Chelsea FC thread (Champions!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mastermind said:
Like SWP who is always on the bench and was coveted by Arsenal till Chelski payed £10M too much and Essien (who they did not need cause they had Smertin,Jarosik,Tiago,Geremi and J.Cole who could play there no problems)
Click to expand...

What is the matter with wanting to improve our squad?

Yes, we had these players, but none were as good an option as essien. any club would do the same!

So why did united sign van der sar? they already had howard (and at the time)carrol and ricardo?

Why did arsenal sign hleb when they had gilberto, fabregas, flamini, reyes, ljunberg, pires?

Why did liverpool sign crouch when they had baros(at the time of buying), morientes, cisse, kewell?

All clubs use money to improve theyre squad, just everybody in this country, and mainly this forum hates chelsea because we are LUCKY enough to have more resources(£) than everybody else!

Also chelsea payed pretty much the same price that psv asked united for, to which they agreed, give or take a few million. which to united makes no difference.

And also, chelsea pay robben the same wages as he was offered from united, in fact, i have a suspiscion its less than what united were offering. The reason robben came to us, and he said this himself, is because after talking to claudio ranieri, he had convinced him that chelsea were a club that would soon surpass teams like united and arsenal.
 
Well said Noise, and comparing Essien to Smertin,Jarosik,Tiago,Geremi and J.Cole is just wrong, you honestly think Chelsea would be better off playing Smertin instead of Essien? hahahaha, that is like saying Man UTD would be better off using Rossi instead of Rooney and Howard instead of van der saar.

Anyway like I said Noise brings up superb points.

And also why did UTD get Rooney, didn't they already have Saha, Smith, Solksjaer and Ruud? Now if Chelsea buy players just so other clubs can't, then surely Man UTD do the same.

Or someone said Chelsea buy other teams best players, like UTD never bought Fulhams best and Evertons best?

Infact didn't UTD buy Saha from Fulham then van der Saar?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
noise said:
What is the matter with wanting to improve our squad?
Yes, we had these players, but none were as good an option as essien. any club would do the same!
Joe Cole is as good if not better than Essien. Cole scores and provides goals.

So why did united sign van der sar? they already had howard (and at the time)carrol and ricardo?
Carroll and Ricardo were released before we bought VDS. :roll:

Why did arsenal sign hleb when they had gilberto, fabregas, flamini, reyes, ljunberg, pires?
Gilberto, Fabregas and Flamini are holding midfielders. Thats almost like saying why buy Rooney when you have Roy Keane. :roll:
Reyes is more of a second striker and Pires is on the verge of leaving.

Why did liverpool sign crouch when they had baros(at the time of buying), morientes, cisse, kewell?
Have you ever thought that teams might buy players knowing that they will sell some later?
And Kewell isnt a striker. :roll:

All clubs use money to improve theyre squad, just everybody in this country, and mainly this forum hates chelsea because we are LUCKY enough to have more resources(£) than everybody else!
We dont have a problem with the money, its how you use it that we hate.

Also chelsea payed pretty much the same price that psv asked united for, to which they agreed, give or take a few million. which to united makes no difference.
See? This is why Chelsea have to pay inflated prices. A few million means nothing to them so teams will squeeze money out of Roman. What other teams do is pay what they believe the player is worth.

And also, chelsea pay robben the same wages as he was offered from united, in fact, i have a suspiscion its less than what united were offering. The reason robben came to us, and he said this himself, is because after talking to claudio ranieri, he had convinced him that chelsea were a club that would soon surpass teams like united and arsenal.
So your suspicions are facts now? :applause: That just topped off your whole post and proved how much sense it actually made. How do you know what he was offered, what his reason for joining were, etc? The bottom line is that he was so close to joining us that he got a tour of our stadium and training complex which usually happens to players who have actually signed with the club. The fact that he ended up at Chelsea makes you ask the question, why were Chelsea in touch with him so late?(tapping up?) And for other than money, why the hell would he change his mind after being so close to joining another club?
Click to expand...


kingpug said:
Well said Noise, and comparing Essien to Smertin,Jarosik,Tiago,Geremi and J.Cole is just wrong, you honestly think Chelsea would be better off playing Smertin instead of Essien? hahahaha,
You think Eidur and Cole playing in midfield actually sucked?

that is like saying Man UTD would be better off using Rossi instead of Rooney and Howard instead of van der saar.
Rossi was still 16 years old then. You expect him to play in the premiership? He'd get crushed. Have you even seen how tiny the guy is?. And as for VDS, we bought him cuz Howard let us down at important times. How many of Chelsea's players let them down to a point that they needed replacing? Chelsea won the title for God's sake. Why should anyone be replaced?

