Printable View
Chelsea are bad because of the money and Liverfool are good because of their history and 'knowledgeable fans'!
In relative terms, Liverpool were big spenders in their heyday. Record fees for Ian St John, Peter Thompson, Dalglish, Beardsley. They spent big money (for the time) on Ray Houghton, John Barnes, Souness, Johnson...They also paid a fair whack for Collymore.
im glad someone else pointed out just how BITTER they areQuote:
Originally Posted by tayto repairman
Chelsea are big-time charlies. A small London club who got lucky with the arrival of Abramovich after nearly going to the wall. They were hated before he arrived with the utterly detestable Master Bates at the helm. The amount of new supporters they now have who perplexingly have adopted a cocky attitude about their new love's recent success adds yet another reason to dislike Chelsea.Quote:
Originally Posted by osgood was good
Quote:
Originally Posted by osgood was good
Yes but local talent was ALWAYS a priority and all the great Liverpool teams had their fair share of Scousers. It was the same with Man Utd when they were spending big on Nistlerooy, Ferdinand, Ronaldo etc, the heart of their team was home grown.
Therein lies the difference with Chelsea.
To be fair look at the names you mention (bar Collymore) they were all integral parts of the pool teams in their era all were exceptionally good value for money ( bar collymore). The point is that Liverpool bought the players you mention over a 20-30 year period..Chelsea are just bulk buying up every profile player available. They use their financial strength to muscle in on transfers and buy players they do not need/who will not play & who are grossly overpriced. I'm sure we all have opinons on their reasoning for this. One of which is to stop their rivals from buying the top quality players and thus widening the gap...its not working though...the gap is closing anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by osgood was good
Perhaps the blue bubble is about to burst, well its wobbling anyway:ball:
The crucial difference is Liverpool EARNED the money they spent. So did Man U, albeit through selling their soul down PLC valley. Chelsea? A club who were about to go tits up were saved by a shady Russian who ploughs HIS OWN MONEY into the transfer market. Let me remind you that Chelsea FC are still well over £100m in debt. It'd be very interesting if anything should happen to Abramovich in the future. The words sh!t and creek spring to mind...Quote:
Originally Posted by osgood was good
It doesn't matter how you get your money. Chelsea happen to be based in one of the richest places in Europe, (West London), and that alone is going to attract wealthy backers. The same happened to Fulham, their neighbours, as a wealthy foreign businessman invested in them when they were going nowhere, which allowed them to shoot up the divisions to the Premiership rapidly, and eventually compete in European competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4tothefloor
Jealously is the main reason why people profess to "hate" Chelsea. We'd all like to have the bottomless pit they have, and be able to buy the players they can. Yeah sure, certain members of their management team have an attitude, but in their position, that is understandable. They produce the goods, their rivals whinge about them. They won practically nothing for 50 years, so I certainly don't begrudge them their day in the sun now. After all, anything to keep success away from United is perfectly acceptable to me. :D
This is why I hate Chel$ea. Liverpool developed a winning team and then came success and money and that breeds more success which brought more trophies which brought money which br...Quote:
Originally Posted by 4tothefloor
Similarly Utd. had an English core over the 90s that won them the league, picked up Cantona and Schmeichel and which gave success which brought them money which gave them to success to get Yorke and Cole etc. etc. culminating in them winning the European Cup which gave them a few successes after that which brought them money, allowed them to be a plc etc. etc. Utd's success did not happen overnight, work had to be done, Ferguson nearly lost his job, the ground work and framework over years had to be built to develop a league-dominating side with Hughes and McClair and Robson and Bruce et al. Because they had this solid ground, they were then able to develop the club to be one of the richest outright clubs.
Chel$ea = bankrupt
Chel$ea next day = deservedly best club in the world with a history of success. That does not happen. I have said plenty of times before, but I don't have a big problem with Chel$ea's millions, but what comes with that money. The blatant disregard for any rules or warnings being the biggest reason.
It is not jealousy at the millions to spend - it is anger and frustration at what comes with the millions and it's a pity that has to made perfectly clear for some who can't see it.
