Chelsea -v- Liverpool Sunday 6th February 16:00

Panthro

Who knows, he is getting the Premiership experience under his belt so thats positive from a Chelsea point of view.

d22ontour

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

We have a very good fanbase thanks very much,

Eh no you don't.

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

record sponsership deals etc.

For west London clubs ?

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

With naming rights, our income will look very good for the fair play rules.
You DONT have to break even, and why would you with a billionaire owner. Thats like putting a horse in front of a race car.
If we can find a way to develop Stamford Bridge and increase capacity, our income would increase even more.

Uhm knocking down the hotel just won't cut it for ground capacity...

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

And chelseavera is right, we were outspent.
We only spent 24 mill last season and still won the DOUBLE!

And the three years before that ? Oh you won a few leagues back then too but i guess that 800m injection over 6 years played no part ?

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

We tried the kids way but even Barca with their famed academy has to buy back in, even ones they let go re Fab!

Kids ? Who has came through in the last ten years ? GTFO !! Your scouts have brought through what ?

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

You rebuild the team and fast track it for success.
What else would you do?
Just ask Man City.

Uhm this is what you did ? Is there a point to comparing them copying what you did ?

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

But you dont need to constantly rebuild the team, you have to leave it alone a bit, and he didnt need to after the initial splurge as they started winning.

No this is your bullshíte, they didn't invest because Kenyon tried to make you a sustainable club, he fookin failed somewhat, no ? :rolleyes:

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Pretty much the same team won the double last season and started like a train this season. So everything still looked peachy. Then injurys kicked in and we got caught short.

I think maybe the first few games kinda gave you the wrong impression until a few teams gave it ago ?

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

The kids werent quite ready so chequebook out, again so what - he's a billionaire!

You have no kids who will make it, am sure the billionaire factor will suffice until he gets bored..

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Chelsea fans have NO problem with this.

It's your future until he gets bored.

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

In the summer, some more of the "old team" will move on, there will be new and costly arrivals, and hopefully some of the youth will be mixed in as well.

You have to make money...70m in debt before spending 70m isn't making money, get more fans maybe ?

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Yes Kenyoun spouted off about being self sustainable, but who was he kidding eh?

Yes the club is under supported and overly reliant on a owner to invest, the futures bright for sure...

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Oh and lastly
A lot of Romans spending filitered down to clubs in the lower divisions.

You keep telling yourself that, good for you...

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Enjoy Sunday (but not too much!)

Makes whoosh noises even you can comprehend...
I dispise Liverpool more than i would even glance at your club... Learn2comprehend. :rolleyes:

amiable

d22ontour wrote: »

Eh no you don't.


For west London clubs ?


Uhm knocking down the hotel just won't cut it for ground capacity...


And the three years before that ? Oh you won a few leagues back then too but i guess that 800m injection over 6 years played no part ?





Kids ? Who has came through in the last ten years ? GTFO !! Your scouts have brought through what ?




Uhm this is what you did ? Is there a point to comparing them copying what you did ?



No this is your bullshíte, they didn't invest because Kenyon tried to make you a sustainable club, he fookin failed somewhat, no ? :rolleyes:



I think maybe the first few games kinda gave you the wrong impression until a few teams gave it ago ?



You have no kids who will make it, am sure the billionaire factor will suffice until he gets bored..




It's your future until he gets bored.



You have to make money...70m in debt before spending 70m isn't making money, get more fans maybe ?



Yes the club is under supported and overly reliant on a owner to invest, the futures bright for sure...



You keep telling yourself that, good for you...





Makes whoosh noises even you can comprehend...
I dispise Liverpool more than i would even glance at your club... Learn2comprehend. :rolleyes:

Oh my. Who's the Daddy?:D

amiable

papagormo wrote: »

Who knows, he is getting the Premiership experience under his belt so thats positive from a Chelsea point of view.

The bloke is 23 and been on loan since 2006.
Safe to say he's not in Chelsea's plans

Panthro

amiable wrote: »

The bloke is 23 and been on loan since 2006.
Safe to say he's not in Chelsea's plans

If you have already formed such an opinion, why bother your hole asking me this then?
Honestly, any excuse to try to rattle or jibe at a Chelsea fan and your jumping at it.

amiable wrote: »

Mancienne has been out on loan so much now he could hardly be in the plans?

amiable

papagormo wrote: »

If you have already formed such an opinion, why bother your hole asking me this then?
Honestly, any excuse to try to rattle or jibe at a Chelsea fan and your jumping at it.

Because you stated he would be good for the fututre and i took you up on it and it would seem you were very wrong suggesting you don't know too much about your own squad.


''papagormoI'm praying the likes of Danny, Kakuta, Mancienne and Van Aanholt really grab the loan period by the horns and get as much from it as possible.
Don't think we will need to buy big in the summer, one or two up and coming youths will suffice I'd imagine.''


Seems to me you were talking tripe and got caught out. Saucer of milk?

Lukker-

d22ontour wrote: »

Eh no you don't.


For west London clubs ?


Uhm knocking down the hotel just won't cut it for ground capacity...


And the three years before that ? Oh you won a few leagues back then too but i guess that 800m injection over 6 years played no part ?





Kids ? Who has came through in the last ten years ? GTFO !! Your scouts have brought through what ?




Uhm this is what you did ? Is there a point to comparing them copying what you did ?



No this is your bullshíte, they didn't invest because Kenyon tried to make you a sustainable club, he fookin failed somewhat, no ? :rolleyes:



I think maybe the first few games kinda gave you the wrong impression until a few teams gave it ago ?



You have no kids who will make it, am sure the billionaire factor will suffice until he gets bored..




It's your future until he gets bored.



You have to make money...70m in debt before spending 70m isn't making money, get more fans maybe ?



Yes the club is under supported and overly reliant on a owner to invest, the futures bright for sure...



You keep telling yourself that, good for you...





Makes whoosh noises even you can comprehend...
I dispise Liverpool more than i would even glance at your club... Learn2comprehend. :rolleyes:

*cringes*

Panthro

Clearly I have been left red faced as I obiviously haven't a clue about the team I've supported since the mid 90's.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: (1996 as it happens, great year, FA cup)
By that logic, United's De Laet, Cleverley, or Diouf isn't part of their plans because they are of similar age and out on loan.(and yes I do realise they have not been on loan as long as Mancienne)
Do you know what, I couldn't be bothered arguing with you any more, as I said previously you seem to jump at every given opportunity, honestly, if your toenails were for some reason painted blue you would end up arguing with them.

I'll pass on the milk offer thanks,
I'm just going to not bother responding any further to you.
papa.

amiable

papagormo wrote: »

Clearly I have been left red faced as I obiviously haven't a clue about the team I've supported since the mid 90's.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: (1996 as it happens, great year, FA cup)
By that logic, United's De Laet, Cleverley, or Diouf isn't part of their plans because they are of similar age and out on loan.(and yes I do realise they have not been on loan as long as Mancienne)
Do you know what, I couldn't be bothered arguing with you any more, as I said previously you seem to jump at every given opportunity, honestly, if your toenails were for some reason painted blue you would end up arguing with them.

I'll pass on the milk offer thanks,
I'm just going to not bother responding any further to you.
papa.

Excellent. Cos you were caught spouting tripe you spit your dummy.
No loss.

pistolpetes11

amiable wrote: »

The bloke is 23 and been on loan since 2006.
Safe to say he's not in Chelsea's plans

Well they signed him up on a new 4 year deal in august 2009 so I think he is still firmly in the clubs plans.

If he wasn't he would of been sold long ago.

amiable

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

Well they signed him up on a new 4 year deal in august 2009 so I think he is still firmly in the clubs plans.

If he wasn't he would of been sold long ago.