And also why did UTD get Rooney, didn't they already have Saha, Smith, Solksjaer and Ruud? Now if Chelsea buy players just so other clubs can't, then surely Man UTD do the same.
Solskjaer was out for the whole season. :roll: Saha and Ruud were also injured and werent expected back for quite some time. Leaving Smith to do all the work. And how is that the same as Chelsea buying players to stop others from having them? We didnt steal him from anyone, he's a regular in our starting eleven and no one other than Newcastle wanted him (where he didnt want to go). Chelsea on the other hand have 4 wingers, two of which Man Utd were after for a long time.

Or someone said Chelsea buy other teams best players, like UTD never bought Fulhams best and Evertons best?
Infact didn't UTD buy Saha from Fulham then van der Saar?
Who ever said thats a bad thing? Thats completely irrelavant.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
For once i have to rate RuneEdge for his response, took the words right out my mouth.

How the hell can you compare Hleb to G.Silva, Fabregas and Flamini? Different positions mate, whilst them Chelski players play in more or less the same positions .ie. centre mid.

And RuneEdge answered the rest.
 
What is the matter with wanting to improve our squad?
Yes, we had these players, but none were as good an option as essien. any club would do the same!
Joe Cole is as good if not better than Essien. Cole scores and provides goals.

--Yes, but that is simply an opinion. Essien imo as shown to be quite a player.

So why did united sign van der sar? they already had howard (and at the time)carrol and ricardo?
Carroll and Ricardo were released before we bought VDS.

Why did arsenal sign hleb when they had gilberto, fabregas, flamini, reyes, ljunberg, pires?
Gilberto, Fabregas and Flamini are holding midfielders. Thats almost like saying why buy Rooney when you have Roy Keane.
Reyes is more of a second striker and Pires is on the verge of leaving.

Why did liverpool sign crouch when they had baros(at the time of buying), morientes, cisse, kewell?
Have you ever thought that teams might buy players knowing that they will sell some later?
And Kewell isnt a striker.

--Maybe the objective of buying players is to improve the team?
I think noise was just making a point.

All clubs use money to improve theyre squad, just everybody in this country, and mainly this forum hates chelsea because we are LUCKY enough to have more resources(£) than everybody else!
We dont have a problem with the money, its how you use it that we hate.

--How do they use it? To buy players maybe? You hate the fact that they are forced to pay the double of what a player is worth?

Also chelsea payed pretty much the same price that psv asked united for, to which they agreed, give or take a few million. which to united makes no difference.
See? This is why Chelsea have to pay inflated prices. A few million means nothing to them so teams will squeeze money out of Roman. What other teams do is pay what they believe the player is worth.

--So you see how hard it is for chelski to buy players.

And also, chelsea pay robben the same wages as he was offered from united, in fact, i have a suspiscion its less than what united were offering. The reason robben came to us, and he said this himself, is because after talking to claudio ranieri, he had convinced him that chelsea were a club that would soon surpass teams like united and arsenal.
So your suspicions are facts now? That just topped off your whole post and proved how much sense it actually made. How do you know what he was offered, what his reason for joining were, etc? The bottom line is that he was so close to joining us that he got a tour of our stadium and training complex which usually happens to players who have actually signed with the club. The fact that he ended up at Chelsea makes you ask the question, why were Chelsea in touch with him so late?(tapping up?) And for other than money, why the hell would he change his mind after being so close to joining another club?

--a situation that no knows how it really happened. One only knows that he ended up with chelski. Why speculate?