Pure simple greed. Arrogance. You didn't hear mention of Kenyon when at the riegns of a successful Utd., yet now he's giving seminars on running successful businesses! (notwithstanding £100m loss or so) aside from the 'speaking' to Eriksson before the Special One and Cole and Arnesen. I don't remember any of that at Utd, strangely enough.
I heard one Chel$ea fan comment on Portsmouth's possible bankrolling as "they bring nothing to the league anyway, they've no history". It's sad but not utterly surprising that they should make that type of comment because in all of the fantasy football that they are in at the moment, they can't understand irony.
I certainly would not want a billionaire to bankroll any of my clubs, firstly because of the threat of being a cheap plaything and secondly because that's not success. It's hollow and artificial. If anyone says buying £20billion worth of talent and winning the league is not artificial, they are not on the same planet.
If my club spent £20bn on players, I would expect them to come up with a cure for cancer, never mind win everything in football. But they haven't. Even I could field a league winning team with that much talent - that's no achievement. But then again, there is no achievement by Chel$ea, Utd. achieved, Arsenal achieved, Blackburn acheived, Liverpool acheived...Chel$ea got.
Where is the development of Chel$ea before they won anything? Where did they earn the title? Where was the solid framework for future success that lasts longer than a billionaire's whim? Liverpool remained great for 20-30 years, any evidence Chel$ea will? Where were the years of financial prudence and stability in order to create a club worthy of its standing amongst greats? Where was the squad building? One cup from six attempts - does that not seem worrying given all that talent?
I am certainly not jealous of a club being run with such emphasis on short term success with such a siege mentality that Maureen instills. I am certainly not jealous at the wastes of promising careers there. I am not jealous at having millions to spend, because afterall it has to be spent wisely and astutely. (Kaka played well in the first half of the CL final - quote Chel$ea fan - "he's looks good, let's buy him" does not come across as astute)
In my opinion, the kid in the sweet shop has got hold of the keys and is gorging....but alas it will all have to come back up sometime soon.
It's up to the authorities to punish Chelsea for their misdemeanours. This is not done. What use is handing out a £10k fine to Chelsea? Why not send players off for diving, handling the ball? No wonder they have "blatant disregard" for rules and warnings. Blame the FA, not Chelsea.Quote:
Originally Posted by d f x-
:DQuote:
You didn't hear mention of Kenyon when at the riegns of a successful Utd., aside from the 'speaking' to Eriksson before the Special One. I don't remember any of that at Utd, strangely enough.
Kenyon also approached Eriksson over the ManUre job, when he was there.
Bs.Quote:
I certainly would not want a billionaire to bankroll any of my clubs, firstly because of the threat of being a cheap plaything and secondly because that's not success. It's hollow and artificial. If anyone says buying £20billion worth of talent and winning the league is not artificial, they are not on the same planet. If my club spent £20bn on players, I would expect them to come up with a cure for cancer, never mind win everything in football. But they haven't. Even I could field a league winning team with that much talent - that's no achievement.
If the Thai president took over Liverpool 2 years ago in a £multimillion takeover, when would you hang up your scarf? How many fans would have ripped up their season tickets? Answer: None. If you have £100 million available to spend, what would you do? You spend it, that's what you do. Chelsea have done it, others have whinged about it.
Blackburn succeeded on the back of a megabucks chairman. When did you "hate" them? Do you "hate" them now? Not at all.Quote:
But then again, there is no achievement by Chel$ea, Utd. achieved, Arsenal achieved, Blackburn acheived, Liverpool acheived...Chel$ea got.
By winning more points on the field than everyone else. :rolleyes:Quote:
Where did they earn the title?
Jealously runs through your post, like a knife through butter.Quote:
I am not jealous at having millions to spend,
Chelsea will dominate the English game for 10-20 years. They have the money, the power, the will, and the resources to do so. We'll all just have to get used to it.Quote:
In my opinion, the kid in the sweet shop has got hold of the keys and is gorging....but alas it will all have to come back up sometime soon.