Come on then, you Liverpool fans!

The big problem is that Glazer doesn't have his own money, he borrows it, so if United dont win, he wont get much of his loans payed back quickly, which is a problem.

Hes in it for profit, but he cant make profit by putting a club into so much debt they'll have to win the treble for 3 seasons in a row to pay it off

And United are buying young players, look at Ronaldo, Fletcher, Rooney & Park.
They stick with the old guard because they are experinced and can influence the new players.

After all, Giggs, Neville & Keane are still good

 

You're absolutely right there, Ritchie. But it still shows that football is about business.

And a question to any non-Chelsea fan. Would you complain if Abramovich had come to your club? If you say "yes", you'll have to bring up a damned good argument to convince me.

Every fan wants their team to succeed and other teams to lose. The easier way to cope with lack of success is to apportion the blame elsewhere. This is what Benitez did today with the quote I mentioned above.

Wenger and Ferguson need to look at their own decisions as to why they're not top at the moment. Don't blame Chelsea and their money. Teams like Charlton and Tottenham are doing better than Man U and Arsenal at the moment. If Wenger and Ferguson believe their teams are a force to be reckoned with, then the only points that should have been dropped are Arsenal's against Chelsea so far.

EDIT: Keane is nowhere near as good as he was. He plays the odd great game, granted, but generally he is average now. The same with Giggs. And I thought Fletcher came from Man U's academy and wasn't bought. I may be wrong there though.

 

Arsenal aren't a force to be reckoned with, they haven't been since they lost last year and sold Veira

And Ferguson is letting his assistant tell him how to run the team, which is foolish.
Playing a 4 5 1 is just silly, 4 4 2 is better.

 

Any Chel$ki fan who cant see it is the money that got them here is deluded! Nearly 300 mill spent in 3 years or something like that. United were rich- how? Because they were successful on the pitch and had proper marketing- they didnt get rich LITERALLY overnight. ANd still we had to answer to a PLC that wouldnt let us over spend- even when we were the richest. (And please note- United fans opposed a Sky bid to take over us that would have given us alot more money than any PLC would allow). Now Chel$ki can spend whatever they want and owe only ABramovich (if he left and wanted his money back... then 'oh dear!' ). Face the simple facts- this overnight money got ya all this- and ya wouldnt have had Mourinho either imo (but we'll never know that). There's building money around success and then there's Chelsea. Sure just buy up all the potential talent and put them in the reserves so no one else can have them. One simple question- would you have the squad without all Abramovich's money? No.

 

Still, they do work well as a team

Ohter teams that have loads of quality cant run as a team. Look at Real Madrid, they buy major big players every year, but they didn't win La Liga last season, and they've had a poor start this year, and they lost 3-0 to Lyon in the Champion's League.
This is because they throw in class palyers and expect them to just be able to play, without a proper structured system

 

Real Madrdi still havent spent what Chelski have in that short period of time. I dont follow Real Madrid so I might be wrong. Plus its usually the president there who buys the players- not the manager- which at least Mourinho gets to do.

 

Thanks Richie. Nice to have an intellegent discussion

TK, not often you disappoint me, but you do here

"Sure just buy up all the potential talent and put them in the reserves so no one else can have them."

We don't "buy everyone" as the media propaganda would have us believe. We wanted a striker. Did we bid for Rooney or Owen? No. We recalled back a striker we sent out on loan. And I believe it's Liverpool that had the reputation for buying everyone back in the 80s.

And look at Essien. Yes, we wanted him, but Lyon tried to screw us over with the price, so we said no. Funnily enough, they backed down and we got him for the initial offer.

You support your team with great gusto, TK, and I appreciate and respect you for that. I'd respect you more if you could see your own teams failings rather than place blame elsewhere.

 

Though... were's JONJEDI when ya wanna wind him up???

 

Still, Chelsea have bought a few dud players

Look as Essien, hes done virtually nothing since hes come in, and hes suppose to be some almighty destructive midfielder.
Parker did ntohing, Huth does nothing but rot on the bench.

 

There is no way Abramovich is going to make money out of Chelsea

From Deloitte 02/02/05

Chelsea have reported transfer acquisitions of over £250m since July 2003, which has contributed around 40% of the overall spending by Premiership clubs since that time. In the period since July 2003, Chelsea?s transfer spending is more than double the combined spending of Arsenal and Manchester United.

As a result of Chelsea?s spending spree, gross transfer spending by Premiership clubs in 2003/04 and 2004/05 has been significantly greater than in 2002/03 (£187m), but still not up to the 2001/02 levels (£323m)

Around two-thirds of the spending by Premiership clubs in 2004/05 has gone to non-English clubs (2003/04: c.50%/£130m). This is the highest proportion of transfer spending being ?international? rather than ?domestic? since the formation of the Premiership.

Whilst some non-English clubs have acquired players from the Premiership ? Premiership clubs have received around £40m in 2004/05 from non-English clubs - the overall balance of payments is an outflow of around £130m.

During 2004/05 there have been eight deals by Premiership clubs with a reported transfer value of £10m or more, of which seven have been acquisitions from overseas clubs.

Premiership clubs? transfer spending in the January 2005 transfer window (of £50m) is greater than that reported by clubs in the rest of Europe

For the 2004/05 season, Football League clubs have received around £40m by transferring players to Premiership clubs, the main beneficiaries being Leeds United who, since relegation from the Premiership at the end of the 2003/04 season, have reportedly secured fees of around £18m from this source.

Football League clubs have, in aggregate, spent around £10m on transfer fees in 2004/05. In addition, they have entered commitments of around £5m to agents? fees (during the six month period July to December 2004), as recently disclosed in The Football League?s Agents? Fees Report.


How can you say that Abramovich is going to make money out of Chelsea when he had to clear their debts (lets be conservative and say they were £60m)

According to the BBC

Abramovich so far has forked out £683.3m in the 670 days between Abramovich's takeover and the title being secured, it means an average of £1.02m has been spent on every single one of those days.


This was posted before the above Deloitte article and he has spent since then.


Now while I accept that over 2yrs he isn't going to recoup the money as that would be silly I must point out that if this was a business running football club they would not have spent nigh on £700m over 2 years.

People may compare this with the Glazers and Man Utd as they are now £600m in debt however my understanding of the Man Utd debt is that like with Abramovich the Glazers can bail Man U out if they wish (however they need to sell some aquisitions to do this whereas Abrmovich doesn't) the major difference is that Abramovich has shown no sign of abating his spending nor putting any real limit against it whereas the Glazers have.

Which transfer approach is more business like?

 

Oh I do see my own teams failings- but we're talking about Chelsea here. And if you cant handle another persons opinion that doesnt agree with your own then really gotta look at yerself on that point. I 'disappoint' you cause i dont have the same opinion? To be honest thats pathetic.

 

What baffles me is a team Like Fulham who are owned by billionaire Mohammed Al Fayed are complete rubbish and almost relegated every year. This is odd since Al Fayed seems to sepnd no money at all buying good players or doing up the stadium.

So having a rich owner is not always useful

 

" Chelsea have reported transfer acquisitions of over £250m since July 2003, which has contributed around 40% of the overall spending by Premiership clubs since that time. In the period since July 2003, Chelsea?s transfer spending is more than double the combined spending of Arsenal and Manchester United. "

This says a lot. Chelsea have 40% which is more than double Arsenal and Man U. This means they have each spent approx 10% of the total. This is still a hell of a lot more than the other teams in the premiership.

And to go back to the "we buy everyone we want". Mourinho has made it clear and shown that he wants 2 players in every position. He has a aquad of 24 players. Tottenham have a squad of way more than 30 players - the biggest in the premiership. Why aren't they accused of "buying everyone and letting them rot in the reserves". Someone playing for Chelsea has a better chance of a game than someone at Spurs.

 

Cause Chelsea can lure (eg SWP, Robben) a higher standard of player with their money.

 

Oh dear. Leaving aside your hypocritical adding of the word "blinkered", please look at my post again. I'm not disappointed that you have a different opinion. What's the fun in a debate if people think the same? My point is that Man U are not the force they've been in recent years, regardless of Chelsea. I wasn't talking about Chelsea being top, I was talking about why Man U and Arsenal aren't right up there with them. They should be, but they're not. Why is this? Why are Man U 10 points behind when they haven't even played each other yet? It's because Man U are dropping points, not because Chelsea are getting them. You lost against Blackburn, and drew against Man City. This is nothing to do with Chelsea.

You know from my posts (not just here, but from the last year) that I am a fervent Chelsea fan, but I'm also a huge football fan. I like fair games. I like challenging games, and I would love it if Man U and/or Arsenal were really pushing us at the moment. Unfortunately they're not, and it's not because of Chelsea's money. It's because the other teams are throwing away points they shouldn't be.

 

The problem with having lots of money is we get problems like the Obi-Mikel thing.

United had got him to sign a contract, then Chelsea said they had signed him, then there was a tug-of-war over him. In the end no-one got him

Chelsea can buy who they want, but they dont need a lot of the players they bought
You could make 2 Premiership winning sides out of Chelsea, but they only have one. That means regular first team players have to stay on the bench and only come for half a game or less

 

Al Fayed doesn't pour money into the club. He said he would bank roll them till they were established in the Premiership and then they would be on their own.

While this is indeed more than other clubs in the premiership (some spent £0 over that time) what Chelsea has paid is unproportionately way over.

e.g. Chelsea, Arsenal, Man Utd spend 60% of transfers between them this leaves 40% between 17 clubs or 2.5% per club

If Man Uts and Arsenal spend 10% each then they have spent 4 times as much as the other clubs

Chelsea's spend is 16 times what the other clubs have spent so in monetary figures

For each £1m that say Bolton spend Man Utd and Arsenal spend 34m each

for each £1 Chelsea will spend £16m


Does that sound right?

 

No it doesn't sound right, but the way your source said it only stated that Chelsea paid more than the others, when in fact Arsenal and Man U also have.

But again, football is primarily a business. Winning teams make more, and making a winning team requires money from somewhere. That may have not been the case in the past, but it is now as businessmen are selfish and want immediate results. As I said before this may be a sad fact, but it is true.

 

Not really, you just cant handle the truth and then try the childish approach by throwing it back on me.

And the simple flip side to that last argument you gave is that Chelsea would be throwing away points if they didnt have the money. But I bet yer gonna tell me otherwise.

 

This I agree with but I cannot see how Abramovich will make money out of Chelsea as he has spent more money than prize money etc will bring in. By a long chalk....


The Glazers have come into Man Utd and have laid out a business plan to get the club to make money and this has included limits. Chelsea have no limits as to home much they can spend each season. I know with Essien you refused to pay what Lyon asked but even then you paid more than he's worth (IMO)

 

Abramovich is a lot like Bill Gates, he can get back in about a week what hes spent

 

And lets not mention some of Chelsea's ticket prices for games- FOR KIDS!

 

Anyway, we can argue about this all day- I'm aff to back tidying the house!

 

"But I bet yer gonna tell me otherwise."

Not at all.


I don't think that Chelsea would have won last year without Abramovich, but I would add that before then Chelsea were getting better and better. They reached the Champions League last year without Abramovich.

Gloating about the win today aside, I'd hope you'd agree that I'm a fair person when it comes to football. I'm the first to say when Chelsea don't deserve a win or when a player of ours behaves unfairly (I said that Liverpool outplayed Chelsea on Wednesday, and that Joe Cole dived today).

But it seems that you blame Man U's lack of recent success on the fact that Chelsea have some money? As I said in my last post (which you avoided), Man U SHOULD be up there at the top. Granted you have a game in hand, and if you win that you'll be second, but after 7 games, you should have more points than you do. This has nothing to do with Chelsea. This is only down to Man U.

And where were Man U in the last two years? Behind Chelsea AND Arsenal. SO why so bitter about Chelsea? Why not against Arsenal? Why not against the fact that the Man U squad should be performing better than they are?

Don't lay blame on what's easiest. Lay the blame where it should go. Regardless of Chelsea, Man U should be doing better than they currently are.

EDIT: And yes, the ticket prices for Chelsea are horrendoud, but again it's back to business. They know that they'll still get full houses for those prices, and so will charge them. Remember the Man U season ticket holders that threatened to boycott if the prices went up? All the other Man U fans were going "Yay! I get a chance to watch them".

Look at the numbers. 60,000 seats. Millions of fans. Someone will buy those tickets!

 

If you read in the papers tommorow that a 16 year old Liverpool fan has commited suicide, you will know who it is.