Well said Noise, and comparing Essien to Smertin,Jarosik,Tiago,Geremi and J.Cole is just wrong, you honestly think Chelsea would be better off playing Smertin instead of Essien? hahahaha,
You think Eidur and Cole playing in midfield actually sucked?

--If they can, why shouldn't they improve?

that is like saying Man UTD would be better off using Rossi instead of Rooney and Howard instead of van der saar.
Rossi was still 16 years old then. You expect him to play in the premiership? He'd get crushed. Have you even seen how tiny the guy is?. And as for VDS, we bought him cuz Howard let us down at important times. How many of Chelsea's players let them down to a point that they needed replacing? Chelsea won the title for God's sake. Why should anyone be replaced?

--Take a good look at what happened last year between chelsea an liverpool, the second CL match. They had no Righ back, left back, right winger and left winger. And they had to get a striker cause kezman wasn't scoring.

And also why did UTD get Rooney, didn't they already have Saha, Smith, Solksjaer and Ruud? Now if Chelsea buy players just so other clubs can't, then surely Man UTD do the same.
Solskjaer was out for the whole season. Saha and Ruud were also injured and werent expected back for quite some time. Leaving Smith to do all the work. And how is that the same as Chelsea buying players to stop others from having them? We didnt steal him from anyone, he's a regular in our starting eleven and no one other than Newcastle wanted him (where he didnt want to go). Chelsea on the other hand have 4 wingers, two of which Man Utd were after for a long time.

Or someone said Chelsea buy other teams best players, like UTD never bought Fulhams best and Evertons best?
Infact didn't UTD buy Saha from Fulham then van der Saar?
Who ever said thats a bad thing? Thats completely irrelavant.

...
.....
--boring, boring, they buy cause they can. Saying that they buy only so that they can't play against them is paranoia and simply trying to find an excuse for the team that has failed.
 
Last edited:
"Have you ever thought that teams might buy players knowing that they will sell some later?"

I like how this is the case for every team except Chelsea, what makes you think Chelsea won't do this btw, because you don't want them too?

I agree Chelsea spend much more money than needed, but if they think it is needed why the big fuss, I am pretty sure whether they spent 50 million or 15 million people would still complain.

And how can you compare Rooney to Keane, I used to think Keane was a MF, guess I was wrong. Sorry, since when could you only play a player in his own position, Smith is a striker yet he gets played in MF, so if UTD can do it so can Arsenal. Also ain't Gudjonhson a striker also playing in MF?

"You think Eidur and Cole playing in midfield actually sucked?"

No but I think Essien is better considering he is a proper MF instead of a striker. But I guess Chelsea ain't allowed to do this, only UTD?

Rossi is 16, but so is Vaughan, so if he can play so can Rossi?

"And how is that the same as Chelsea buying players to stop others from having them"

Like who, Robben? What else do you think Robben chose Chelsea over UTD for?

How many timed do you have to be told, Jose wants 2, two, T-W-O players for each position, which would explain their 4 wingers. Now why would they only have 2 wingers to stop the babies like you crying because they spend money?

No, you said Chelsea buy other teams best players, now didn't UTD do that to Fulham?

You are just talking utter nonsense, you say Chelsea do this and Chelsea do that, based on what exactly?

Why don't you go and ask Robben why he joined Chelsea instead of UTD? Now if it wasn't the wages, it musta been because he thought Chelsea was better, either that or they offered him 80 billion if he scored 30 goals in one season.
 
Seriously, None of what you wrote made sense cuz you didnt even understand the point I was making.

Shall I bother correcting you?
 
Then tell me your point, let me guess it btw; Chelsea spend too much money? Yes, very good point.

Infact go over what I wrote and tell me why it didn't make sense.

Also why did Robben decide to join Chelsea instead of UTD, surely there must be news on this?
 
kingpug said:
"Have you ever thought that teams might buy players knowing that they will sell some later?"
I like how this is the case for every team except Chelsea, what makes you think Chelsea won't do this btw, because you don't want them too?
Uhhhh...maybe because the transfer window is closed? :roll:
If someone was gonna leave, we'd know by now. The only reason a Chelsea player would leave now is because of reasons such as having a bust up with the manager.

