Chelsea - Grant + Rijkaard = Messi?

IrishMike · 26-05-2008 02:56PM

Originally Posted by armour87
We have set the standard for results in the Champions league.

armour87 wrote: »

@ Mike, you said Chelsea would be lucky to be considered in the top 5 most consistent teams in the last few years in Europe, but WITHOUT DOUBT they are in the top 5. No team would ever have wanted to be drawn with them. We were put out twice by teams who went on to win it and lost out this year by a penalty.

Great, but your original point was that Chelsea hs set the standard for results in the past few seasons.
I said they most certainly had not and that they were just about in the top 5.
Not really sure what you are disagreeing with me about?
Chelsea have done well in Europe but Liverpool and United have done a lot
better in the same period and thats just a comparison with English teams.

Fizman · 26-05-2008 02:59PM

Little-Devil wrote: »

I'd put Arsenal & Tottenham ahead of chelsea, still you can dream :rolleyes:

I'd almost add QPR to that list now!

CHD · 26-05-2008 03:01PM

Fizman wrote: »

I'd almost add QPR to that list now!

Do you people realise you sound like you know nothing about football when you say these stupid things!

Mitch Connor · 26-05-2008 03:05PM

lordgoat wrote: »

Your transfer fees were way off.

Ferdinand - 29M
VDS 3M
Anderson +Nani - 28M in total if they win trophies
Rooney 28M
Saha 10M
Tevez 20M
I also think Hargreaves was 18

Also you forget to mention the amount of cash that was generated by the sales of players

Plus the fact United's transfers are funded by being, up til recently, a profitable organisation. Even now, it is the club paying for the players and servicing the debt. United earn what they spend. Chelsea post massive losses and continue to spend big simply because Roman bank rolls them - they don't earn what they spend.

If the Glazers buggered off in the morning United would basically remain in the same position they are now (a poor one financially, but one the club is dealing with). If Roman buggered off in the morning things would be massively different for Chelsea.

IrishMike · 26-05-2008 03:13PM

Tauren wrote: »

Plus the fact United's transfers are funded by being, up til recently, a profitable organisation. Even now, it is the club paying for the players and servicing the debt. United earn what they spend. Chelsea post massive losses and continue to spend big simply because Roman bank rolls them - they don't earn what they spend.

If the Glazers buggered off in the morning United would basically remain in the same position they are now (a poor one financially, but one the club is dealing with). If Roman buggered off in the morning things would be massively different for Chelsea.

Ok but im going to ask a very simple question here, so what?
If DIC bought Liverpool and handed Rafa 100m to buy players would liverpool
fans be up in arms because they were trying to buy the title?
No they wouldnt because to be honest United are at least 4 20m+ players ahead of Liverpool
Does Blackburns 1 premiership trophy mean less because Jack Walker bought
the best players he could at the time?
Do Real Madrids countless trophies won with Galactico signings mean any less
despite the fact that the King of Spain had to "buy" land off of them for
hundreds of millions?
Football is now a money game, if you dont spend you wont win

Mitch Connor · 26-05-2008 03:20PM

Yes to it all imo.

Of course Liveprool fans wouldn't be up in arms if that happened, just like Chelsea fans aren't. I wouldn't see it as success earned though. Liverpool may be those players behind but whose fault is that? United have been better ran commercially than any other English side, better then most sides in the world - they deserve to be rewarded for that.

Real Madrid are a horrible club, that shouldn't be where they are now. If Man United acted the same way as Real over the years Uefa and Platini would be up in arms over it, much like we are hearing now because it is the english sides dominating in Europe and in transfer spend.

Football is a money game, yes. If you don't spend, you don't win, yes. That doesn't mean we all have to like where that money is coming from or how the spending is being funded, or respect the success brought to clubs by billionaires rather than planning and hard work.

lordgoat · 26-05-2008 03:22PM

Tauren wrote: »

Plus the fact United's transfers are funded by being, up til recently, a profitable organisation. Even now, it is the club paying for the players and servicing the debt. United earn what they spend. Chelsea post massive losses and continue to spend big simply because Roman bank rolls them - they don't earn what they spend.

