The Battle of the Bridge:Chelsea(0)vs(0)Athletico Madrid 2leg K.o 19:45 RTE2 SS1/HD

Augmerson

homer simpson wrote: »

Swoosshhhhh...

That's a creepy gif

McDave

citytillidie wrote: »

Chelsea finished 3rd once before Abramovich took over

from the start of the PL

11th, 14th, 11th, 11th, 6th, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 4th

I said third or *fourth*. And for good reason. First of all it's a decent position. And it also happens to be the current demarcation for UCL qualification. And as your stats confirm, Chelsea were finishing in this ballpark regularly before RA took over. It was already a consistently performing team.

McDave

greendom wrote: »

The period leading up to RA brought Chelsea closer to Arsenal but the move to the next level would have been impossible without his money.

It would have been. But it wasn't just the money. I doubt Chelsea would have racket up the titles had Abramovich persisted with Ranieri. Mourinho was the catalyst, and his results demonstrated it.

greendom

McDave wrote: »

It would have been. But it wasn't just the money. I doubt Chelsea would have racket up the titles had Abramovich persisted with Ranieri. Mourinho was the catalyst, and his results demonstrated it.

Yes perhaps. From an Arsenal perspective RA's arrival couldn't have been worse timed, coinciding with our self imposed parsimony thanks to the stadium build.

McDave

greendom wrote: »

Yes perhaps. From an Arsenal perspective RA's arrival couldn't have been worse timed, coinciding with our self imposed parsimony thanks to the stadium build.

There was a lot going on in the mid-noughties. Ferguson was on the verge of quitting. I think RA's undermining JM was the biggest strategic mistake he could have made. He should have persisted with Jose and seen Ferguson off the stage. Really poor vision on RA's part.

I think Arsenal's decision to build a new stadium without getting into ridiculous hock will pay off. Probably not for Wenger though. However, Wenger will be highly regarded for keeping Arsenal in Europe all through the parsimonious years.

Lucas Hood

Just been listening to Football Weekly and Sid Lowe said that Atleti's starting 11 cost £31m, that's unbelievable tbh.
Eden Hazard cost £32m alone for Chelsea.

Agueroooo

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Just been listening to Football Weekly and Sid Lowe said that Atleti's starting 11 cost £31m, that's unbelievable tbh.
Eden Hazard cost £32m alone for Chelsea.

Also QPR's wage bill is higher.

ArielAtom

Agueroooo wrote: »

Also QPR's wage bill is higher.

It may have been with Taarabt, Remy, Ji Sung Park etc on the payroll but they are all out on loan.

Sgt Pepper 64

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Just been listening to Football Weekly and Sid Lowe said that Atleti's starting 11 cost £31m, that's unbelievable tbh.
Eden Hazard cost £32m alone for Chelsea.

You cant really compare them tbh.
Different expectations, different owners, different league.
When Chelsea go to buy, the prices will always be higher and the expectation.
Plus roman never lets a manager develop
Simone's been there since 2011
Its not the price tag, its how they are managed and developed

Turtwig

Atleti's starting eleven may cost very little but the club is a very big club with lots of financial feck ups, bailouts and corruption. I'm all for supporting Atleti but supporting them as some contrast to the Chelsea model is silly.

(Not saying that's what Sid was doing or the poster who mentioned him. Only pointing out my grievance with people today talking as if Atleti were a small time club)

Corholio

Lucas Hood wrote: »

Just been listening to Football Weekly and Sid Lowe said that Atleti's starting 11 cost £31m, that's unbelievable tbh.
Eden Hazard cost £32m alone for Chelsea.

Mostly because Atletico spent a lot on fees over the past 10 years and achieved very little. Simeone finally has players playing as a team.

SantryRed

Agueroooo wrote: »

Also QPR's wage bill is higher.

by nearly 50%.