CheLOLsea

[Extended-Phenotype]

Playing devil's advocate, doesn't everyone buy it?

In your eyes EP, how does one earn it as opposed to buy it? Reading were historically a 3rd/4th tier club. Haven't they essentially bought it too albeit to a lesser extent....

They would never have got to the chump / PL had JM not put the cash in.

You could argue that Chelsea have done it in a more grotesque way I suppose but that's pretty subjective as well.

I explained it in my posts above.

Not sure why this is proving to be such a controversial point, but all Im saying is the legitimacy and sense of achievement is inversely proportional to the amount of money you spend.

Sure fans want success. Sure they are still happy winning when a billionaire owner has ploughed four times as much money into transfers as everyone else. But they aren't anywhere near as satisfied and rewarded as they would have been had they enjoyed the same success on a tight budget using academy products and astute finds. Or even the satisfaction of still investing big but using money you legitimately earned as a club.

But to most fans, bought success >>> no success, of course.

[Winston Smith]

The things that go on in your head are not reality kes, no matter how much you'd like them to be.

No - the evidence was on here. It was fine having a 'rich' Russian owner after years of having a 'pop' at Chelsea. People changed their tune.

Apart from all the bits you made up, that is a gr8 post.

[Ian Royal]

Playing devil's advocate, doesn't everyone buy it?

In your eyes EP, how does one earn it as opposed to buy it? Reading were historically a 3rd/4th tier club. Haven't they essentially bought it too albeit to a lesser extent....

They would never have got to the chump / PL had JM not put the cash in.

You could argue that Chelsea have done it in a more grotesque way I suppose but that's pretty subjective as well.

No, because success grows revenue. Our losses were never huge under Madejski, our spending was largely on the conservative side. The goal was always to be self sustaining. There was never a massive jump in our achievements caused by huge spending. It was very much a financially viable brick by brick approach.

That's completely different to rocking up, chucking masses of money at a side and making a very short-term jump in competitive level - then sustaining it by chucking loads more money at it.

No one's claiming money doesn't make a difference. With the finances the way they are, it's becoming all but impossible to achieve in a sustainable way now anyway.

[Extended-Phenotype]

No. Someone will always come along and have more money. Look at City. No trophy this year despite breaking FFP. United have spent more than us over two season as have Liverpool. We've won TWO trophies - they've won nowt. Goals of success change when you become more successful.

Remember - There will always be haters.

You haven't understood, m8. Its not about Chelsea. Or haters. Or someone having more money.

Its about comparing the feeling that fans would get if their clubs success was 'earned' through homegrown talent or shrewd and modest investment, with the feeling they would get if their success was just the product of obscene money.

The former, without question, would grant you with a bigger sense of achievement and satisfaction. When a club spends big and reaps the rewards, the money does taint the victory somewhat.

[Zammo]

Players carrying Drogba off mid-game was utterly embarrassing. CheLOLsea.

Parading through the empty streets of London. Major LOL fest.

CeLOLery.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

Playing devil's advocate, doesn't everyone buy it?

In your eyes EP, how does one earn it as opposed to buy it? Reading were historically a 3rd/4th tier club. Haven't they essentially bought it too albeit to a lesser extent....

They would never have got to the chump / PL had JM not put the cash in.

You could argue that Chelsea have done it in a more grotesque way I suppose but that's pretty subjective as well.

No, because success grows revenue. Our losses were never huge under Madejski, our spending was largely on the conservative side. The goal was always to be self sustaining. There was never a massive jump in our achievements caused by huge spending. It was very much a financially viable brick by brick approach.

That's completely different to rocking up, chucking masses of money at a side and making a very short-term jump in competitive level - then sustaining it by chucking loads more money at it.

No one's claiming money doesn't make a difference. With the finances the way they are, it's becoming all but impossible to achieve in a sustainable way now anyway.

There was a massive jump in our achievements (our average league position for example) which correlates to us getting a brand new stadium. I'd hardly call that conservative.

[From Despair To Where?]

So it would appear that Chelsea are some way behind the likes of Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool and about on par with Villa, Wolves and Forest.

Behind Spurs

Chelsea 22 major trophies
Spurs 14

Well done Kes, you took that completely out of context which does beg the question, what are you, desperate, thick or deperately thick?

Considering the context came from one of your own posts, my bet is desperately thick.

But thank you for re-enforcing the point that Chelsea have won 50% more trophies in the 12 years Abramovich owned the club than in the preceding 98 years.