I agree Chelsea spend much more money than needed, but if they think it is needed why the big fuss, I am pretty sure whether they spent 50 million or 15 million people would still complain.
First of all, people wouldnt complain. Secondly, this isnt about how much money is spent. Dont you get it yet? How dumb are you? :roll:

And how can you compare Rooney to Keane, I used to think Keane was a MF, guess I was wrong.
How f*ckin' dumb can you get? I wasnt comparing the two. I was pointing that out when someone else was comparing two completely different players and I gave that Rooney/Keane thing as an example.

Sorry, since when could you only play a player in his own position, Smith is a striker yet he gets played in MF, so if UTD can do it so can Arsenal. Also ain't Gudjonhson a striker also playing in MF?
Just cuz some players can play out of position, it doesnt mean EVERY player can. Are you trying to say that just cuz Gudjohnsen can play in midfield that it also means someone like van Nistelrooy can too? :roll: Seriously, think before you write.

"You think Eidur and Cole playing in midfield actually sucked?"
No but I think Essien is better considering he is a proper MF instead of a striker. But I guess Chelsea ain't allowed to do this, only UTD?
You still dont get the point, do you? If Chelsea dont need Essien, why buy him? Dont argue that you do need him cuz you just won the title without what you call a "proper MF".


Rossi is 16, but so is Vaughan, so if he can play so can Rossi?
Uhhh...Rossi HAS played some games. :roll: Its not a question of can he or cant he. Its about whether he should play or shouldnt. And its fair to say that he's too young to regularly be in our starting XI cuz it will effect his development. Something Chelsea wouldnt know cuz they dont bring up and develop great players anywhere as often as Man Utd.


No, you said Chelsea buy other teams best players, now didn't UTD do that to Fulham?
No one said that you idiot. Its got nothing to do with buying a team's best players. How many times am I gonna repeat myself?

Why don't you go and ask Robben why he joined Chelsea instead of UTD? Now if it wasn't the wages, it musta been because he thought Chelsea was better,
Yeah. Thats it. He must have figured that out when he was on the verge of signing for Man Utd and touring our training complex. Maybe it was Sir Alex himself who suggested the idea. :roll:
And maybe because you didnt get it, and I'm pretty sure you didnt, that last bit was what people call sarcasm. Learn to sense it.
Click to expand...

Looking back at my reply, how much of your post actually made any sense? Do you need help understanding this question too?


Sulph said:
nerd.gif
ahuhuhu, classic pug that was a good one
Click to expand...
OH SHUT UP!
 
My two cents:

Chelsea spend too much money. So did Liverpool this summer, and their squad is still lacking. For some odd reason, which I have my suspicions about, United didn't spend any money (net). Ranieri/Mourinho made some very good purchases, and some poor ones, just like all managers. But when Chelsea buy there are a couple differences:

1. The price is higher. As someone said above, they know chelsea will end up paying it, so why not. Plus it makes clubs much more eager to sell to Chelsea and bank the extra millions. £21 mil for SWP? £28 for Essien? £8 for Del Horno? Those prices are serioulsy inflated, which is fine for Chelsea, but means that other clubs will suffer because they can't compete.

2. Chelsea can afford to buy short term. Most smaller clubs who splash out £10 mil on a player are doing so with serious investment in the future. Chelsea can buy a player and they know if he doesn't work out they can sell him and not worry so much about it. Other clubs can of course sell players, some even use them as an investment, but with the prices Chelsea are forced to pay, they'll never make much money on selling players.

3. The manner in which they sign players is a bit iffy. Robben was apparently on his way to old trafford, maybe it was something as romantic as Ranieri's convicing speech, but I somehow doubt it. Lyon fought long and hard to keep Essien, but how could they turn down such a price. Crespo, poor bastard, desperately pleaded to be left in Milan, where his family is happy, where he was happy, but no, he's forced back to London. Obi Mikel...well lets not get into that. I still imagine he'll be playing in Stamford bridge before anywhere else in the prem, legal or not. A day before he was sold SWP pledged his future to man city, and said how he loved the club, the fans and what not, but then the offer was so ridiculous, city had to sell him. All of these things are perfectly legal (i think) but leave a bitter taste in everyone's mouth, so to speak.

