea but ask people who support teams lower down in the premiership, in the championship or lower again what they think and largely they don't give a crap.

This is total toys out of Pram stuff cause the rich teams don't have the league sown up between themselves anymore.

Reap what you sow.

Benedict XVI

growler wrote:

Benedict XVI wrote:

Have you noticed that not every Premiership game is on live TV, therefore attendance is an important factor in sponsorship, and as a result an important factor in clubs revenue.

I would also hazard a guess that Sky’s live coverage of games involving non top 4 teams (which they are contacted to cover a certain amount of over the season) does not pull anything near the ratings of games involving Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool.
QUOTE]


you're obviously an expert in the world of sponsorship marketing strategy and I bow to your intimate knowledge of the subject, silly old me thought that companies with global brands like 888.com were more interested in the exposure (in terms of hours of brand exposure to key target audiences) they get over the course of a season on international television and press than they were in selling gambling to brummies. just goes to show.;)

Thanks for your kind words
Two points however
1. Clubs have more sponsors than their shirt sponsor
2. 888 were peoblably trying to sell to Geordies (or something ) rather than brummies

growler

Benedict XVI wrote:

growler wrote:

2. 888 were peoblably trying to sell to Geordies (or something ) rather than brummies

your knowledge knows no bounds.

Rikand

el rabitos wrote:

ronaldo - utterly useless, sorry, i just dont see what his contribution is. maybe he sells shirts or puts asses in seats, i dunno

All the girls adore him! hes so pretty! alot my female friends started watching the world cup just cause he was there, lol. so i guess he helps get asses in the seats

iregk

Gosplan that is one of the best quotes on the football boards in quite a long time.

That G14 piece posted up, appologies but can't remember who posted it, basically smells of the same fear in the premerships other 3!

El_Rabidos, it seems your still stuck in the late 90's...

Nalz

gosplan wrote:

It's funny how Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool fans are pissed off about Chelsea but ask people who support teams lower down in the premiership, in the championship or lower again what they think and largely they don't give a crap.

get that off your chest man.....yeah!!!

They'll give a crap when Abramovich and Glaziers mates will come over and start taken over every other top 6-8 clubs in premiership, which is possible to happen, but nothin can be done about that. It ewill get to a point were 6-8 clubs will be own bu the riches blokes around, leaving the others to basically rot....possible ya know, very possible.

patmac

I found the comments of the Newcastle chairman thanking Chelsea for letting Duff go for only 5m staggering, I mean these are supposedly hard nose businessman ffs, letting Duff go at a 12m lose, utd letting Van Nistelroy go at a 13m loss just because he had a spat with the manager, lots of endless waste going on. Chelsea are ruining football along with Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, G14 looking for compo for internationals, etc, greed and incompedent chairman (Risdale, Lowe etc) is what is killing the game.

iregk

Indeed patmac nice comments. You cannot solely blame Chelsea for this. Its greed right across the board. Chelsea want a player who is 10m. As soon as they come in he is automatically 20m. Chelsea pay as they want him but when they sell him other clubs say ah offer 5 they don't need it. Surely other clubs must take partial blame?

G14 is the biggest mistake in world football and thats whats really killing the game.

The Muppet

patmac wrote:

I found the comments of the Newcastle chairman thanking Chelsea for letting Duff go for only 5m staggering, I..............................

I did too but for different reasons. Saying that "Newcastle owe Chelsea a huge favour" could come back to haunt them down the road (under certain circumstances ) and leave a very bad taste about football in general.

It's not the first time Freddie has put his foot in his mouth , probably won't be his last either.

Bateman

Benedict XVI wrote:

growler wrote:

Thanks for your kind words
Two points however
1. Clubs have more sponsors than their shirt sponsor
2. 888 were peoblably trying to sell to Geordies (or something ) rather than brummies

Call a Teesider a Geordie to his face and you would want to have a helmet.

PHB

utd letting Van Nistelroy go at a 13m loss just because he had a spat with the manager,

United bought him for 19 million sterling, so unless you've heard somewhere he is being sold for 6 million magically, that comment is utterly wrong.

The problem in football isn't between Chelsea and United, it's between the big 4 and the rest of the division. That gap is massive.
The reason this is more of a problem than it used to be with Chelsea, is that Man Utd and Arsenal used to be an example to everybody.

If you,
invest in youth
play attacking football
spend money
and advertise globally
You can win titles in football.

Because of Chelsea, this is no longer possible. There's nowhere near as much incentive to take those risks not just in the boardroom but on the pitch. Sure to even have a chance of competing with Chelsea in the league, you need to play much more effectient football. Dropping points is no longer acceptable in the modern premiership. This in turn has resulted in fear football, which while isn't to blame totally on Chelsea, it has had an effect.

Spurs have attempted to do what Arsenal did with the Jol, but it will never be as successful as Arsenal, because they will never win a title with Chelsea and Mourinho at the helm. They will eventually lose their talented players to the top clubs.

People talk about the Arsenal/United duopoly. But one must remember, that was largely due to the failure of other clubs rather than the success of United, see Newcastle.
Just an example, but if Chelsea were never bought by the suger daddy, right now, we'd have Liverpool as huge contenders for the last two years, possibly even winning one. Spurs would be in the CL undoubtably, and would be able to build on their youth investment.

Bateman

PHB wrote:

People talk about the Arsenal/United duopoly. But one must remember, that was largely due to the failure of other clubs rather than the success of United, see Newcastle.

Was surprised by that comment TBH. Why isn't Chelsea's "monopoly" the result of the failure of other clubs, the most obvious two being United and Arsenal?

PHB

Because the points tally. For the last 2 seasons running, CHelsea have gotten a points tally, the first of which has beaten the highest scored points tally in the premiership (which was by Man Utd the year after the treble season)

Even if United had an incredible midfield, the chances of them catching even with a great midfield are unlikely. And now it's about to get even worse. This is football, and you never know what's gona happen, but ultimately, the really bad stuff has to happen at incredibly bad times.

Stuff like major injuries. Say Terry Carvalho and Gallas all got injured. Aside from there being average covering, it would have to happen at the very start of October, so fort hem to have 2 months of bad football, cause once the window comes, they'll just replace them.
It is a totally different ball game, especially with their squad depth.

The perfect example is Cuddicini. Last season he sat on the bench, so no matter what happened to Cech, he was replacable by one of the best keepers in the world. That could never have happened at United or Arsenal during the 90's, and is a situation unique to Chelsea.

SCULLY

Benedict XVI wrote:

My solution -
Breakup the Premisership and other European leagues
Form a league with the top teams in Europe (revised G14) and call that the 'top flight'

Just out of interest - what criteria would you use to determin what are the 'top teams in Europe'?

patmac

PHB wrote:

United bought him for 19 million sterling, so unless you've heard somewhere he is being sold for 6 million magically, that comment is utterly wrong.

Sorry was probably thinking euro but still bad business to lose 4m stg on a player who is at the top of his game and one of the best strikers in the world just because he fell out with Fergie. Lots of questions here why are united selling one of their best players at a loss and if he is why is it being allowed to happen? Is Fergie's old style hardschool style of management a waste of time in an era of primadonnas, if so its time for him to go he wasn't slow in telling his best players Robson, Cantona, Keane that they were past their prime now maybe he should do the same himself. What pissses me off about Chelsea is with all their money they are like watching pipes rust, instant turn of for non fans selling Duff one of their few flair players telling Joe Cole not to do anything fancy, I could go on but work beckons, the general lack of enthusiasm for this season stems from the fact that Chelsea will win every homegame 1-0, 2-0 have the league sewn up by xmas and the rest of us will be cheering on Barcelona to knock them out of the champs league, yawn.

Benedict XVI

SCULLY wrote:

Just out of interest - what criteria would you use to determin what are the 'top teams in Europe'?

As I said 'revised G14', I'd tweak that group a little bit.

I don't follow the European leagues so i can't comment on them but in the Premisership I would not go much futher than the top 4, maybe Spurs or Newcastle could be included

iregk

Ok so Benedict basically you would put 5 or so premier teams in a best of Europe league. Probably comprising of 18 teams. When was either team last in the CL? Secondly is this not what we all detested a few years back when septic blatter first said it? since you are so concerned about the health of world football have you though what would happen to the championship, league 1 and 2 as well as all the lower leagues if your plan would come to pass?

Patmac, the usual argument of Chelsea as the 1-0 2-0 wins is still quite funny. Considering they were top scorers last season in the prem, 2nd top scorers the year before and have over the course of the past two season recorded the most 4-0 wins in any single premiership campaign it kinda blows a hole in that theory doesn't it?

Are Arsenal borning because they beat west brom 4-0 and loose 2-0 to Everton at home? no.

Are Chelsea boring because they beat bolton 4-0 at home and beat Everton 2-0 away? Yes.

Rikand

SCULLY wrote:

Just out of interest - what criteria would you use to determin what are the 'top teams in Europe'?

The ones that do the best ?

i wonder what the top 18 in europe would be . . .

Juventas
Milan
Inter
Lazio/Roma/Fiorentina
Man U
Liverpool
Chelsea
Arsenal
Real Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia ?
Bayern Munich ( what other good german teams are there )
Lyon ( what other good french teams are there )
PSV
AZ Akmaar/Ajax
Porto
Celtic/Rangers ?
or who else ?

patmac

Lets do a poll do people find Chelsea boring?