Chelsea

[sten_super]

I agree, Dont get me wrong I am not a Chelsea fan but it seems that the press seem to forget the vast amounts of money that UTD and Liverpool have spent and just focus on Chelsea.

I mean its not like Either of those two clubs have been taken over by billionares is it?

It is impossible at this stage to guage the impact of the takeover of Liverpool (although they certainly seem to be more like Ambramovich and less like Glazer, although I would expect them to still want to see some fiscal return from their investment). But the takeovers of Chelsea and Man Utd are entirely different. For starters, the Chelsea takeover saved the club from the verge of bancruptcy, removed all debts (neither of which I'm saying is a bad thing) and has left a club which is spending far above its means thanks to a very rich owner. Man Utd were taken over by an investor, who will demand a strong return on the money he invested, and has used the club as leverage against the substantial debt he had to incur to buy the club. And so far they have certainly spent well within their means (due to the fact that, as stated above, a return is necessary on the investment).

The difference (in my eyes) is that i) it's Russian blood money and ii) Chelsea are spending well above their means.

They haven't, of course, been helped by the seige mentality created by, and general idiocy of, Jose Mourinho.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I know this debate has been had before (up and down the land) but surely you see the difference between money that Liverpool spend and money that Chelsea spend? Not just in the scale of the purchases either.

Chelsea's money is dirty money that has come from their owner, who took it away from the people of Russia because he saw and took advantage of fledgling laws in post-Gorbachov Russia.

Liverpools' money (at least up until this point) has come from incomes gained through being a large successful club over a period of decades. And even subsequent funds will be an 'investment' from the new owners, who will look to see some return from the money they invest. Abramovich is quite happy to pump money into Chelsea with little chance of seeing much of it back.

I can see the difference in the source of the money, but if this is the reason for so many people's animosity toward Chelsea, then I would be amazed. Jack Walker made his money through Steel, rather than cocaine-trafficing or child-porn, but everybody still hated Blackburn, because they were percieved to have 'bought' the title.

Chelsea's situation is the same. Everybody comes on here and whines about the Premiership being predictable, as only the same few teams can win it, but as soon as somebody else actually does, they all whine about that too.

I'm no Chelsea fan at all, but I just can't stand the hypocrisy of the Man Utd and Liverpool fans. Having more money than everybody else was never a sin in their eyes, when it applied to them.

 

[Les Biehn]

Arguing whose ins and outs are worse between the top 4 is like arguing which is worse, herpes, crabs, gonorrhea or sypilus. Or which is worse out of Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho or Benitez.

However if football terms both Liverpool and Chelsea play shit shit football. At least Arsenal and Utd play decent football. With thre resources and players they have both teams last night should play better football.

And to the person who mentioned Boulabolloks as a Mourinho buy he was actually bought in by Arnesen, who said he was a better prospect than Micah Richards before he broke into the City first team.:thud:

 

[Les Biehn]

I can see the difference in the source of the money, but if this is the reason for so many people's animosity toward Chelsea, then I would be amazed. Jack Walker made his money through Steel, rather than cocaine-trafficing or child-porn, but everybody still hated Blackburn, because they were percieved to have 'bought' the title.

Chelsea's situation is the same. Everybody comes on here and whines about the Premiership being predictable, as only the same few teams can win it, but as soon as somebody else actually does, they all whine about that too.

I'm no Chelsea fan at all, but I just can't stand the hypocrisy of the Man Utd and Liverpool fans. Having more money than everybody else was never a sin in their eyes, when it applied to them.

As ever Hans it appears only you and myself can spot the hypocrisy of the other big 3 fans and general acceptance by most fans of their monopoly of the league. No one ever seems to slag United, Liverpool and Arsenal for being in the G14, its just accepted as they are traditionally 'big' clubs.

 

[Hannibal smith]

I'm in 2 minds about this. Whilst its always nice to see the Chelsea behemoth derailed it does mean we will now have to put up with THAT irritating song in 3 weeks time. Couple that with the smug bunch of scousers banging on about their history and destiny in that whiney accent, half of me wishes Chelea had made it through.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Im not sure The glazers got rich by helping old people across roads, just as Roman didnt.

Man Utd have brought the title just as much as Chelsea did.

 

[Nemesis]

I'm in 2 minds about this. Whilst its always nice to see the Chelsea behemoth derailed it does mean we will now have to put up with THAT irritating song in 3 weeks time. Couple that with the smug bunch of scousers banging on about their history and destiny in that whiney accent, half of me wishes Chelea had made it through.

With this being their 7th European Cup/Champions League Final, I'd say they're entitled to be banging on about their history. Do you think Albion fans would be any different after that amount of success? Or any other club's fans?

 

[enigma]

Injuries aren't always an excuse, but having Carvalho, Ballack and Shevchenko injured made a massive difference in my opinion.

Having Essien in the midfield would have given them more drive, although to be fair he could have picked Bouhlarouz, even if he is average, and then played Essien further forward.

 

[sten_super]

I can see the difference in the source of the money, but if this is the reason for so many people's animosity toward Chelsea, then I would be amazed. Jack Walker made his money through Steel, rather than cocaine-trafficing or child-porn, but everybody still hated Blackburn, because they were percieved to have 'bought' the title.

Chelsea's situation is the same. Everybody comes on here and whines about the Premiership being predictable, as only the same few teams can win it, but as soon as somebody else actually does, they all whine about that too.

I'm no Chelsea fan at all, but I just can't stand the hypocrisy of the Man Utd and Liverpool fans. Having more money than everybody else was never a sin in their eyes, when it applied to them.

Fair enough. I can't talk for others (and I think you are certainly right when you say that Man United and Liverpool fans hate them purely because they have more money) but certainly the morals are the reason that I hate Chelsea; that and Mourinho anyway... I never particularly had anything against Blackburn when they won the league.

I would argue with your point about the introduction of Chelsea making the title race unpredictable. For the first 2 seasons under Mourinho, the title race was if anything even more predictable than it previously had been (when there was normally some kind of competition between Man Utd and Arsenal). I suppose when people talk about wanting an unpredictable title race, then mean teams like Spurs, Bolton, etc putting in a title title charge. Unfortunately I'm not sure we'll ever really return to that era, such is the dominance of money amongst the 'big 4' now.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Also it always interests me why people are so upset at seeing Chelsea shirts in Brighton and not Liverpool - at least Chelsea is near by.

 

[Les Biehn]

Also it always interests me why people are so upset at seeing Chelsea shirts in Brighton and not Liverpool - at least Chelsea is near by.

That always makes me laugh, Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal shirts are fine but anyone in a Chelsea shirt is deemed a glory hunter even though Chelsea are the closest team out of those to this area. And at least Arsenal are in the south.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I would argue with your point about the introduction of Chelsea making the title race unpredictable. For the first 2 seasons under Mourinho, the title race was if anything even more predictable than it previously had been (when there was normally some kind of competition between Man Utd and Arsenal). I suppose when people talk about wanting an unpredictable title race, then mean teams like Spurs, Bolton, etc putting in a title title charge. Unfortunately I'm not sure we'll ever really return to that era, such is the dominance of money amongst the 'big 4' now.

How long have Chelsea had their new money? 2003?

How many different teams won it between 1991 and 2003?

 

[sten_super]

Im not sure The glazers got rich by helping old people across roads, just as Roman didnt.

Man Utd have brought the title just as much as Chelsea did.

Absolute bollocks in so many ways.

The money Man Utd have spent has been money accrued through the football club, not coming from the Glazers... in fact the Glazers take the majority of profits that come from the business (to pay off debts), rather than ploughing their own money into the club. Whereas Abramovich has spent his own money on players for the club.

I think you should do some research into the respective business empires before accusing the Glazers of being like Roman Abramovich. Malcolm Glazer created his business empire by taking over a wide variety of companies and rescuing them through sensible management and good financial control. Roman Abramovich bought Russian national assets at prices vastly vastly vastly under the market price because he was cosy with the government and then has used them (and Russias natural resources such as oil) to make himself as much money as possible, while paying barely even lip service to the poor Russian population that have been denied the benefits that these revenues would bring to the country.

edit: apologies for the agressive tone, but I really really really don't like Roman Abramovich.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

Chelsea's money is dirty money that has come from their owner, who took it away from the people of Russia because he saw and took advantage of fledgling laws in post-Gorbachov Russia.

spot on. too easily forgotten.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Absolute bollocks in so many ways.

The money Man Utd have spent has been money accrued through the football club, not coming from the Glazers... in fact the Glazers take the majority of profits that come from the business (to pay off debts), rather than ploughing their own money into the club. Whereas Abramovich has spent his own money on players for the club.

I think you should do some research into the respective business empires before accusing the Glazers of being like Roman Abramovich. Malcolm Glazer created his business empire by taking over a wide variety of companies and rescuing them through sensible management and good financial control. Roman Abramovich bought Russian national assets at prices vastly vastly vastly under the market price because he was cosy with the government and then has used them (and Russias natural resources such as oil) to make himself as much money as possible, while paying barely even lip service to the poor Russian population that have been denied the benefits that these revenues would bring to the country.

edit: apologies for the agressive tone, but I really really really don't like Roman Abramovich.

So Man Utd have not brought the title?

They dont spend as much on one player as Chelsea apart from Carrick, Ronaldo, Rooney and Ferdinand but they bring more players in.

Also another point, all these Liverpool fans who are from this area who claim they support them for family reasons such as Parents - surely they are glory hunters as well most of the time?

 

[Les Biehn]

spot on. too easily forgotten.

It is one of the reasons that I stopped supporting Chelsea but I think Hans has a point that this is not most fans reason for disliking chelsea.

 

[London Calling]

Lat night all I saw was route one football from Chelsea. A long ball to Drogba, which 19/20 he lost control of it and Liverpool gained control.

Chelsea were expecting one of their stars would get one of those special goals. I have noticed in several games this season, Chelsea have been outplayed, but a special from Drogba, Lampard etc would win them through.

Last night Liverpool had their game worked out, Carragher again showed he should be the first choice in our middle defence.

A tight game but Liverpool showed more variety, Gerrard again fought for everything and they were generally the better side.

lc

 

[sten_super]

So Man Utd have not brought the title?

They dont spend as much on one player as Chelsea apart from Carrick, Ronaldo, Rooney and Ferdinand but they bring more players in.

The biggest clubs have always had the biggest revenues, and used these revenues to buy players. So by that logic the vast majority of clubs that have ever won a league title have 'bought the title'. It's a fairly facieous (sp.) argument.

Only recently have we seen major investors coming into football, and only even more recently have we seen individuals coming into clubs with the intention of taking a loss just to enjoy owning a football club. Abramovich and Al Fayed (arguably as he's probably made his investment back now they are fairly established in the moneybags league) are the only ones I can think of.

 

[Les Biehn]

So Man Utd have not brought the title?

They dont spend as much on one player as Chelsea apart from Carrick, Ronaldo, Rooney and Ferdinand but they bring more players in.

Also another point, all these Liverpool fans who are from this area who claim they support them for family reasons such as Parents - surely they are glory hunters as well most of the time?

The 50 year old maintenance bloke at my work supports Liverpool. Born, bred and still lives in Woodingdean.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The 50 year old maintenance bloke at my work supports Liverpool. Born, bred and still lives in Woodingdean.

And I should Imagine started following them when they won a stupid amounts of league titles.

It happens to every team that wins things, just annoys me that people dislike Chelsea more for it for some reason.