[ARTICLE] Chelsea, a soulless brand that loves to be loathed

TheMonster

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/11/28/sfnhen28.xml&page=1

Chelsea, a soulless brand that loves to be loathed

Strong words in this article - the writer has a bee in his bonnet about Chelsea

Some years ago, when Baroness Philippine de Rothschild was entertaining Robert Mondavi at the chateau that bears the famous family name, they were talking about the things that wine makers like to talk about: grapes, soil, sun. Then she said: 'Making wine is a pretty simple business. It's the first 200 years that's difficult'.

Just like that – voila! Mondavi, quite a player himself, crept back to northern California, pierced to the quick. There are certain things understood in the blood, the first lady of wine was saying, which constitute an inheritance that has nothing to do with spending money or vaulting ambition.

The Rothschild rapier came to mind the other day when Peter Kenyon, Chelsea's chief executive, spoke freely of their intention to become the biggest club in the world – 'brand leader', no less – by 2014. More specifically, he was telling his previous employers at Old Trafford, where he is not the most popular man, that their days as top dogs were numbered.

In the mephitic world of football, which attracts so many people of exceptional venality, Kenyon stands out as possibly the most absurd figure of all. Not bent, not nasty in the way that others are; just absurd. For all his talk of world domination the former sportswear salesman from Stalybridge is little more than a highly-paid errand-boy, sent on missions by a mysterious, easily bored Russian, for the benefit of a manager who labours under the misapprehension that he is Count Bismarck, and the Premiership represents a map of Europe in 1870.

So those of us who are slightly sceptical about the Stamford Bridge revolution cannot pretend it does not give pleasure to inform 'Roman the Terrible', 'Jose the Horrible' and their lap dog 'Petrushka' that, even if they win the Premiership every season until the stipulated 'harmonisation' year of 2014, they will still come a distant second to Manchester United. And Liverpool. And Arsenal. And a few others beyond these shores.

Status is not something you can buy over the counter at the grocer's, like a bag of King Edward's. 'I'll have half-a-pound of tradition, please, and throw in a few slices of heritage while you're at it. Oh, and some turnips, for Michael Ballack'. It is something that develops incrementally over decades of achievement.

Of course, if the acquisition of players counted for everything, Chelsea have already planted their pole on top of football's Everest, and there are untold millions in the kitty (not generated by success on the field, as at other clubs) to buy dozens more. They could bring in Dan Carter, Roger Federer and Ricky Ponting tomorrow if they wanted, and perhaps they should. Those entertainers would bring a touch of class to what is essentially a soulless, mercenary team.

Class is the key word. The people who own, manage and administer Chelsea underline, week in, week out, what Oscar Wilde meant when he defined a cynic as 'someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing'. They spend money like drunken sailors, and brag about there being 'more where that came from'. Then they wonder why the world outside their frantic little parish withholds its respect.

For let us be honest: Chelsea are loathed with greater intensity, by more people, than any club in the history of English football. Don Revie's Leeds United side were not liked because they kicked people, and tried to laugh it off. Manchester United are disliked and envied in roughly equal measure, but they are admired for their football, and their history. Arsenal used to send crowds to sleep every week. Now they are rhapsodised by the very people who, not so long ago, wouldn't pay 'em in washers. Even Liverpool in their glory years had their detractors.

But Chelsea are loathed because they have spent half-a-billion pounds to keep internationals in gravy, and yet prefer to grind out victories; because 'The Interpreter' considers himself to be 'special'; because they decline to behave with the grace of champions (they don't even acknowledge the possibility of grace); because some of their players earn £130,000-a-week and grumble it's hard to find a suitable property in London; because their supporters, an odd compound of ample-buttocked 'A3 Men' and 'Showbiz Charlies', many of whom couldn't tell a goal-post from the groundsman's cat, present such a disagreeable spectacle.

