Runner-up

Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,706
Location
Hampshire
memphisto said:
thats not the full issue though hangtime.

I'd take the man utd squad over the chelsea squad when it came to a game betwen the two.

Maybe you would, but over the course of a season I still reckon that quality counts. In one-off games the 'big four' are all capable of winning games off each other, but over a 38 game season Chelsea just have that bit extra to ensure success. They have the quality there to be able to rest players and still put out a good team, enough variety to switch formations to suit particular fixtures, enough competition for places to ensure players are at the top of their game, enough depth to mean that injuries and suspensions don't develop that vaguely troubling away trip to the Reebok into a nightmare fixture.

Also, IMO when Leeds won Division 1 (not the Premiership ;)) they had a good team, certainly better than 'top 10'. Strachan, Chapman, Batty, Speed, Lukic, McCallister, Dorigo, Cantona, Wallace etc - all decent players and problem some others I've forgotten. Remember at the time the English league had yet to hit the sky boom and was still suffering from the european exile, it wasn't riddled with quality and not that many foreigners were plying their trade here. Liverpool were on the slide following Dalglish's departure and MU were still on the rise; OK so Arsenal looked nearly invincible the year before (losing only 1 game) but I don't think there were more than half a dozen sides one could claim were better than Leeds on paper.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
12,926
hangtime thats exactly why I said i would take man utd's side in a game against the two, conclusion from that is i wouldnt take it over the season exactly for the reasons you pited out, but also I wouldnt write it off.

leeds had just come up from division 2.

Gilly may help me out here, but the players you mentioned were not renowned as they were the year after, going into div 1 they were no mor ethan a top 10 team.

cantona didnt harldy get a game for starters.

It was a team that performed above there station, for all the reasons i said before. sure some of them became superstars thereafter and mayeb they were underrated but the day they were promoted I dont think anyone expected them to win or even come close to winning Div 1.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,308
Location
Belfast
BaZ87 said:
You can argue that, but a club that is supposidly taking care of its finances would not pay £100k+ on a player that is 30 and definantly wouldn't give them 4 year deals.
Why not? Arsenal just did it for a soon-to-be 29 year old. If the club reckons they're worth it for the success and recognition they'll get for it, they might as well.

Sure, Chelsea are still being fairly reckless with their cash, but it is getting to the point now where it's slowing down somewhat, and I think somewhere they do have a grand overall plan for coming out of this all making a profit, because RA is still a businessman at heart, and therefore no mug when it comes to money. All the early spending and cash-throwing was basically Chelsea trying to "hot-shot" what would have usually taken many years of slow progress, or far too much luck: Going from being a mid-table team to dominant Prem winners, and a big CL team. Something only really ManU have managed any time recently.

BaZ87 said:
Spurs are not any bigger than Chelsea as a brand...
Aren't they? I thought Spud discussion in one of the other threads established that Spurs were actually the biggest and most supported team in all the universe, since the bginning of time. :p
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
95,522
Location
I'm back baby!
Memph, there was a season between Leeds being promoted and them winning the old 1st division the year before the Prem started. The mentioned players (Strachan, McAllister, Speed, Batty, etc) had all had a good season with Leeds already. We never really challenged for the title that season but we were certainly top 6 material, finishing 4th.
 
Don
Joined
9 Jun 2004
Posts
46,152
Weebull said:
Why not? Arsenal just did it for a soon-to-be 29 year old. If the club reckons they're worth it for the success and recognition they'll get for it, they might as well.
Huge difference between Henry and Ballack; firstly Henry is arguably the best player in the world and has been carrying Arsenal (ie is not replacable to them), where as Ballack is just a very good player (nowhere near as good as he was 2 years ago) and will be going to Chelsea almost as a "squad player". Then theres the age "soon-to-be 29" and 30 is 2 years difference, will Ballack still be a £100k a week player when he's 34? very unlikely, will Henry be a £100k a week player when he's 32? possibly. And finally Arsenal are only paying Henry £100k compared to 6 or 7 players at Chelsea.

Weebull said:
Sure, Chelsea are still being fairly reckless with their cash, but it is getting to the point now where it's slowing down somewhat, and I think somewhere they do have a grand overall plan for coming out of this all making a profit, because RA is still a businessman at heart, and therefore no mug when it comes to money. All the early spending and cash-throwing was basically Chelsea trying to "hot-shot" what would have usually taken many years of slow progress, or far too much luck: Going from being a mid-table team to dominant Prem winners, and a big CL team. Something only really ManU have managed any time recently.
You don't seem to know how RA made his fortune do you? RA gets £20+m a week in interest, there are not enough players in the World for him to buy that will make him lose sleep over the amount of cash he has left.
Although i believe the spending will slow, its not because Chelsea are looking after its finances, it will be because there is only so much improvements they can make. And i also find it amazingly hard to believe that Chelsea will become a profit making organisation within 3 years. There is no way they can earn enough money to cover there wage bill etc.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,308
Location
Belfast
BaZ87 said:
Then theres the age "soon-to-be 29" and 30 is 2 years difference
When "soon-to-be" means just 17 days, then I mean soon, so it's only one years difference. And if we're being nitpicky here, Ballack is 29 until September.
will Ballack still be a £100k a week player when he's 34? very unlikely, will Henry be a £100k a week player when he's 32? possibly.
Well thats' the point really isn't it. Chelsea obviously think he will be, so they're willing to pay him that much.
And finally Arsenal are only paying Henry £100k compared to 6 or 7 players at Chelsea.
But Arsenal have always been a club who have been notoriously tight with their finances. We've had a small stadium, and now have fairly lagre repayments to pay on the new one, so don't really have the spending power to pay big wages. But my point was that even we can push ourselves to pay large amounts when we think the player is worth it. Chelsea clearly think Ballack (have to say I thought you were talking about Shevchenko here) is worth it. Whether he's merely a squad player or not is nothing but empty debate until we've Chelsea have actually played a few games, because none of us are Jose Mourinho.
You don't seem to know how RA made his fortune do you?
No, I'll admit I don't, but I've known enough businessmen in my time to know that most of the succesful ones are anal to the point where any loss is unacceptable to them. ;)

And i also find it amazingly hard to believe that Chelsea will become a profit making organisation within 3 years. There is no way they can earn enough money to cover there wage bill etc.
I'm not neccesarily saying they will either. For all we know, a freak wind might make a tree fall on Mourinho's head tomorrow, he'll lose all ability to manage, and they'll drop out of the Premiership in a season, RA will leave, and their losses will spiral horribly. Or they might win every trophy they possibly can from now until eternity, and make more money than Bill Gates. But regardless of what I think will happen, I do believe that the Chelsea board, or Kenyon, or someone, has a plan to try and make the club work. If not least for that mythical day when RA "gets bored and leaves". Otherwise, why would they invest in a youth system instead of simply buying in proven talent, or cut the squad down instead of simply loaning out the likes of Crespo and Duff forever, until they needed them?

The thing is, I don't think Chelsea are simply aiming to be as big a club as say, Arsenal, or Spurs, in terms of worldwide support, because yeah, they're hardly that far off anyway. It's much more ManU at their peak level here, or Real Madrid and Barca, or AC Milan. The biggest of the big clubs, who are known the world over, even to non-footballing fans. That's the point when you can start making a shed-load of money from people the world over imo.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
12,926
Gilly said:
Memph, there was a season between Leeds being promoted and them winning the old 1st division the year before the Prem started. The mentioned players (Strachan, McAllister, Speed, Batty, etc) had all had a good season with Leeds already. We never really challenged for the title that season but we were certainly top 6 material, finishing 4th.


hmm I stand corrected for some reason I have been under the impression that leeds got promoted from div 2 and won the Div 1 title in there first season up.

you learn that you were wrong everyday :p
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Posts
3,312
Celestial Caravan said:
The only team to challenge in this coming season will be Liverpool. And in the season after it will be Liverpool and Arsenal.

Manu for relegation within 4 years. You read it here first :D

I agree! On a serious note, I doubt MANyoo will be relegated, but I can see a dip into upper mid table for a year or two. I recon Chelsea/Liverpool battleing, Arsenal/totenham/westham/newcastle (if they find a striker or two and a defender in the next 4 weeks) for the spoils.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jan 2003
Posts
11,515
Location
Newark, Notts
why will we dip into mid table? we've lost 1 important player from the side that finished 2nd last season, and added a player in a position we're short. People seem to think we're going to have a miserable season and i dont get why.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
95,522
Location
I'm back baby!
Oakesy2001uk said:
I agree! On a serious note, I doubt MANyoo will be relegated, but I can see a dip into upper mid table for a year or two. I recon Chelsea/Liverpool battleing, Arsenal/totenham/westham/newcastle (if they find a striker or two and a defender in the next 4 weeks) for the spoils.
West Ham? :/
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Nov 2002
Posts
18,961
Location
Over land and sea.
BaZ87 said:
Not convinced about that myself. If that were the case then they would have accepted bids of £6.5m and £7m from Liverpool and Spurs for Duff, rather than sell him to Newcastle for £5m
Duff didn't want to play for Liverpool or Spurs and I'm not sure they could force him to as such:)


The Chelsea 'brand' is growing well, that's a major part of becoming profit making:
Chelsea Football Club has been selected as one of the country’s top brands for the first time.
The vote was conducted by the Superbrands organisation, which is the industry’s leading independent panel of branding experts.
Chelsea FC are also the first football team to feature in the Superbrands book which selects the strongest brands from among their top 500 in the United Kingdom.
Chelsea was selected following our unprecedented success in the last two years with two Premiership titles, record sponsorship deals with adidas and Samsung, and a growth in fan base in the UK alone from 1m to 4m in just three years.
Amongst the other top brands featured are Microsoft, Mercedes and British Airways.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Posts
3,312
Gilly said:
You a West ham fan?

Liverpool Fan!

just reckon they could do well, is that a crime, someone always does a bit better than most think they should. with ashton, beanayoun reo coker, etherington and ferdinand they have some decent talent there, and they could surprise a few poeple, I might be wrong but just something I thaught of.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Posts
3,312
Gilly said:
No its not a crime. Where did I say it was a bad thing? I was just trying to work out why someone would think they'd do so well.

fair do's, To be fair 4th is a bit optomistic(not that I care where they come), I think if they doint have bad luck they could do alright!
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jan 2006
Posts
1,440
Location
Nottingham
liverpool will finish second, utd and arsenal vying for 3rd and fourth. spurs will struggle with consistency i think, and utd haven't strethened like they should. the key to who wins will be in the performance of other teams against the top teams. as with all strong teams over the years, many of the weaker teams they come up against are defeated before they get on the pitch and simply roll over. performance against title rivals is important ofc.

nin9a
 
Back
Top Bottom