Good Bye RVP!

[Cripps_orig]

the end result yes, the way they did no


there is no pride in spending the amount they did to win, nor in just defending for every minute of all the knockout games they played. if we were too do taht, would rather win nothing and get third

They scored more goals in 2 games than Barcelona did and with 10 men for most of the 2nd game

Id hardly call that defending.

2 of those goals if i remember correctly, came when they were already down to 10 men.

2nd leg v Napoli was hardly defending either

So as usual, you have no idea what youre talking about

Chelsea are ****s, we can all agree on that and yes all of their success is down to the money and no its not the "proper" way of doing things but thats how football is these days. We can either join them in that way or do what we are doing and get left behind

Time for Usmanov

[Joker]

Well, it is. But it used to be a sport. I'm old enough to remember when it was.

You could argue it stopped being pure "sport" when the Premier League broke away from the Football League. We benefited from that (along with others) at the expense of smaller clubs, yet we didn't hear too many complaints about the "commercialisation" of sport then.

[Marc Overmars]

not happened in any of those clubs' case, i'm afraid.

To be fair, City have spent 20m+ a piece on several players who were swifty moved on or are now deadwood. (Robinho, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, Jo etc) They essentially bought whoever they could and chopped and changed until they got it right - absolutley no regard to how much money they lost. That's not right whichever way you paint it because no one else can even think about doing that without expecting to go bust.

[gooners]

You could argue it stopped being pure "sport" when the Premier League broke away from the Football League. We benefited from that (along with others) at the expense of smaller clubs, yet we didn't hear too many complaints about the "commercialisation" of sport then.

a bigger question would then be: should owners be allowed to profit from their clubs?

i'm looking at PHW and Co.

if so, why shouldn't an owner be allowed to pum into their clubs? At least abramovich and co are not looking to farking protect the value of their shares and sell for a tidy sum!

[jelgoon]

Good post. Whilst we rant on here about the billionaire owners of Chelsea, Man City and Man Utd, we are losing our world class players to them every season. Meanwhile one of the world's richest men is begging the board to let him invest.

They scored more goals in 2 games than Barcelona did and with 10 men for most of the 2nd game

Id hardly call that defending.

2 of those goals if i remember correctly, came when they were already down to 10 men.

2nd leg v Napoli was hardly defending either

So as usual, you have no idea what youre talking about

Chelsea are ****s, we can all agree on that and yes all of their success is down to the money and no its not the "proper" way of doing things but thats how football is these days. We can either join them in that way or do what we are doing and get left behind

Time for Usmanov

[McNamara That Ghost...]

a bigger question would then be: should owners be allowed to profit from their clubs?

i'm looking at PHW and Co.

if so, why shouldn't an owner be allowed to pum into their clubs? At least abramovich and co are not looking to farking protect the value of their shares and sell for a tidy sum!

Well, to a certain extent but Abramovich has protected himself by giving the money Chelsea have spent, as 'loans' - I think the details are a bit messy but it's not the picture of having fun with your money you paint it out to be.

Personally, I do care about money spent by clubs - clubs won't last forever. Rangers have proven that. And on a lesser scale, so have Portsmouth - they all chase owners of decent wealth but they aren't always trustworthy.

[gooners]

To be fair, City have spent 20m+ a piece on several players who were swifty moved on or are now deadwood. (Robinho, Adebayor, Santa Cruz, Jo etc) They essentially bought whoever they could and chopped and changed until they got it right - absolutley no regard to how much money they lost. That's not right whichever way you paint it because no one else can even think about doing that without expecting to go bust.

Most of that was to do with what management they had in place at those times. As you well know, you cannot buy a player for 20mil and expect them to sit on the bench -- which is why someone like RVP will ask for Rooney's wages to ensure that it doesn't happen to them.

[LDG]

Go on, fuck off you ****.

Don't blame the club, blame the greedy player and his agent.

His "statement" was designed to make his position at the club untenable. But they didn't count on so few clubs being interested or willing to pay him some wedge. Utd was the last option open to him in the end, and he was forced to take it.

We have done alright out of it for a 29 year old. Fuck him.

Come on Arsenal!

[Ollie the Optimist]

Go on, fuck off you ****.

Don't blame the club, blame the greedy player and his agent.

His "statement" was designed to make his position at the club untenable. But they didn't count on so few clubs being interested or willing to pay him some wedge. Utd was the last option open to him in the end, and he was forced to take it.

We have done alright out of it for a 29 year old. Fuck him.

Come on Arsenal!

best post of the entire thread

[gooners]

Well, to a certain extent but Abramovich has protected himself by giving the money Chelsea have spent, as 'loans' - I think the details are a bit messy but it's not the picture of having fun with your money you paint it out to be.

whatever you call the money he pumps into the club, it seems to come quite freely --- people were predicting he'd abandon chelsea within a few years; he's still around!