Even in the old days, when Charlie Cooke and Peter Osgood offered sound reasons for enjoying their football, there was something unappealing about them: all that guff about whooping it up with film stars in the King's Road (it's Fulham Road, actually), and tales of 'Chopper' Harris, a so-called hard man who was regarded as a joke north of the Trent. 'I always scored against Chelsea', a true warrior of those bloody times once confessed. 'Harris never came near me, and he got rid of the ball pretty sharpish if I went looking for him'.

Chelsea may well retain the Premiership, even if Michael Ballack and Andrei Shevchenko continue to play like Hinge and Bracket (value for money there, gentlemen!). They may even win the Champions League. Having doled out so much brass, and banged on about what it would mean to win that bloated competition, they will look pretty silly if they don't.

If referees or opponents get in their way, their fans can always fire off death threats (the full story of the Anders Frisk affair has not been revealed), and 'The Interpreter' will pout away like Margaret Rutherford as Madame Arcati.

advertisement
Or they might, at this late hour, absorb a lesson that even 'dynamic brands' might find useful. Great football clubs have a sense of history; not only their own, but also that of the game. Anfield and Old Trafford reek of history but so too do the Parks of Villa, St James's, and Fratton, where success has been more spasmodic. Proper football clubs want to be successful but they feel a responsibility to the game at large, if it is possible to put it so romantically without people sniggering. Chelsea are not interested in anything so opaque. Furthermore, they give the impression that they actually enjoy being disliked. Envy, they call it. A sense of detachment, others might say.

West Bromwich Albion is a football club. Accrington Stanley is a football club. Chelsea has not been a football club for some while. It is a vanity publication, run by vulgarians for whom modesty is a badge of shame, and underwritten by a rich man whose loyalty to a foreign investment cannot be taken for granted.

Top dogs, eh? Woof, woof!

Jivin Turkey

Yawn TBH.

How many times can journalists get their work re-published when it's essentially the same work rehashed again and again, only using slightly different anecdotes and analogies? Maybe I've picked the wrong career....

If Chelsea steamrolled every one with a brand of football never seen before people would be giving out. Their superior spending power is nothing new to the world game, only it is one club out on their own, as opposed to a group of two or three.

kinaldo

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Yawn TBH.

How many times can journalists get their work re-published when it's essentially the same work rehashed again and again, only using slightly different anecdotes and analogies?

I don't think Michael Henderson has ever even touched on the subject before. Even so, most football fans hate Chelsea so why not?

Jivin Turkey

kinaldo wrote:

I don't think Michael Henderson has ever even touched on the subject before. Even so, most football fans hate Chelsea so why not?

Because it becomes boring. It might still be interesting if they were humourous about it but it's always the same old dross. There is plenty there to make fun of as opposed to "they have too much money" which might make their weekly articles worth reading.

The reality of it is that some clubs have always been bigger than other, just "most supporters" now feel aggrieved as there is a clear leader in terms of spending power, as opposed to a group(United/Liverpool/Chelsea/Newcastle/Arsenal).

iregk

Its amazing how Chelsea appear to be the only club in the world to have ever bought players. How much did real spend in the last 10 years and nobody every said a bad thing about them.

Anyway, the main point and where this sprang from is its main downfall. Peter Kenyon. Does anyone, even us Chelsea fans pay any attention to what that little... says? No. Kenyon is and always have been an absolute complete and utter....

There is a reason why he is possibly the most hated man in English Football.

Nalz

iregk wrote:

There is a reason why he is possibly the most hated man in English Football.

you mean apart from Mourinho

care to elaborate on your point iregk?

iregk

Trilla wrote:

you mean apart from Mourinho

care to elaborate on your point iregk?

I could but chances are I'd get a ban. I think most people will know where I'm going with it.

kinaldo

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Because it becomes boring.

Well tbf that's subjective.

Rollo Tamasi

as long as you can prove he is a nobber by using some sort of science or facts you shouldn't get banned...

kinaldo

iregk wrote:

Its amazing how Chelsea appear to be the only club in the world to have ever bought players. How much did real spend in the last 10 years and nobody every said a bad thing about them.

