CheLOLsea

[From Despair To Where?]

Also conveniently ignores Makelele, Drogba, Kezman, Robben. Cech, Carvalhlo....

Man Utd kept winning the title in that time with Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O'Shea, Solskjaer, Fletcher and Brown in their side.

[Loafer]

Also conveniently ignores Makelele, Drogba, Kezman, Robben. Cech, Carvalhlo....

Man Utd kept winning the title in that time with Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O'Shea, Solskjaer, Fletcher and Brown in their side.

Happy to be proven wrong. I personally don't have a problem with the way he has changed football. Maybe because I was always sick of Man United winning it and it got teams like Chelsea, Spurs (at a point) and Liverpool and City more competitive

[Loafer]

Without his money, the overwhelming majority of these world class players wouldn't have given Chelsea a second glance. This is a club that prior to his arrival, had won the equivalent of the Simod Cup more times than they'd won the league.

It's all about buying success and stockpiling players which is why (excluding caretakers who've managed less than a month) they've had 15 managers in 19 years. In that time, Arsenal have had 3, Liverpool 6, Manchester United 6 and Manchester City 7.

Watford - 22

[Loafer]

You honestly believe there are more than 3 teams with a realistic chance of winning the league? It may be a different 3 teams to 20 years ago but it's still 3 teams. Spurs have always been one of the "Big 5"

More teams have won the league or finished 2nd since before he was in charge, not to mention won European competition or got to finals

[Hendo]

Also conveniently ignores Makelele, Drogba, Kezman, Robben. Cech, Carvalhlo....

Man Utd kept winning the title in that time with Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O'Shea, Solskjaer, Fletcher and Brown in their side.

Well, quite.

[From Despair To Where?]

You honestly believe there are more than 3 teams with a realistic chance of winning the league? It may be a different 3 teams to 20 years ago but it's still 3 teams. Spurs have always been one of the "Big 5"

More teams have won the league or finished 2nd since before he was in charge, not to mention won European competition or got to finals

Err, no, as previously shown.

[Loafer]

You honestly believe there are more than 3 teams with a realistic chance of winning the league? It may be a different 3 teams to 20 years ago but it's still 3 teams. Spurs have always been one of the "Big 5"

More teams have won the league or finished 2nd since before he was in charge, not to mention won European competition or got to finals

Err, no, as previously shown.

But you've given a much bigger time period and a different time of football aswell, football has changed massively since before 2000

[Franchise FC]

Also conveniently ignores Makelele, Drogba, Kezman, Robben. Cech, Carvalhlo....

Man Utd kept winning the title in that time with Giggs, Scholes, Neville, O'Shea, Solskjaer, Fletcher and Brown in their side.

Well, quite.

Well, not quite.

United were paying massive sums and buying the supposed best players long before Chelsea got in on the act and, indeed, long before the Premier League. That group you're quoting also included the extremely cheap Rio Ferdinand (a record breaking £30m), Juan Veron for £28m and Ruud van Nistelrooy at £19m, to name but a few from the 01-02 season alone

Liverpool did exactly the same in the 70's & 80's

[From Despair To Where?]

My point is that the spine of United team was home-grown. If you look at the Liverpool team of the 70s and 80's they'd make maybe 1 marquee signing but the team was built up of home-grown players, experienced old pros and signings from the lower league. In fact, I see a lot of similarities with Liverpool's current transfer policy.

[Franchise FC]

My point is that the spine of United team was home-grown. If you look at the Liverpool team of the 70s and 80's they'd make maybe 1 marquee signing but the team was built up of home-grown players, experienced old pros and signings from the lower league. In fact, I see a lot of similarities with Liverpool's current transfer policy.

My point is that the exact spine of the team cost in excess of £75m for just three of them (centre back, centre midfield and central striker being the spine)

[From Despair To Where?]

United have always been big spenders but their spending was generally targeted at specific positions. Chelsea were the club that started stockpiling players.

[From Despair To Where?]

More teams have won the league or finished 2nd since before he was in charge, not to mention won European competition or got to finals

Err, no, as previously shown.

But you've given a much bigger time period and a different time of football aswell, football has changed massively since before 2000

NoI haven't, you've talked about a 19 year period from 2003, which I extended to 25 to include the successes of the late 90s. I then compared that to firstly, a 10 year period immediately prior to Heysel and then a 20 year period immediately prior to Heysel. I discounted the period 1985 to 1995 as English clubs were banned from Europe or playing catchup.

I could take out those 5 years prior to Abramovich which gives us 3 trophies in 5 years but that still compares favourably to 8 trophies in 19 years.

[Franchise FC]

United have always been big spenders but their spending was generally targeted at specific positions. Chelsea were the club that started stockpiling players.

So it was fine for United and Liverpool to spend big to dominate football, but when City and Chelsea do it to catch up that’s unfair.


Righto

[From Despair To Where?]

Not what I'm saying at all but you know that.

[Franchise FC]

Not what I'm saying at all but you know that.

Then help me understand what you’re saying because my interpretation is how it comes across (to me at least)

[Loafer]

Err, no, as previously shown.

But you've given a much bigger time period and a different time of football aswell, football has changed massively since before 2000

NoI haven't, you've talked about a 19 year period from 2003, which I extended to 25 to include the successes of the late 90s. I then compared that to firstly, a 10 year period immediately prior to Heysel and then a 20 year period immediately prior to Heysel. I discounted the period 1985 to 1995 as English clubs were banned from Europe or playing catchup.

I could take out those 5 years prior to Abramovich which gives us 3 trophies in 5 years but that still compares favourably to 8 trophies in 19 years.

That is fair enough

I obviously cannot comment on that because I was not alive, so I am only commenting on what I can remember watching through

I wonder how much the successes of European teams winning contributed to us and money aswell

[From Despair To Where?]

It's no surprise that the 2 biggest clubs prior to 2003 were also the biggest spenders. Its generated by revenue. Chelsea aren't even the biggest club in London. Without Abramovich's money, they would not be able to sustain that level of spending. They were £140m in debt when Abramovich bought them. He kickstarted an era of inflated squads, inflated transfer fees and inflated wages.

I would say that Liverpool have bucked the render recently by with a mix of home-grown players and astute signings, funded largely by player sales.

[Loafer]

Not what I'm saying at all but you know that.

Then help me understand what you’re saying because my interpretation is how it comes across (to me at least)

Maybe he is saying before they spent, they had relatively not too much recent success?

So "bought" it?

[From Despair To Where?]

But you've given a much bigger time period and a different time of football aswell, football has changed massively since before 2000

NoI haven't, you've talked about a 19 year period from 2003, which I extended to 25 to include the successes of the late 90s. I then compared that to firstly, a 10 year period immediately prior to Heysel and then a 20 year period immediately prior to Heysel. I discounted the period 1985 to 1995 as English clubs were banned from Europe or playing catchup.

I could take out those 5 years prior to Abramovich which gives us 3 trophies in 5 years but that still compares favourably to 8 trophies in 19 years.

That is fair enough

I obviously cannot comment on that because I was not alive, so I am only commenting on what I can remember watching through

I wonder how much the successes of European teams winning contributed to us and money aswell

Its hard to say. You're looking at teams managed by some of the greatest British managers (Paisley, Clough, Saunders, Robson). Forest spent £1m on Francis but won the European Cup with a squad a significant nimber of whom had been playing in Division 2 3 seasons previously. I supose Shilton was a fairly big signing but he came from Stoke. Villa won the European Cup with a load of journeymen and young home-grown players. Likewise Ipswich in the UEFA Cup complemented by a couple of Dutch Imports who were hardly household names.

Liverpool won a lot of trophies in the 70s and 80's. Yes they spent a record transfer fee on Dalglish but his signing was funded by the sale of Keegan and a lot of their players were homegrown or signed from teams like Scunthorpe, Northampton and Chester. In the 80's they signed players from teams like Oxford (Aldridge and Houghton) and Watford (Barnes).

[From Despair To Where?]

Not what I'm saying at all but you know that.

Then help me understand what you’re saying because my interpretation is how it comes across (to me at least)

Maybe he is saying before they spent, they had relatively not too much recent success?

So "bought" it?

Yeah, Chelsea's spending and status is not organic, it been fuelled by a sugar daddy and in the process has fundamentally altered the balance between the haves and the have nots to the point that even traditional power houses struggle to compete without obscene and ultimately unsustainable levels of spending.

It may be great for those at the top of the pile in the "self styled" most competative league in the world but you only have to look at the damage caused lower down in the Championship to see that ultimately, that sort of spending has been bad for the game overall. Or do we accept that a super league of the super rich pulling the ladder up behind them is a fait accompli?