[No Fixed Abode]

The things that go on in your head are not reality kes, no matter how much you'd like them to be.

No - the evidence was on here. It was fine having a 'rich' Russian owner after years of having a 'pop' at Chelsea. People changed their tune.

Apart from all the bits you made up, that is a gr8 post.

The goalposts have been moved so much on here the paint is falling off.

[Zammo]

^ back from London quick

[Zammo]

The goalposts have been moved so much.......

.....there's just a bus parked there now.

[No Fixed Abode]

So it would appear that Chelsea are some way behind the likes of Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool and about on par with Villa, Wolves and Forest.

Behind Spurs

Chelsea 22 major trophies
Spurs 14

Well done Kes, you took that completely out of context which does beg the question, what are you, desperate, thick or deperately thick?

Considering the context came from one of your own posts, my bet is desperately thick.

But thank you for re-enforcing the point that Chelsea have won 50% more trophies in the 12 years Abramovich owned the club than in the preceding 98 years.

Lets forget Spurs have heavily invested in recent seasons but pretty much won squat. But yes, ignore this fact and name call. RattLOLed.

[No Fixed Abode]

^ back from London quick

Was at the game yesterday. I'll leave the parade to the parents and kids.

[No Fixed Abode]

Players carrying Drogba off mid-game was utterly embarrassing. CheLOLsea.

Parading through the empty streets of London. Major LOL fest.

CeLOLery.

Poor fishing.

[Winston Smith]

wild claims with a failure to back it up, fLOLailing from one post to the next, accusations at other posters....

this is beginning to have the hallmarks of kesmeltdown#2

[Ian Royal]

Playing devil's advocate, doesn't everyone buy it?

In your eyes EP, how does one earn it as opposed to buy it? Reading were historically a 3rd/4th tier club. Haven't they essentially bought it too albeit to a lesser extent....

They would never have got to the chump / PL had JM not put the cash in.

You could argue that Chelsea have done it in a more grotesque way I suppose but that's pretty subjective as well.

No, because success grows revenue. Our losses were never huge under Madejski, our spending was largely on the conservative side. The goal was always to be self sustaining. There was never a massive jump in our achievements caused by huge spending. It was very much a financially viable brick by brick approach.

That's completely different to rocking up, chucking masses of money at a side and making a very short-term jump in competitive level - then sustaining it by chucking loads more money at it.

No one's claiming money doesn't make a difference. With the finances the way they are, it's becoming all but impossible to achieve in a sustainable way now anyway.

There was a massive jump in our achievements (our average league position for example) which correlates to us getting a brand new stadium. I'd hardly call that conservative.

Disagree. Before the stadium (which is infrastructure spending and rather different to ploughing money directly into the squad) we'd finished 2nd in tier 2 and managed several seasons at that level before being relegated. We then struggled in the new stadium for a couple of seasons before making it up - with fairly high spending, but not astronomical. We then consolidated towards the top half of tier 2 without massive comparative spending. We got promoted to the PL and finished 8th with comparatively low spending.

That's no massive short term jump, it was eight years of building, just from the stadium opening.

[From Despair To Where?]

Behind Spurs

Chelsea 22 major trophies
Spurs 14

Well done Kes, you took that completely out of context which does beg the question, what are you, desperate, thick or deperately thick?

Considering the context came from one of your own posts, my bet is desperately thick.

But thank you for re-enforcing the point that Chelsea have won 50% more trophies in the 12 years Abramovich owned the club than in the preceding 98 years.

Lets forget Spurs have heavily invested in recent seasons but pretty much won squat. But yes, ignore this fact and name call. RattLOLed.

Chelsea nett spend 2003-2015 - £570,000,000

Spurs nett spend 2003-2015 - £94,000,000

In fact since 2010, Spurs have been nett sellers to the tune of £22,000,000. Over the same period, Chelsea have a nett spend of £274,000,000. Don't let the facts get in your way though.

Still, that has nothing to do with my point that you originally quoted which was about the period up to 2003.

[Winston Smith]

Was at the game yesterday.

[Royal Rother]

Players carrying Drogba off mid-game was utterly embarrassing. CheLOLsea.

Oh please tell me you made that up.

[genome]

Players carrying Drogba off mid-game was utterly embarrassing. CheLOLsea.

Oh please tell me you made that up.

Unfortunately...

[AthleticoSpizz]

Cringeworthy though that was, it was refereshing to see JT not protesting his innocence.