If the Glazers buggered off in the morning United would basically remain in the same position they are now (a poor one financially, but one the club is dealing with). If Roman buggered off in the morning things would be massively different for Chelsea.

I actually think if we got owners that were true fans the club would be better off, i seriously think we need to start massive repayments on this debt, it's only getting bigger and that is a huge worry.

Mitch Connor · 26-05-2008 03:29PM

lordgoat wrote: »

I actually think if we got owners that were true fans the club would be better off, i seriously think we need to start massive repayments on this debt, it's only getting bigger and that is a huge worry.

Yep, but that is an angry argument for another thread (Indeed, we had an angry argument about it all in the United thread recently, in the build up to the Wigan game or something like that....)

26-05-2008 03:36PM

armour87 wrote: »

We have set the standard for results in the Champions league.

O RLY?

armour87 wrote: »

Fair point but don't you think their progression in the last five years deserves respect and can only really be rivalled by Liverpool and Milan

As has been pointed out to you already......

Unearthly wrote: »

Well No. Porto, Barca and Man Utd won the competition between those 5 years.

Tauren wrote: »

Liverpool getting to two finals and a semi-final is a lot more note worthy then what chelsea have acheived, given that Liverpool haven't spent anywhere near as much on their squad. Chelsea have under-performed given the amount of money spent and the players they have at their disposal.

Also....

armour87 wrote: »

My results in Europe comment was more of a consistency in Europe. We were very nearly in 4 of the last 5 finals sure?

.....very nearly????? Snap out of it. Man United have very nearly won the Premiership for the last 15 years by that logic.

Unearthly · 26-05-2008 03:43PM

armour87 wrote: »

Are you taking the piss mate?

Ferdinand 30m
VDS 8m
Veron 28m
Anderson 20m
Hargreaves 20m
Nani 20m
Rooney 30m
Carrick 18m
Saha 13m
Tevez will cost 20/30m

Il give you Vidic, Evra and Ronaldo. All bargains.

.

Some of these fees are wrong. VDS 8 million? wtf? more like 2

We haven't paid anywhere near 20 for both Nani and Anderson yet. It's all down to future installments and dependant on success, same with Rooney.

At the moment Tevez has only cost a few million for the loan

IrishMike · 26-05-2008 04:24PM

Tauren wrote: »

Yes to it all imo.

Of course Liveprool fans wouldn't be up in arms if that happened, just like Chelsea fans aren't. I wouldn't see it as success earned though. Liverpool may be those players behind but whose fault is that? United have been better ran commercially than any other English side, better then most sides in the world - they deserve to be rewarded for that.

Its the fault of the David Moores et al who couldnt afford to put in the
money required to keep the club challenging near the top of the table.
United got the money, be it through better management or though investment
but its still money they spent.
To be able to spend 20m+ on your record signings on every line of the pitch shows how far United and Chelsea are ahead of Liverpool in spending power
Should they be critised for that ? Of course not they should be applauded for it.
If David Moores hadnt been so damn Niiave and not sold the club to the 2
yanks Liverpool may well have been able to compete.

And Real Madrid are a horrible club? dont see that myself.
They have played some of the best football ever seen and had some of the
best players of all time line out in that jersey.

lordgoat · 26-05-2008 04:49PM

IrishMike wrote: »

And Real Madrid are a horrible club? dont see that myself.
They have played some of the best football ever seen and had some of the
best players of all time line out in that jersey.

True mike but how they got their hands on some of these players -di Stefano for example were truly horrible. And can understand that the rivalary between them and Barca is not just any old rivalary.

I know that this happened in a time long before mine (and i in no way would hold a grudge over history) but i also don't like their sheer arrogance that every player would love to play for them.

Fizman · 26-05-2008 05:15PM

chdpoker wrote: »

Do you people realise you sound like you know nothing about football when you say these stupid things!

Do you people realise you take comments like this far too seriously when in fact it was clearly a joke and sprinkled with sarcasm.

Mitch Connor · 26-05-2008 08:15PM

IrishMike wrote: »

Its the fault of the David Moores et al who couldnt afford to put in the
money required to keep the club challenging near the top of the table.
United got the money, be it through better management or though investment
but its still money they spent.
To be able to spend 20m+ on your record signings on every line of the pitch shows how far United and Chelsea are ahead of Liverpool in spending power
Should they be critised for that ? Of course not they should be applauded for it.
If David Moores hadnt been so damn Niiave and not sold the club to the 2
yanks Liverpool may well have been able to compete.

And Real Madrid are a horrible club? dont see that myself.
They have played some of the best football ever seen and had some of the
best players of all time line out in that jersey.

so we just have different values. No reason to continue this debate - we seemingly are completely opposed on this issue.

therecklessone · 26-05-2008 10:02PM

Little-Devil wrote: »

I'd put Arsenal & Tottenham ahead of chelsea, still you can dream :rolleyes:

In modern football terms you'd want your head examined putting Spurs ahead of Chelsea.

Unless your only yardstick is which club needs the trophy polish this summer...;)

wandatowell · 27-05-2008 03:23PM

I dont rate Rijkaard one bit, he lost the players confidence at barcelona.
Don't think he has a strong enough personality for chelski. Guus Hiddink would do a good job for that lost in west london. But would his brand of football keep Roman happy? probably not

themont85 · 27-05-2008 05:37PM

armour87 wrote: »

Would you say the same for Zidane and Madrid?

Yes I would say that, I dislike Real Madrid as a club for numerous reasons much like Chelsea. .

eZe^ wrote: »

Tate? Do you mean Ten Cates? Why would they not like each other, together they won 2 league titles and a CL??[/QUOTeE]

Just thought I heard it on SSN, to be honest im not sure if it was Ten Cates but they were linking Rijard with Chelsea and a current Chelsea figure from Rijards two league titles. Something along the lines of there was a personality clash between the pair.

Dave! · 27-05-2008 05:43PM

I'd say Rijkaard or Deschamps is most likely... The papers over here are making a big deal about Roy Keane being mentioned, but I can't see that happening. If he's looking to develop himself as a manager, Chelsea is not the place to go.

King John V · 27-05-2008 07:21PM

The Roy Keane-Chelsea link is complete rubbish. They'll go with some high profile name with a c.v filled with trophy successes not a manager in the business for 2 years.

growler · 27-05-2008 07:40PM

King John V wrote: »

The Roy Keane-Chelsea link is complete rubbish. They'll go with some high profile name with a c.v filled with trophy successes not a manager in the business for 2 years.

that sounds suspiciously like "insider knowledge" to me.

Are you roman Abramovich by any chance?

King John V · 27-05-2008 10:12PM

growler wrote: »

that sounds suspiciously like "insider knowledge" to me.

Are you roman Abramovich by any chance?

Damn, I knew I shouldn't have said anything. I won't be getting my keep-quiet payment from Roman now

.

CorkMan · 27-05-2008 10:16PM

Messi would make a BIG mistake moving to Chelski.

lordgoat · 27-05-2008 11:13PM

growler wrote: »

that sounds suspiciously like "insider knowledge" to me.

Are you roman Abramovich by any chance?

Zing!

eZe^ · 27-05-2008 11:22PM

Messi would literally be nothing without Fc Barcelona, so if he did leave for more money or whatever then there would be a situation bigger than Figo to Madrid. However, there is more chance of me of Mourinho getting a sex change than their is him leaving.. So it's all good.

Chelsea - Grant + Rijkaard = Messi?

Comments