They tried to get Wolves to buy him outright i do believe and i've heard he was offered to Liverpool before.
He's not on the radar at Chelsea.
You don't send a player out on loan for 5 seasons running imo if he's in your plans.
I bet he won't be there next season

NukaCola

papagormo wrote: »

Clearly I have been left red faced as I obiviously haven't a clue about the team I've supported since the mid 90's.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: (1996 as it happens, great year, FA cup)

Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1997....

Soby

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1997....

I assume he meant the start of the 96 season thus the FA Cup of the 96-97 season.

amiable

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1997....

How ironic:D
He won't talk to you now either;)

amiable

Soby wrote: »

I assume he meant the start of the 96 season thus the FA Cup of the 96-97 season.

Really? How many FA cup matches did Chelsea play in 1996 on their way to winning the trophy?

Panthro

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1997....

Better clerify that before it gets jumped on, I meant the year I started supporting them, (1996) they then went on to win the FA cup in '97.

edit:
wow, he was stright in there on that one.

amiable

papagormo wrote: »

Better clerify that before it gets jumped on, I meant the year I started supporting them, (1996) they then went on to win the FA cup in '97.

Sounds to me like you are just not sure. Oh dear:p. How embarrassing for you

NukaCola

papagormo wrote: »

Better clerify that before it gets jumped on, I meant the year I started supporting them, (1996) they then went on to win the FA cup in '97.

Couldn't resist.......(sorry)

pistolpetes11

amiable wrote: »

They tried to get Wolves to buy him outright i do believe and i've heard he was offered to Liverpool before.
He's not on the radar at Chelsea.
You don't send a player out on loan for 5 seasons running imo

I can't put my finger on it with the lad ,

Someone in the clubs see's something in him and wants to keep him on the books, but from what I have heard it's he and not the club who is trying to arrange a permenent move away .

We had an option to recall him before Jan 15th but we didn't because he was injured and he stays with wolves for the rest of the season , going by something that mc carthy said It won't be long until he does complete the switch , but I am hearing talk of 6 mil which may be a sticking point

Soby

amiable wrote: »

Really? How many FA cup matches did Chelsea play in 1996 on their way to winning the trophy?

None if i recall the 3rd round started around Jan.Still part of the 96-97 Season

K-9

I wish Nando well, though not against us obviously.

It's nice to see a bite to Liverpool Chelsea matches again, though even during our crisis and Hodgson mediocrity , we still managed a 2-0 victory:

Want To see the club get back to this:

We lost but Chelsea and other fans feared us, when we came back other fans believed we could win, not just Pool fans, even United ones. We were something else in Europe, thanks Rafa, totally over achieved.

We are along away from it but what we aspire to is:

It'll take time, we could get beaten 5-0 tomorrow and it wouldn't shake my confidence in Dalglish. We are the start of something big, with Chelsea, who knows?

NukaCola

Soby wrote: »

I assume he meant the start of the 96 season thus the FA Cup of the 96-97 season.

Just teasing.......;)

amiable

pistolpetes11 wrote: »

I can't put my finger on it with the lad ,

Someone in the clubs see's something in him and wants to keep him on the books, but from what I have heard it's he and not the club who is trying to arrange a permenent move away .

We had an option to recall him before Jan 15th but we didn't because he was injured and he stays with wolves for the rest of the season , going by something that mc carthy said It won't be long until he does complete the switch , but I am hearing talk of 6 mil which may be a sticking point

I'd imagine the contract he signed was intended to get a fee for him if he didn't work out?

Panthro

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

Couldn't resist.......(sorry)

No worries!:)
Poorly worded on my behalf.

Soby

K-9 wrote: »

Never get sick of watch those highlights.Amazing night and amazing match

pistolpetes11

amiable wrote: »

I'd imagine the contract he signed was intended to get a fee for him if he didn't work out?

I'm really not sure if I'm to be honest , strange way of doing business if it was the case as they could of been stuck paying him a wage , let's say if he got injured or nobody wanted him.

