** Official ** Summer 2010 Transfer Thread - Signings, Sightings and Rumor's in Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
BaZ87 said:
It's not just Utd fans. City are becoming disliked by all sets of fans because they've got money. No different from Chelsea a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Chelsea had a decent team to begin with, sure they spent but it was needed to push on to title challengers from nearly-challengers.

City are trying to buy their way from mid-table wannabies to title challengers, and it makes me sick tbh :(
 
Tummy said:
Chelsea weren't a top four side without money.
Click to expand...

No, chelsea were a top 2 side.

Utd were in a low spell, Arsenal were dominant, Liverpool were nowhere and Chelsea were 2nd only to an Arsenal ridiculously good side, Arsenal were hugely worse the next season and Chelsea won, though the squad was better, the two best additions, Cech and Robben, were Ranieri's buys.

Bates sold an indebt Chelsea June 2003, Chelsea finished 4th in the 2002-2003 season, 2nd in 03-04, and win in 04-05.

They WERE a top 4 club before the money, moved to 2nd in the first year under money, and won the year after.

They had a great squad of which most were significantly involved in the 04-05 win.

City basically needed to replace the whole team, and then again after Sven left because he didn't make a single decent buy :p HE overpaid for every overhyped but not actually very good player around, inconsistant and not great players.

Don't forget that Chelsea were in debt to a large degree because they were spending money before they got "huge" money.


As for Utd's debt, I don't know the situation but the owners could have 10billion tied up elsewhere, meaning the Utd debt is nothing, it might simple be, right now, convinient to hold Utd in debt.

Imagine their plan was to buy UTd, sell a huge company or team in america for 1.5billion and pay off the debt at Utd easily, credit crunch happens and suddenly their team/company is only worth 750mil, they could sell, pay off the debt, but would be left without any cash. If they simply wait 5 years, the club/company could be worth 1.5billion again, they sell, and the Utd debt has only gone up 150mil, so they are 600million better off keeping Utd's debt than paying it off.

Its a business, debt isn't always bad.

As for Bellamy, again, it was perfectly clear from day one Mancini had a problem with Bellamy, you can't simply pretend Mancini was loving and nuturing, then over 6 months later bellamy went ape, he'd been left out of games, bad mouthed, left out of all of preseason, ignored, everyone on earth knew it was clear Mancini didn't want him, then he spoke out.

Neithers "innocent" here, Bellamy could have just shut up and rather than do that he's given Mancini an excuse to get rid of the second most effective player at the club and not be questioned on his sanity, unfortunately he then went and started SWP in an important game with about 8 better players on the bench.
 
drunkenmaster said:
No, chelsea were a top 2 side.
Click to expand...

Be quiet DM.

92/93 - 11th
93/94 - 14th
94/95 - 11th
95/96 - 11th
96/97 - 6th
97/98 - 4th
98/99 - 3rd
99/00 - 5th
01/02 - 6th
02/03 - 6th

That's where Chelsea finished in the ten seasons before the Russian mafia. At what point did they finish in the top two?

That's an average of 7.7.

7th or 8th in the League.
 
Tummy said:
Be quiet DM.

92/93 - 11th
93/94 - 14th
94/95 - 11th
95/96 - 11th
96/97 - 6th
97/98 - 4th
98/99 - 3rd
99/00 - 5th
01/02 - 6th
02/03 - 6th

That's where Chelsea finished in the ten seasons before the Russian mafia. At what point did they finish in the top two?

That's an average of 7.7.

7th or 8th in the League.
Click to expand...

They came 4th in 02/03, then became Chelski in the summer of 03.
 
Tummy said:
Be quiet DM.


97/98 - 4th
98/99 - 3rd
99/00 - 5th
01/02 - 6th
02/03 - 4th

That's where Chelsea finished in the ten seasons before the Russian mafia. At what point did they finish in the top two?

That's an average of 7.7.

7th or 8th in the League.
Click to expand...

lets talk 97/98 onwards they were a top 4/5 team for a consistent 5 years, not top 2 but definitely top 5 material
 
Why are we talking 97/98 onwards?

:confused:

Chelsea without the money wouldn't be where they are today.

Chelsea, imho, struck lucky with getting "the Special One" in and bringing in some exceptional players.

City, imho, are still a bit away from winning the League ;)

Don't think they bought that well either tbh.
 
I'm not sure why it matters whether Chelsea were a top 5 team or a bottom half side. Chelsea were in serious threat of becoming the next Leeds before Abramovic took over. The likes of Lampard admitted that players were told to start looking for new clubs before the last game of the season, before RA bought the club.

What's happening at City is the same as what happened at Chelsea just on a larger scale.
 
I think the big difference was in the managers they have both appointed.

Chelsea really struck lucky with "the Special One".
 
Not really. The big difference is Chelsea were starting from a better platform than City, began their rise when Arsenal began falling away (2nd RA season onwards) and being in London it was easier to attract players.

City had/have more ground to make up and are up against stronger competition.
 
another player who smokes and gets wasted

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/909159/England-ace-Peter-Crouch-is-a-sex-pest.html

surprise surprise - he's english.

the yob culture in england is why they dont have a decent national team, the country is full of obese people, binge drinkers and fag hags. how do you possibly expect to come up with 11 world class players? they should stop bringing in all these limits on foreign players and home grown talent, the youth in england would rather waste their talent by going out every weekend and getting wasted than knuckling down.

england should just scrap their national team.
 
Tummy said:
Why are we talking 97/98 onwards?

:confused:

Chelsea without the money wouldn't be where they are today.

Chelsea, imho, struck lucky with getting "the Special One" in and bringing in some exceptional players.

City, imho, are still a bit away from winning the League ;)

Don't think they bought that well either tbh.
Click to expand...

because you were stating they were a top 10 side, when for 5 years up to RA, they had gotten an average of a top 5 side. why take outdated data, when 5 years up to the takeover is enough. the 5 years before that they averaged top 10 but not the 5 leading up to the takeover.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom