Chelsea Thread

[ezee ryder]

Well we have had to splash the cash to compete with the Chelsea Pokemon mentality The only difference is we spent our money a bit more wisely on long term signings such as Anderson and Nani. We didn't go spending £30 million on a striker just cos he was "friends" with our owner, only for him to go back to his previous club a few seasons later after being a huge flop.

[Kongster]

How many players have Chelsea bought in recent years only for them to be flogged at knock down prices? :P

Peter Kenyon used his inside knowledge of Man United to hijack bids for Robben and Essien. (And let's not even mention Mikel). What comes around goes around!

[abigsmurf]

nah you limit your turkeys that you sell for a fraction of the price to 'just' £28.1million

[Kongster]

Who you let go for nothing, while still paying his wages. And then there's Crespo, too. LOL

[ezee ryder]

Still makes your turkey a bigger one *gobble gobble*

[abigsmurf]

nope, not when you adjust for inflation

[ezee ryder]

An inflated turkey?

Like I said numerous times before, usually when we spend big we do it right. Carrick, Nani, Anderson, Hargreaves, Van Nistelrooy, Ferdinand and Rooney spring to mind immediately, were all bought with the future of the club in mind and not just for immediate success.

[abigsmurf]

It's arguable if Rooney was worth what you spent and Nistleroy didn't exactly finish his career at Man U, nor stay at the club for an unusually long time.

You've certainly let players go too early too (Something which benefitted Chelsea)

[bowser123]

The only player Utd have sold and regretted of recent times was Stam, and that was back when Chelsea were a football team and not a Championship contender whose hollow success was based and bought solely on the back of corrupt money.

So the benefitted Chelsea thing- bull****.

[TheBlackLodge]

You know, in an alternate universe Man City bought both Berbatov and Robinho. Somewhere all you guys are all sitting around hugging your pint glasses and each other in commiseration

[Kongster]

I hear worse down the pub. This is minor

[abigsmurf]

So mark hughes wasn't part of the squad which won the FA Cup and Cup Winners Cup for Chelsea then?

On the corrupt money front, At least Chelsea weren't bought out using their own money (the loans used to buy the club are 100% backed on the club's assets, the glaziers didn't have to spend a penny of their own money) in a hostile takeover like Man U were.

[bowser123]

Utd weren't double winners in the period Hughes was at Chelsea?
I really fail to see how winning the Premier League and FA Cup in 1996, then the League in 97 is seen as a bad thing... you really are a strange one.

Utd had the best years of Hughes career, sold him and won more. Like I say, strange.

Laugh all you want about the Glazers... your owner has loaned the club it's money. What happens when he want's it back?

[abigsmurf]

Abramovich fully owns the club. He doesn't loan anything.

Man U strictly speaking, are owned by a bank, the Glazers have no personal liability.

*edit*

Also, No matter what Abromovich does, the club will always exist due to the Chelsea Pitch Owners Association

[TheBlackLodge]

Just to try to lighten the tone, read this on F365

Seeing as Abu Dhabi investments will presumably need to balance the books, will the price of petrol go up again?

Made me do a genuine LOL. Thankfully I'm working from home today otherwise I would have got some questionable looks.......