K-9

Soby wrote: »

Never get sick of watch those highlights.Amazing night and amazing match

Epic match. Shame that was really the end of it for us in Europe. So much potential.

chelseavera

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Fair enough, entitled to your opinion. I just don't think Chelseavera was being completely dismissive of Clarke, just that he'd struggled this game and I'd agree.

Phew! Someone who actually read my post! Thanks for that!

chelseavera

BumbleBee123 wrote: »

Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1997....

The 96/97 season I think you'll find!!

monkey9

I wish Fernando Torres nothing, but absolute failure. I hope one day he regrets his decision to leave one of the biggest clubs in the world for a far smaller and inferior one.

If he wanted a Premier League medal so much, he could have just bought John Terry's one. Cos in effect, that's all he's doing.

amiable

chelseavera wrote: »

The 96/97 season I think you'll find!!

I think you'll actually find Chelsea didn't play in 1996 any games that lead to them winning the FA cup. I've come to the conclusion we have a blagger amongst us

monkey9

monkey9 wrote: »

I wish Fernando Torres nothing, but absolute failure. I hope one day he regrets his decision to leave one of the biggest clubs in the world for a far smaller and inferior one.

If he wanted a Premier League medal so much, he could have just bought John Terry's one. Cos in effect, that's all he's doing.

Bit harsh.

amiable

rarnes1 wrote: »

Bit harsh.

I myself don't wish him anything. I'm more concerned about LFC and hope the club is on the right road to recovery.
If he gets what he's looking for at Chelsea so be it.
LFC genuinely only need people who want to be there.
We've learnt a big lesson about loyalty in the last few weeks.
Onwards and upwards i say.

monkey9

rarnes1 wrote: »

Bit harsh.

Not really! And i can't fully say here how i actually feel about Torres's decision cos i'd get banned.

amiable

monkey9 wrote: »

Not really! And i can't fully say here how i actually feel about Torres's decision cos i'd get banned.

see you next tuesday

looder

monkey9 wrote: »

I wish Fernando Torres nothing, but absolute failure. I hope one day he regrets his decision to leave one of the biggest clubs in the world for a far smaller and inferior one.

If he wanted a Premier League medal so much, he could have just bought John Terry's one. Cos in effect, that's all he's doing.

... and what was he doing signing for Liverpool from his home town club?

It's professional football. There's very little loyalty in it.

Torres is an Athletico Madrid fan, he couldn't give a ****e about Liverpool, or Chelsea. It's just a job to him. He's getting paid more at Chelsea and has a better chance of winning a major trophy over the next three years with them.

I'm a Liverpool fan by the way. Liverpool are no longer one of the biggest clubs in the world. How can a team that hasn't won a league in nearly a quarter of a century call themselves one of the biggest teams in the world? Some Liverpool fans really are deluded. . .

On Torres, I personally hope he turns into a Shevchenko and struggles to get goals with them. In my opinion however, he'll score a bagful of them over the next couple of seasons if he stays injury free.

monkey9

looder wrote: »

... and what was he doing signing for Liverpool from his home town club?

It's professional football. There's very little loyalty in it.

Torres is an Athletico Madrid fan, he couldn't give a ****e about Liverpool, or Chelsea. It's just a job to him. He's getting paid more at Chelsea and has a better chance of winning a major trophy over the next three years with them.

I'm a Liverpool fan by the way. Liverpool are no longer one of the biggest clubs in the world. How can a team that hasn't won a league in nearly a quarter of a century call themselves one of the biggest teams in the world? Some Liverpool fans really are deluded. . .

On Torres, I personally hope he turns into a Shevchenko and struggles to get goals with them. In my opinion however, he'll score a bagful of them over the next couple of seasons if he stays injury free.

Liverpool are one of the biggest clubs in the world. That's why we can still attract the likes of Torres, Suarez etc to the club. And the fact that we're so relevant despite not winning the league goes someway to prove that.

amiable

looder wrote: »

... and what was he doing signing for Liverpool from his home town club?

It's professional football. There's very little loyalty in it.

Torres is an Athletico Madrid fan, he couldn't give a ****e about Liverpool, or Chelsea. It's just a job to him. He's getting paid more at Chelsea and has a better chance of winning a major trophy over the next three years with them.

I'm a Liverpool fan by the way. Liverpool are no longer one of the biggest clubs in the world. How can a team that hasn't won a league in nearly a quarter of a century call themselves one of the biggest teams in the world? Some Liverpool fans really are deluded. . .

On Torres, I personally hope he turns into a Shevchenko and struggles to get goals with them. In my opinion however, he'll score a bagful of them over the next couple of seasons if he stays injury free.

I'm sure he would have got a payrise at LFC if he wanted it along with a contract extension. He was also due a loyalty bonus this summer fro LFC.
He also would have sold alot more jerseys if he remained a Liverpool player so he probably would have earned more in image rights at Liverpool.
It doesn't matter now.
His head was turned and his agent got around 2million out of the deal apparently

MonkeyTennis

dunno if I can honestly say Im looking forward to this but it should be a cracking game. I predict a sending off. Theres no way in hell Torres will get anything other than a cold reception from the travelling fans. No Liverpool fan can honestly blame him for leaving the club. The manner in which he chose to do it however is another thing.

Ill never wish him well in a blue shirt

Panthro

I'd happily take a boring 1-0 injury free win, with an Ivanovic header (if he is playing that is!) sealing the deal.

Sgt Pepper 64

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Chelsea fans have NO problem with this.

Well I know two people who were big Chelsea supporters and both lost interest and more or less stopped caring when they became Chelski, a plastic club trying to buy titles not win them in the right way. Neither were young lads either both in their 40's and one is from London. From what I've heard they are not the only ones either.

So not every one agrees with this method of club ownership. Also dont kid yourself, if the new eu regulations are enforced which I hope they are very strictly ye are fecked.

flahavaj

Both sets of fans covering themselves in glory in this thread......

amiable

flahavaj wrote: »

Both sets of fans covering themselves in glory in this thread......

Don't ruin it.
Sit back and enjoy;)

Sgt Pepper 64

Kameron Spicy Underpants wrote: »

trying to buy titles not win them in the right way.

Thanks, thats the biggest laugh I've had all day

"not win them in the right way" OMG thats so funny

And from someone who supports a club that just paid 35 million for an injured thug who's only played half a season in the EPL!

Oh thats priceless..please stop, please no more, I dont think my ribs could stand it

ShamoBuc

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Thanks, thats the biggest laugh I've had all day

It's only 1 o'clock fella:D

Sgt Pepper 64

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Thanks, thats the biggest laugh I've had all day

"not win them in the right way" OMG thats so funny

And from someone who supports a club that just paid 35 million for an injured thug who's only played half a season in the EPL!

Oh thats priceless..please stop, please no more, I dont think my ribs could stand it

Spending big on one or two players with money earned from selling players and a certain amount of sustained and controlled investment from owners is nothing like the chelski method of get taken over by a billionaire spent 100's of millions on players, try to run the club with out his money and end up running at a huge loss and then look for more big hand outs from him when required.

You will find that the vast majority of Liverpool supporters did not want a oil barron/russian mafia type owner, we wanted an owner like NESV.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

flahavaj wrote: »

Both sets of fans covering themselves in glory in this thread......

At least we're not involved for once.:pac:

amiable

baz2009 wrote: »

At least we're not involved for once.:pac:

Its early yet:D

ShamoBuc

baz2009 wrote: »

At least we're not involved for once.:pac:

Feel free to join in with a 'holier than thou' ' anti pool' 'anti chavs' 'anti torres' etc attitude - over 26hrs to go afterall !

3hn2givr7mx1sc

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Feel free to join in with a 'holier than thou' ' anti pool' 'anti chavs' 'anti torres' etc attitude - over 26hrs to go afterall !

Ah SB! You've summed up all my posts in one sentence.:(:P