A lot of bad things were said about them, but they also played very entertaining football with all the emphasis on attack, and produced world class players like Raul, Guti and Casillas whilst also giving chances to lesser youth talent like Portillo and Bravo and providing the backbone to the Spanish national team (Casillas, Canizares, Hierro, Salgado, Raul, Morientes, Guti, Ramos and now Reyes).

SectionF

Great piece. It hardly can be accused of retreading old ground, when most media just celebrate brand teams.

iregk

kinaldo wrote:

A lot of bad things were said about them, but they also played very entertaining football with all the emphasis on attack, and produced world class players like Raul, Guti and Casillas whilst also giving chances to lesser youth talent like Portillo and Bravo and providing the backbone to the Spanish national team (Casillas, Canizares, Hierro, Salgado, Raul, Morientes, Guti, Ramos and now Reyes).

Personally I wouldn't consider Guti to be anywhere near world class nor would I Raul going on the last 4 years. But thats an opinion. Again out of all the players you listed for the Spainish national side Madrid produced 4 bought 4. Now we can nit pick over who plays and who doesn't but we are getting off the topic and I accept what it is your are trying to say.

My point was that so much is made of Chelsea buying players that you'd almost forget the vile amounts other clubs have spent also. They have also lets not foget attempted to constuct the team around and English core, similar to what Madrid have done. Now in the future hopefully we will see a lot more youth products but at the moment the gulf in what is needed to make it at Chelsea and what the academy is producing is way too far. Hopefully with coachs and new academy this will change over the years. By then though I'm sure if Chelsea had a team of 6 youth products and win the title they will be accused of developing players from blood money or something.

blastman

kinaldo, nail on the head there. It's not just the fact that Chelsea have all this money, it's the fact that they play such deathly dull football nearly all of the time when the money their sugar daddy has provided pays for players as talented as Shevchenko, Ballack, Essien et al. Chelsea should be playing stunning football week in, week out, yet they aren't anywhere near the top three best footballing teams in the Premiership, and a lot of it has to do with the size of the manager's ego.. That's what is so galling.

Fusion251

I'm a Man Yoo fan, and tbh that article gets a bit boring for me. We all know that the way Chelski play is boring, but most of the time they win the games.

Man U play great football imho but because of this sometimes slip up at the back, Arsenal can only seem to win when they play against teams that attack them and try to win, sometimes watchin Chelsea is like watchin Bolton grind out a win, how many times have Chelski won 2-0? Lots! They rarely hammer opponents.
I think creative players have much more tendency to lose concentration then solid players such as Roy Keane, etc...and that's what Muhrinho is trying to do, he seems to want to guide his creative players and restrict them to his way of playing.
I mean Robin(Possibly Joe Cole) seems to be the only one that's always up for it, and you can see Muhrinho's frustration when he goes for it and ends up missing or losing the ball..I think his methods work but aren't and won't be very interesting to watch no matter who he buys..and that's the main issue people have with Chelski...Loadsa great names, loadsa talent, rarely an exciting game.

Fusion

Jivin Turkey

kinaldo wrote:

Well tbf that's subjective.

Well then perhaps I suggest you get out and read more.

There was a similar article less than a fortnight ago as far as I remember, and there will be an article of an identical tone within another fortnight. I'm on the edge of my seat already.

I know Chelsea have lots of money.

I know that the team is physical, bordering on dirty at times.

I know they grind out results as they are a team which is built on a rock solid defence.

I know they sometimes play long ball.

I know I don't need to be told again.

kinaldo

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Well then perhaps I suggest you get out and read more.

ok...

Jivin Turkey wrote:

There was a similar article less than a fortnight ago as far as I remember, and there will be an article of an identical tone within another fortnight.

Yes I know, it was from the Guardian and I posted it within the Unitedrant article.

I think you'll find The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian have very different readerships (not to mention Man Utd websites), and not everyone finds it as boring as you do.

Chelsea's football on the other hand...

iregk

Fusion251 wrote:

They rarely hammer opponents.

Hmmm, over the past two season Chelsea have recorded the highest amount of 4-0 wins in the premiership. I can't find it at the moment but according to sky at the end of last season they had recorded the 2nd highest number of shots, the highest number of shots on target and the highest amount of goals. Not bad going for an all out defensive non attacking team!

PHB

My problem with Chelsea is not related to them spending lots of money, it's related to them not running themselves with any plans of running without being seriously bankrolled.
I think the repruccussions of that are yet to be seen completely, but I think it's a very serious problem.

MrJoeSoap

Fusion251 wrote:

We all know that the way Chelski play is boring, but most of the time they win the games.

Fusion251 wrote:

Man U play great football imho but because of this sometimes slip up at the back

I don't believe Chelsea have any more "boring" games than Man Utd.

Fusion251 wrote:

sometimes watchin Chelsea is like watchin Bolton grind out a win, how many times have Chelski won 2-0? Lots! They rarely hammer opponents.

Yet they have two 4-0's in the last five games, and almost always seem to destroy the lower teams at home, and have done in the past two seasons.

Fusion251 wrote:

Chelski...Loadsa great names, loadsa talent, rarely an exciting game.

I've seen plenty of exciting Chelsea games in the past two years, you must have missed them!

PHB wrote:

My problem with Chelsea is not related to them spending lots of money, it's related to them not running themselves with any plans of running without being seriously bankrolled.

And of course because they've stolen Uniteds thunder.

iregk

PHB, this has come up before and was answered at lenght. The thing is while Chelsea needed a huge injection of cash to begin with they have made huge changes in the background to become self sufficent. They were on the road to bandrupcy long before Roman got involved. Since then they have shed miniscule sponsorship agreements and business deals replacing them with extremely lucrative ones. This coupled with the academy redevelopment and recruitment of highly rated personnel at various levels being all part of a plan for self suficiency.

At the moment they are being run on a bankroll. This is short therm help to achieve short term success while planning for long term gains in the background. Chelsea will become self suficient and profitable over the coming years.

TheMonster

iregk wrote:

At the moment they are being run on a bankroll. This is short therm help to achieve short term success while planning for long term gains in the background. Chelsea will become self suficient and profitable over the coming years.

You really can't see the problem with this can you - the short term gain whic are saying could be the foundation of long term success is being got by spending crazy amounts of money.

iregk

TheMonster wrote:

You really can't see the problem with this can you - the short term gain whic are saying could be the foundation of long term success is being got by spending crazy amounts of money.

Well let me give you an example. Years ago the company I work for spend a crazy amount of money based on future gains. A lot of research and development, new materials, new staff for new directions and so on and so forth. Now for 2 years due to this we ran at a huge loss. Basically investors money being used to keep the company afloat. Once we got to the end of that business plan, which we did end of last year, we started to bear the fruits of the massive hits that we took. We are now one of the big success stories in the Irish IT industry at the moment as well as being one of the fastest growing/profitable companies in the land also. So you see this is more of a common business practice than you would think. Sony, just take a look at their books with the ps3. So far their gaming division is running at a staggering loss of billions of $'s all based on future sales that may not happen. So from a business point of view with regards to long term strategies no I can't see a problem with it. Care to point it out.

TheMonster

using your analogy are your company spending the same amount of money that would bankrupt every one of your cometitors a couple of time over :rolleyes:

Fusion251

MrJoeSoap wrote:

I don't believe Chelsea have any more "boring" games than Man Utd.

I do, and I find Chelsea very boring once they go in front.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Yet they have two 4-0's in the last five games, and almost always seem to destroy the lower teams at home, and have done in the past two seasons.

Point taken, that's where United have failed over the last 2 seasons.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

I've seen plenty of exciting Chelsea games in the past two years, you must have missed them!

Probably did, they have been few and far between, my favourite team to watch by far is Arsenal because of their style of play. I don't like the way Chelsea play. The exciting games are usually the ones like the 4-0 against Watford & Villa when the opposition just roll over and die.

MrJoeSoap

Just looked into it, and last season Chelsea scored three or more goals in domestic games against...

WBA,
Liverpool,
Bolton,
Blackburn,
Newcastle,
Fulham,
West Ham (twice),
Everton (twice),
Colchester and...
Man Utd.

Of the games I saw, I'd consider the 5-1 v Bolton, 4-1 v Liverpool, 4-2 v Blackburn, 3-2 v Fulham, 3-1 v Colchester (they went a goal down, remember it? ) and 3-0 v United as great displays of attractive attacking football. I'm sure there were many more.

Zebra3

What a biased article. A lot of English clubs have cut themselves off from their communities and are lttle more than a brand.

How many clubs in England, nay Britain, are plcs? The first loyalty of a plc is to its shareholders. That's enshrined in law. So anyone who follows a plc/fc and thinks they can look down their nose at Chelsea..... :rolleyes:

growler

TheMonster wrote:

You really can't see the problem with this can you - the short term gain whic are saying could be the foundation of long term success is being got by spending crazy amounts of money.

so what?

If the alternative was going bankrupt and chelsea-dons reappearing in milton keynes or somewhere I'll opt for russian financing success anyday, and so would every other supporter or any team in the land.

kenyon is loathed by chelsea fans, talk of brand and business is hated by any of us who watch and play the game to us its a sport not a business to kenyon (though probably not roman) its a business. Much as I hate the bald *die hard utd fan* git, he wouldn't be doing his job if he wasn't tlking about the future plans for success of the business.

I don't believe personally that chelsea play boring football, I don't find it boring, having watched some dire ****e over the years in many divisions, i'm happy as a pig in **** and don't care how big the chip on the collective shoulders of man usa, arse and pool fans grow coz i'm happy.

PHB

At the moment they are being run on a bankroll. This is short therm help to achieve short term success while planning for long term gains in the background. Chelsea will become self suficient and profitable over the coming years.

That's just not possible. No club in the world can afford the wages they pay, it's just not possible.

Football clubs need to be run as businesses to allow for any club to rise to the top. Currently the only incentive people have to invest any money in a premiership club is massivly restricted because nobody can ever compare or come close to the spending power of Chelsea. The best they can hope for is to challenge for the CL.
The reason Arsenal and Man United weren't as bad was because anyone could do what they did by sensible investment and a good manager, that isn't the case anymore, and the premiership is becoming more and more and more a race between the top 4.

Raskolnikov

kinaldo wrote:

A lot of bad things were said about them, but they also played very entertaining football with all the emphasis on attack, and produced world class players like Raul, Guti and Casillas whilst also giving chances to lesser youth talent like Portillo and Bravo and providing the backbone to the Spanish national team (Casillas, Canizares, Hierro, Salgado, Raul, Morientes, Guti, Ramos and now Reyes).

I really am begining to dislike this anti-Chelsea bandwagonary that's just seems to grow by the day.

I actually quite enjoy watching Chelsea matches personally. I enjoy the physical game they play and how through the midfield they're able to dominate opponents. I think Mourinho is an excellent tactician, when the chips are down he's able to motivate the players, make a tactical change and grind out a result. When Chelsea take the lead in the match, it's through Mourinho that they're able to shut up shop and win 95% of the time. I won't claim it's beautiful football like Arsenal but it's ruthless, professional and been sorely lacking from the English game? Anyway, has anyone watched Liverpool recently? Going forward, they've been absolute dross, the only magic seems to come from Stevie G. Even Fulham, Wigan and Reading have scored more this season :rolleyes:

As for Real Madrid contributing to the Spanish squad? Umm, what about Terry, Lampard, 2xCole, Wright Phillips, Bridge, etc?

Raskolnikov

iregk wrote:

So from a business point of view with regards to long term strategies no I can't see a problem with it. Care to point it out.

I think people would just rather pretend that it's an attempt at money laundering or some pet project, makes for more interesting reading than some rich geezer just trying to make some more money.

mike65

Is Winston Bogarde still 'playing' at the Bridge?

Chelsea are the new Millwall.

Mike.

kinaldo

Raskolnikov wrote:

As for Real Madrid contributing to the Spanish squad? Umm, what about Terry, Lampard, 2xCole, Wright Phillips, Bridge, etc?

Yeah I suppose that's true. I guess u could also add Glen Johnson to that list. They (minus Terry) only cost a combined total of just over £70m. The international careers of SWP, Bridge and Johnson haven't exactly flourished either, and Joe Cole's prospects aren't great since the arrival of Ballack in Chelsea's new powerhouse midfield quartet.

Guy:Incognito

Raskolnikov wrote:

I think people would just rather pretend that it's an attempt at money laundering or some pet project, makes for more interesting reading than some rich geezer just trying to make some more money.

Well thats just plain false (the last bit) RA will be long dead and rottign in the ground before he makes back what he's spent on chelsea through profits from the club. Turning a couple of million profit every year isnt going to make back the hundreds of millions spent already anytime soon.

The simple fact is, no club could earn the money through footballing means to turn a profit with chealse. they are hemmoraging money.

Utd had to make money before they could spend it and any money spent has to be offset and made back , shareholders dotn like losing money, such is life. having a club with near infinite wealth and no nessecity to make money isnt good for football whatever way you look at it.

I've no problems with clubs spending big if they have it, more power to them, but they whould not be allowed to run at huge losses. If ra died tomoro and his wife decided she doesnt want to spend her money on chelse so heads off to las for a life in the sun, chelsea will cease to exist. They would have to stop paying pretty much the whoe first team squad to avoid bankrupcy, thats not a good situation to be in. I'm sure chelsea fans wouldnt enjoy celebrating winnign the league the last 2years if the club vanishes.

iregk

kinaldo wrote:

Yeah I suppose that's true. I guess u could also add Glen Johnson to that list. They (minus Terry) only cost a combined total of just over £70m. The international careers of SWP, Bridge and Johnson haven't exactly flourished either, and Joe Cole's prospects aren't great since the arrival of Ballack in Chelsea's new powerhouse midfield quartet.

I take it from this you haven't seen any of Joe Coles internation games lately? Also, Glenn Johnson didn't have much of an internation prospect prior to Chelsea so I don't see the point your making. SWP I will grant you yes and as for Wayne Bridge. Well be it at Chelsea or anyone else he was always behind Ashley. Also the £70 is a hypothetical price. The actual price was £46m but thats depending on what the cost of Gallas was which has never been revealed.

Also to Mike. The parasite Bogarde is long since gone. He was a total disgrace of a footballer.

Jivin Turkey

I presume all the people bitching about Chelsea here were putting up similar threads when the Spanish government bailed out Real Madrid by buying their training ground for €200m (or something like that) a few years ago?

Fratton Fred

Don’t get me wrong, I dislike Chelsea immensely, but that is mainly because I am from the Chelsea “Catchment” area of east Berkshire and I am fed up with the abuse I have had over the years from Chelsea “Fans” who wouldn’t know where to find Stamford Bridge, let alone know what it looks like inside. That said, the majority of Liverpool, Arsenal and certainly Man U fans I know would fall into the same category.

What does get on my nerves, is the constant abuse Chelsea get from fans of the other “Big” clubs.

How much did Rooney, Van Horse, Ferdinand, Carrick and Saha cost? No one accuses Man U of buying the league title; no one accuses Man U of being a soulless side who are only interested in their “Brand”.

The reality is, the old guard of football has been broken and they don’t like it. There is a manager who has a bigger ego and rants more than the Man United manager and to make matters worse, he is a foreigner and to make matters even worse still, he is actually bloody good at what he does.

Jivin Turkey

Fratton Fred wrote:

What does get on my nerves, is the constant abuse Chelsea get from fans of the other “Big” clubs.

How much did Rooney, Van Horse, Ferdinand, Carrick and Saha cost? No one accuses Man U of buying the league title; no one accuses Man U of being a soulless side who are only interested in their “Brand”.

The reality is, the old guard of football has been broken and they don’t like it. There is a manager who has a bigger ego and rants more than the Man United manager and to make matters worse, he is a foreigner and to make matters even worse still, he is actually bloody good at what he does.

I completely agree with this. I mean weren't United the first club to "brand" themselves?

- Weren't certain players signed (allegedly) to "crack the Asian/American market"?

- "MUTV being relaunched, with a new look"

- Three new jerseys every year

I personally don't care about whether United (or anyone for that matter) was the original brand, I only care about what goes on on the pitch.

iregk

TheMonster wrote:

using your analogy are your company spending the same amount of money that would bankrupt every one of your cometitors a couple of time over :rolleyes:

Probably not, im not sure what other companies budgets were/are. I know one thing, other companies are a lot smaller than ours so yes we would have been spending more than their anual income. Other companies are bigger so we wouldn't have been. I have to say your not making your point any clearer.

Jivin and Fratton. Spot on lads, well said the both of you.

kinaldo

iregk wrote:

I take it from this you haven't seen any of Joe Coles internation games lately?

He's been quite good for England I believe but do you really think he'll add to his caps when he's no longer playing every week? Or do u think Mourinho will drop one of his trophy signings in Ballack or Essien to make way for him?

iregk wrote:

Also, Glenn Johnson didn't have much of an internation prospect prior to Chelsea so I don't see the point your making.

Only 5 caps yes, but I thought he had a lot of potential.

iregk wrote:

Also the £70 is a hypothetical price. The actual price was £46m but thats depending on what the cost of Gallas was which has never been revealed.

Really? The fees widely reported were Lampard (£11m), J.Cole (£6.5m), SWP (£21m), Johnson (£6m), Wayne Bridge (£7m), Ashley Cole (£25m exchange deal with Gallas being valued between £5-£10m).

kinaldo

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I presume all the people bitching about Chelsea here were putting up similar threads when the Spanish government bailed out Real Madrid by buying their training ground for €200m (or something like that) a few years ago?

Yes

and

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50962358&postcount=18

iregk

kinaldo wrote:

He's been quite good for England I believe but do you really think he'll add to his caps when he's no longer playing every week? Or do u think Mourinho will drop one of his trophy signings in Ballack or Essien to make way for him?

Do I think Mourinho will drop Essien or Ballack? Yes. If its not working then why not? Nobody at Chelsea nor any club is untouchable. If your not playing well then you get dropped.

kinaldo wrote:

Really? The fees widely reported were Lampard (£11m), J.Cole (£6.5m), SWP (£21m), Johnson (£6m), Wayne Bridge (£7m), Ashley Cole (£25m exchange deal with Gallas being valued between £5-£10m).

Wow, thats madness then the Cole one being woth £25m. £10m Gallas plus £5m cash = £25m Ok if you say so.

Lamps was £10m. Cole and Johnson 6 a piece. Bridge 6.5 and the SWP one is correct.

kinaldo

iregk wrote:

Wow, thats madness then the Cole one being woth £25m. £10m Gallas plus £5m cash = £25m Ok if you say so.

I will sheepishly admit my source is wikipedia, what's yours?

Edit: sorry I actually mis-read it, I stand corrected.

growler

kinaldo wrote:

Only 5 caps yes, but I thought he had a lot of potential.

I think a lot of people suspected Glen Johnson of having potential, however a number of his performances in a chelsea shirt suggested he was a serious liability and had the potential to do really stupid things at unfortunate times.

Simply wasn't consistent enough imo.

Jivin Turkey

kinaldo wrote:

Yes

and

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50962358&postcount=18

This is fascinating.

Your first post shows a thread which descends into an old skool ABU etc rant within a couple of posts, and finishes on post #13.

The second link shows a claim from a poster that the sale of the Madrid training ground for whatever ridiculous sum of money it was for to the government was all done above board. No links or facts to back it up however. Not to mention it being in a thread discussing the performance of the president of RM.

I fail to see how this is on a par with the fortnightly "Chelsea have too much money and are ruining football" threads that we are subjected to nowadays.

Fratton Fred

growler wrote:

kinaldo wrote:

Only 5 caps yes, but I thought he had a lot of potential.

I think a lot of people suspected Glen Johnson of having potential, however a number of his performances in a chelsea shirt suggested he was a serious liability and had the potential to do really stupid things at unfortunate times.

Simply wasn't consistent enough imo.

Johnson was part of the Defence that let in 3 goals in ten minutes against Denmark (I think it was). that about ended his England career.

However, he has looked very good for Pompey this season, prior to his calf injury which is keeping him out until Christmas.

kinaldo

Jivin Turkey wrote:

This is fascinating.

Your first post shows a thread which descends into an old skool ABU etc rant within a couple of posts, and finishes on post #13.

The second link shows a claim from a poster that the sale of the Madrid training ground for whatever ridiculous sum of money it was for to the government was all done above board. No links or facts to back it up however. Not to mention it being in a thread discussing the performance of the president of RM.

I fail to see how this is on a par with the fortnightly "Chelsea have too much money and are ruining football" threads that we are subjected to nowadays.

Well you asked the question if people here on boards were bitching over the sale of Real Madrid's training ground and I provided a few anti-Madrid posts around that topic to answer that. If u want to know the actual facts I suggest u research it yourself, and maybe post them while you're at it.

Jivin Turkey

kinaldo wrote:

Well you asked the question if people here on boards were bitching over the sale of Real Madrid's training ground and I provided a few anti-Madrid posts around that topic. If u want to know the actual facts I suggest u research it yourself, and maybe post them while you're at it.

Very little you posted was anti-Madrid.

As I said, you link to a thread descended into a ABU thread within a couple of posts, and the link to the single post was a pro-Roman Perez post.

If that is all you can find in a search I think my point is proven that no one really cared then when Madrid had (and still do to an extent) comparable pockets to Chelsea, yet we have fortnightly threads about Chelsea and their cash.

Guy:Incognito

Fratton Fred wrote:

Don’t get me wrong, I dislike Chelsea immensely, but that is mainly because I am from the Chelsea “Catchment” area of east Berkshire and I am fed up with the abuse I have had over the years from Chelsea “Fans” who wouldn’t know where to find Stamford Bridge, let alone know what it looks like inside. That said, the majority of Liverpool, Arsenal and certainly Man U fans I know would fall into the same category.

What does get on my nerves, is the constant abuse Chelsea get from fans of the other “Big” clubs.

How much did Rooney, Van Horse, Ferdinand, Carrick and Saha cost? No one accuses Man U of buying the league title; no one accuses Man U of being a soulless side who are only interested in their “Brand”.

The reality is, the old guard of football has been broken and they don’t like it. There is a manager who has a bigger ego and rants more than the Man United manager and to make matters worse, he is a foreigner and to make matters even worse still, he is actually bloody good at what he does.

The difference is that Utd have to offset the purchases by making more back to cover the costs, chelsea dont.

kinaldo

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Very little you posted was anti-Madrid.

As I said, you link to a thread descended into a ABU thread within a couple of posts, and the link to the single post was a pro-Roman Perez post.

If that is all you can find in a search I think my point is proven that no one really cared then when Madrid had (and still do to an extent) comparable pockets to Chelsea, yet we have fortnightly threads about Chelsea and their cash.

Well if it bothers u so much I'll be sure to post some Chelsea bashing threads every fortnight, I do hate them after all. Also there is a distinct lack of interest in Spanish football on this forum. I'm sure you'll find some real Madrid bashing threads elsewhere.

iregk

Stekelly wrote:

The difference is that Utd have to offset the purchases by making more back to cover the costs, chelsea dont.

Not at the moment they are £600m in the red!

TheMonster

iregk wrote:

Not at the moment they are £600m in the red!

Interesting - and I am sure you have a link to back it up.

And I am sure you will also point out Chelseas figure.:rolleyes: