Chelsea and football's soul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

You can pick at the way Chlsea play the game but I believe whatever works is fine ( I hope a dour organised approach works for Ireland!) but as a neutral I massively prefer United's football ethos.

...

---

Manchester United had what? Three shots on goal and averaged 39% possesion over 180 mins of their semi final with Barca. :confused:

They're every bit as capable and inclined to play cynical as the next crowd.

"You want entertainment? go to the pictures" is from the horses mouth ...and I'm not talking about Ruud Van Nistelrooy either.

I wasn't specifically referring to the CL semi final. Just look at United's goals for column versus Chelsea's in the Premiership. Not many would contend that United don't play more entertaining football than Chelsea.

As it happens I prefer Barca's style to United's but they barely got near United's goal over 2 games.

As someone who has been a Chelsea fan for a lot longer than others in Ireland, it annoys the hell out of me when people say Chelsea bought the league, no history, etc.

I agree, Chelsea would not be in the position that they are now without Abramovich.

Chelsea had qualified for the CL weeks before Abramovich bought the club. Chelsea had numerous top six finishes between '97 and '03. They qualified for the CL after finishing third in '99 and fourth, pipping the mighty Liverpool on the final day of the season, in '03.

They were not a club plucked out of obscurity. Chelsea were sold because the club were on the brink of implosion. £80m in debt, they were going to be the next Leeds. Why not sell the club? And of course, why not sell it to the best option? Any club in the same situation would've sold up. And looking at where Leeds are now, I'm glad they did. Chelsea have been followed by Man U, Liverpool, Villa, Newcastle and Man City in being bought out by foreign investors willing to splash the dosh to better the club and have these sides been as successful? Have they been villified as much?

Abramovich didn't buy the league. Again and again, I have to tell people about the 2003/04 season. Top of the table at Christmas and bottled it under Ranieri. Ranieri wasted money left, right and centre.

Juan Veron cost €18m, iirc, and only played 7 games for Chelsea. Mutu, Smertin, Johnson and others were signed by Ranieri with Abramovich's millions and failed to make any impression. There are others like Crespo, Robben and Cech that Ranieri splashed out on but they have done well. And Chelsea didn't win any trophy that season.

Ranieri got sacked, I believe, for wasting money. Mourinho came in and look what he did with the team, even when he signed some surprisingly average players (Ferreira, Maniche). Money can buy you players but it can't buy you titles. Managers win titles.

Another thing is history. First of all, Chelsea were founded in 1905, 61 years before Abramovich was even born. Chelsea have plenty of "history". The period under Gullit and Vialli was, and still is, the most successful in the clubs history. Chelsea won six trophies in three years, including three in the 1997/98 season. All before Abramovich came on the scene.

My idea as to why so many people hate Chelsea now is because they have been successful at spending money and winning trophies in the last five years. Liverpool fans are ****ed because now they are even further off the pace. Arsenal and Man U fans are ****ed because they have a new rival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfrank

Chelsea had qualified for the CL weeks before Abramovich bought the club.

---

They pipped liverpool to the 4th spot to qualify IIRC. If Liverpool had beaten them 2 weeks before the season ended, they would have finished fourth, qualified for the Champions' League and maybe Abramovich would have bought them instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

I think the qoute referred to to start this thread was mine. While I agree that football has pretty much always been a business every bit as much as a game, and a pretty despicable business at that, I stand by the general tone of the remark but maybe I should rephrase as "it'd be a bad day for football".

Chelsea have always been a nothing club that has offered very little to the game anywhere. Even pre-Abramovic it was genuinely regarded by visiting fans that Stamford Bridge was a place where their fans knew little about football. I've always had an intense dislike for the club, Ken Bates and his poisoned agenda, the neo-nazi factions and the home county thugs in their support.

I disliked the way their imported players were more intent on posing than being committed players (Zola aside obviously). Di Mateo's goal celebrations anyone? Total creeps like Frank Lebouef...

Sure they've had some real gems like Zola, a delight to watch, but for every Zola there's been a thug like Dennis Wise who'd be in jail if he wasn't a footballer.

Of course money buys success but United and Liverpool have great European pedigrees and each would be a rich club without a super rich benefactor as would many of the big continental clubs. Chelsea's emergence is 100% down to the money and this money, probably more so than at any rich football club, has been "earned" by its owner in extremely dubious and unethical ways. Ask your average Siberian if he feels it was worth having his rightful heritage taken from him to pay the way for Michael Essien's transfer fee? I guess Milan's wealth has been down to Berlusconi but as Chelsea is closer to home I find it more distasteful, and at least Milan down the years have given us some of the great teams and great players of our lifetime. The 1994 CL demolition of Barcelona was a thing of rare beauty!

You can pick at the way Chlsea play the game but I believe whatever works is fine ( I hope a dour organised approach works for Ireland!) but as a neutral I massively prefer United's football ethos.

Not my most articulate post ever but you know what I'm trying to say...

---

I accept your point re: the source of Abrams riches but the same could be said of Berlusconi (avoided prosecution for a while as PM) and more recently
the Thai ManCity owner (may be implicated in the disapperence of a human rights lawyer).
Didn't Birminghams owner make his fortune from porn?