All that aside, when you all play footie manager or even PES, don't you feel the urge to buy and buy? I mean, who came blame them? Chelsea have assembled a team that should comfortably beat every other team in the premiership, especially now that a chunk of United's first team are injured, and Henry is out. That's not greed, its just how to win a championship. United's team used to be head and shoulders above every other team, but they still lost, and premierships were occasionally close. Chelsea's dominance is not just their spending, but also their attitude.

As for boring football argument, there was a stat on before the Arsenal game that showed there have been 50 less shots on goal this season than at the same point last season. Given that Unitd have managed 5 in their last 3 games, and they usually average about 12-20, I think that figure has nothing to do with Chelsea...
 
About the Robben touring the Man's facility thing, I remember at the time his former club complained about it, cause it was unethical and stuff like that, cause he was still under contract. If it had anything to do with he going to chelsea or not, I don't know. But we all know the end result.
I just think it was worth remembering.

About the current discussion, It's just plain dumb, chelsea buy players cause they can, they didn't break any laws, as far as I know.
They buy players like any other team in the world, they just have more money.
If Glazer had tons of money you Man Utd fans wouldn't be talking like that.

:insert rolling eyes:
:lol:
 
"Uhhhh...maybe because the transfer window is closed?"

And? you said why did they buy Essien when they had Smertin, now maybe they plan on selling him to Charlton, hence why he is on loan?

"First of all, people wouldnt complain. Secondly, this isnt about how much money is spent. Dont you get it yet? How dumb are you?"

Then tell me why? all you base your bullshit on is the shit with Robben, you say they buy other clubs best players and buy players they don't need, YET you won't say who? come on, atleast answer my bloody question seeing as you know alot.

"Gilberto, Fabregas and Flamini are holding midfielders. Thats almost like saying why buy Rooney when you have Roy Keane."

No, but the difference is, Rooney is a striker and Keane a MF, yet Hleb and every other player you mentioned is also a MF, so what did you say have to do with anything?

"Just cuz some players can play out of position, it doesnt mean EVERY player can. Are you trying to say that just cuz Gudjohnsen can play in midfield that it also means someone like van Nistelrooy can too? Seriously, think before you write."

What the fuck? you said why buy;

"Why did arsenal sign hleb when they had gilberto, fabregas, flamini, reyes, ljunberg, pires?"

You then said gilberto, fabregas, flamini are holding MF, now all I was saying is, what makes you think they can't play out of position?

"You still dont get the point, do you? If Chelsea dont need Essien, why buy him? Dont argue that you do need him cuz you just won the title without what you call a "proper MF"."

Who said they don't need him? that is like saying, why did AC Milan get Vieri when they had Shevchenko and Gillardino, let me guess, UTD wanted Essien and Chelsea stole him?

Lets forget allt his and focus on this:

"The problems occur when they start to do the wrong and unethical thing like buying players just so other teams cant have them or buying star players that they dont need and then loaning them out knowing that team cant use that player against them.
And then theres the countless times when they rob players from under everyone's noses."

Now first of all, who did they buy that other teams wanted, and jesus christ how often does this happen? do you expect Chelsea to leave a player just because another club wants him? how idiotic are you?

"buying star players that they dont need"

Like who, Essien? now are you trying to tell me having Essien in MF is crap?

"And then theres the countless times when they rob players from under everyone's noses."

Yet again, you say one time is countless? name some other players they have bought, and I might add I never knew this was illegal in football, you don't half come out with some shite.
 
Rune you are slating my post saying i made no sense. Lets look at your reply...

"Have you ever thought that teams might buy players knowing that they will sell some later?"

We loaned out smertin and jarosik before we signed essien. Just because we loaned instead of sold them that makes a whole lot of difference. We don't HAVE to sell players, unlike some other clubs.

Comparing j.cole to essien is complete nonsense...

Cole in your opinion is better than essien cos he scores and supplys goals.
Thats your opinion but cole is not the same as essien, in fact, pretty much opposite midfield players.

Cole is an offense minded midfielder, and plays on the wings generally, or high up the pitch behind the striker.

Essien was brought in as the in between midfielder between lampard and makalele. He is not meant to be scoring goals, he is meant to be filling ther gap in the middle of the park and if he pops up with a goal now and again, thats a bonus.

Cole was not brought in to be that gap filler, he was brought in as an attacker.
Different players.

And about my speculation, i said i was unsure so obviously its not gospel truth!

And robben said in an interview when he signed for chelsea that ranieri had convinced him to go to chelsea, i read this on planetfootball.com and it was quoted from him, so it is true.

And you saying we tapped him up! Thats complete b****ocks! Tapping up is when a club talks to a player without asking the club if it can do so first, so just cos we signed him, you jumped on the 'lets say chelsea tapped up players' bandwagon. Is tapping up the new fashionable lingo? i must have missed something.
 
Screw this. I cant be arsed anymore. Noise, I can prove that your last post was wrong but its just pointless doing so cuz it wont get into your head.
Instead I'll do something that requires less brain power which some of you might be familiar with:

beachryan said:
My two cents:

Chelsea spend too much money. So did Liverpool this summer, and their squad is still lacking. For some odd reason, which I have my suspicions about, United didn't spend any money (net). Ranieri/Mourinho made some very good purchases, and some poor ones, just like all managers. But when Chelsea buy there are a couple differences:

1. The price is higher. As someone said above, they know chelsea will end up paying it, so why not. Plus it makes clubs much more eager to sell to Chelsea and bank the extra millions. £21 mil for SWP? £28 for Essien? £8 for Del Horno? Those prices are serioulsy inflated, which is fine for Chelsea, but means that other clubs will suffer because they can't compete.

2. Chelsea can afford to buy short term. Most smaller clubs who splash out £10 mil on a player are doing so with serious investment in the future. Chelsea can buy a player and they know if he doesn't work out they can sell him and not worry so much about it. Other clubs can of course sell players, some even use them as an investment, but with the prices Chelsea are forced to pay, they'll never make much money on selling players.

3. The manner in which they sign players is a bit iffy. Robben was apparently on his way to old trafford, maybe it was something as romantic as Ranieri's convicing speech, but I somehow doubt it. Lyon fought long and hard to keep Essien, but how could they turn down such a price. Crespo, poor bastard, desperately pleaded to be left in Milan, where his family is happy, where he was happy, but no, he's forced back to London. Obi Mikel...well lets not get into that. I still imagine he'll be playing in Stamford bridge before anywhere else in the prem, legal or not. A day before he was sold SWP pledged his future to man city, and said how he loved the club, the fans and what not, but then the offer was so ridiculous, city had to sell him. All of these things are perfectly legal (i think) but leave a bitter taste in everyone's mouth, so to speak.

All that aside, when you all play footie manager or even PES, don't you feel the urge to buy and buy? I mean, who came blame them? Chelsea have assembled a team that should comfortably beat every other team in the premiership, especially now that a chunk of United's first team are injured, and Henry is out. That's not greed, its just how to win a championship. United's team used to be head and shoulders above every other team, but they still lost, and premierships were occasionally close. Chelsea's dominance is not just their spending, but also their attitude.

As for boring football argument, there was a stat on before the Arsenal game that showed there have been 50 less shots on goal this season than at the same point last season. Given that Unitd have managed 5 in their last 3 games, and they usually average about 12-20, I think that figure has nothing to do with Chelsea...
Click to expand...
ROTFLMFAO. Classic, Beachryan. Good one.
 
Come on Rune, don't be scared, surely answering 3 or so more questions isn't hard?

"The problems occur when they start to do the wrong and unethical thing like buying players just so other teams cant have them or buying star players that they dont need and then loaning them out knowing that team cant use that player against them.
And then theres the countless times when they rob players from under everyone's noses."

Now first of all, who did they buy that other teams wanted, and jesus christ how often does this happen? do you expect Chelsea to leave a player just because another club wants him? how idiotic are you?

"buying star players that they dont need"

Like who, Essien? now are you trying to tell me having Essien in MF is crap?

"And then theres the countless times when they rob players from under everyone's noses."

Yet again, you say one time is countless? name some other players they have bought, and I might add I never knew this was illegal in football, you don't half come out with some shite.
 
kingpug said:
Come on Rune, don't be scared, surely answering 3 or so more questions isn't hard?
Hard? I think you're the one having difficulty understand people.

"The problems occur when they start to do the wrong and unethical thing like buying players just so other teams cant have them or buying star players that they dont need and then loaning them out knowing that team cant use that player against them.
And then theres the countless times when they rob players from under everyone's noses."
Now first of all, who did they buy that other teams wanted, and jesus christ how often does this happen? do you expect Chelsea to leave a player just because another club wants him? how idiotic are you?
So its perfectly normal to 'kidnap' a 18 year old player and force him to join Chelsea? (John Obi Mikel). And theres no reason to complain if your team is on the verge of signing a player, shown him his new surroundings, tried to get the guy confortable, only for Chelsea to swoop in right at the end and steal him from under their noses? (Robben) :roll:

"buying star players that they dont need"
Like who, Essien? now are you trying to tell me having Essien in MF is crap?
Just cuz you dont need someone, how does that make them crap? :roll:
Wheres the logic there?

"And then theres the countless times when they rob players from under everyone's noses."
Yet again, you say one time is countless? name some other players they have bought, and I might add I never knew this was illegal in football, you don't half come out with some shite.
Uhh...you just quoted that in your own post twice, how dumb are you? :roll:
Click to expand...

Seriously, lick your lips and taste the shit, dude.
 
lol, simply amazing.
Some people can't accept that there are now better club(s) than they're own.
All sorts of excuses I can see around here. The habit of being always on top for so long is hard to let go.

EDIT: About Mourinho possibly coaching the english ntional side, that's more like sensational news for me. He stated that he believes the english team (for example) should be coached by an english. His desire is to one day coach the portuguese national side. Can't wait for that day. ;(
 
Last edited:
Revan said:
lol, simply amazing.
Some people can't accept that there are now better club(s) than they're own.
All sorts of excuses I can see around here. The habit of being always on top for so long is hard to let go.
Click to expand...

ya never know one day you's might be reluctant to move ofo the top....

even Lampard has commented that he is starting to understand how it has been for United for so long, maybe the chelsea fans will aswell...
 
I'm sure one day it will happen. I don't know when, but I had a taste of it last year, but I still didn't made excuses.

Don't get me wrong I understand, but don't you think this as reached such a a level that with every tiny bit of problem on the EPL, chelsea becomes the target "hey it's their fault Rooney can't score".
Some can even say, "hey we're talking like this since roman too over", sure, but it's no excuse for other teams underachieving.
 
Revan said:
Don't get me wrong I understand, but don't you think this as reached such a a level that with every tiny bit of problem on the EPL, chelsea becomes the target "hey it's their fault Rooney can't score".
Click to expand...

Get serious please!!

Tell me whose underachieving? Maybe ManU compared to their revenue. But thats not the point. Chelsea have so much money they can by all the best players, so as you'd expect with having 15-20 top,top internationals its only logical that they should be in the position in the league that their in now, infact they should be playing much better football.

I wouldn't say that Chelski are a better football team than Arsenal or ManU but they are simply more consistant.

Arsenal also aren't underachieving, with lasts years points total we would have won the league most other seasons, its just that Chelsea had remarkable consistancy.
 
Mastermind said:
Get serious please!!

Tell me whose underachieving? Maybe ManU compared to their revenue. But thats not the point. Chelsea have so much money they can by all the best players, so as you'd expect with having 15-20 top,top internationals its only logical that they should be in the position in the league that their in now, infact they should be playing much better football.

I wouldn't say that Chelski are a better football team than Arsenal or ManU but they are simply more consistant.

Arsenal also aren't underachieving, with lasts years points total we would have won the league most other seasons, its just that Chelsea had remarkable consistancy.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with you. Arsenal and Man Utd havent gotten worse. Chelsea have just raised the bar so high.

Arsenal at the end of the day still play the most entertaining football in the country which is why I have so much respect for the team. You say its all about jealousy why I hate Chelsea but I've never been jealous whenever Arsenal won anything (except the last FA Cup) cuz you feel that they deserve everything they get. Same for Man Utd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom