Colonel Kurtz
New Member
What was that you said about guarantee fourth place rafa?
The footy !!
- Thread starter weloveliam@space
- Start date
No Hope!!!!!
Get your x-mas expenses from the even money on offer about Chelsea to be leading at the end of both halfs.
Once off never to be repeated offer
madwhitegiant
New Member
No Hope!!!!!
Get your x-mas expenses from the even money on offer about Chelsea to be leading at the end of both halfs.
Once off never to be repeated offer
Oh dear.
I see good old JT at again. Claiming to be some kind of Robin Hood now.
Time this man was stripped of the England captaincy. We can't be represnted by this vile man. Thought of him lifting the WC in the summer (not that we will) makes my stomach turn.
Morbyd
Moderator
Mountain out of a mole hill, mate.
The things that people get riled up about in the UK make me laugh.
And here's a case where his accusers admit the money was going to charity!
He's no less worthy to lift the cup than any of your other players (except maybe Super Frank). And he's still your best defender and best leader on the pitch.
Too bad you'll be knocked out by the USA
Buckley
Well-Known Member
Yeah indeed. And I'm sure, the same as any big business, the owners don't care that people are abhorred that they couldn't treat the bloke with a modicum of respect that would have cost them nothing.
I quite liked the whole idea of City shaking up the status quo. Now, if only so that the owners don't get what they want, I hope it all goes hideously wrong.
the owners were always going to put their own man in, just a matter of when not if. I liked hughes and wanted him to get more time, but I cant dwell on it now, whats done is done, lets see what mr mancini can do now, as for everyone now turning against city, weren't they anyway??
Buckley
Well-Known Member
the owners were always going to put their own man in, just a matter of when not if. I liked hughes and wanted him to get more time, but I cant dwell on it now, whats done is done, lets see what mr mancini can do now, as for everyone now turning against city, weren't they anyway??
Not in my circle of friends. Despite being a little anti-Ade because of Arsenal leanings, most people I know fancied anyone who might outspend Chelsea. But now even Chelsea look classier than City*. That seemed unthinkable before this.
*Sorry Morbs obviously.
Morbyd
Moderator
Ya, but for the last 3-4 years, that has included Liverpool, Spurs, Man U and only lately Man City!
Buckley
Well-Known Member
The perception among the masses, correct or otherwise, is that Chelsea lacked history and buying success was crass.
City are the only team percieved to have a similar 'unfair' advantage and as any normal Londoner hates Ashley Cole much much more than Adebayor (and trust me, he's a proper pariah!) the equation was simple. Hughes' treatment has definitely changed that.
I do get that the perception is probably skewed, but it is definitely how folk are thinking.
but it's not though is it.
sorry to labour the whole 'net spend' point but you just can't include liverpool (and some others in that).
the simple point being that (in 5 years say) if you've spent 400 million and had to sell 300 million, it's a falsehood to say that it's outspending a club that spends 300 million and only had to sell 100 millions worth.
man utd's case would be a little different as the ronaldo sale skews matters.
what he said. the other point being that for united, liverpool, arsenal.........footballing success created our wealth (including current valuations based on old successes), rather than wealth itself creating football success.
Morbyd
Moderator
Perhaps, grego, but it's deeper than the gross or net numbers.
Chelsea paid over-the-odds for most of the players it brought in during those couple of free-spending years. It was a combination of "hey let's fleece the rich guy" on the sell side (which Man City is seeing now) and poor management on the club's part. There was no way that, when moving players on, the club would recoup money the way Liverpool has.
But in terms of number of players brought in and gross spending, Chelsea's fallen behind the clubs I mentioned above (and a couple others). Other clubs have had a higher turnover of players while Chelsea has stuck with much the same squad for a few seasons now.
Surely, in 2003-2005, Chelsea's wealth created football success. It was no secret that the club wanted to play catch-up. But it's been the other way around for the past 3-4 years, with success breeding wealth.
The one area where Chelsea's monetary muscle has been flexed in that time period is the wage bill, which is still much higher than it should be. That, and stupid pay-offs for ex-managers, are the only reasons the club isn't making money.
Chelsea paid over-the-odds for most of the players it brought in during those couple of free-spending years. It was a combination of "hey let's fleece the rich guy" on the sell side (which Man City is seeing now) and poor management on the club's part. There was no way that, when moving players on, the club would recoup money the way Liverpool has.
But in terms of number of players brought in and gross spending, Chelsea's fallen behind the clubs I mentioned above (and a couple others). Other clubs have had a higher turnover of players while Chelsea has stuck with much the same squad for a few seasons now.
Surely, in 2003-2005, Chelsea's wealth created football success. It was no secret that the club wanted to play catch-up. But it's been the other way around for the past 3-4 years, with success breeding wealth.
The one area where Chelsea's monetary muscle has been flexed in that time period is the wage bill, which is still much higher than it should be. That, and stupid pay-offs for ex-managers, are the only reasons the club isn't making money.
Yes to make matters worse I went back in again at half time and backed Chelsea at 6/4 to win the game a goal down.
Ouch...
dont you worry about Mark Hughes Buckers, something tells me they will still be having xmas in his house!!
madwhitegiant
New Member
Mountain out of a mole hill, mate.
The things that people get riled up about in the UK make me laugh.
And here's a case where his accusers admit the money was going to charity!
He's no less worthy to lift the cup than any of your other players (except maybe Super Frank). And he's still your best defender and best leader on the pitch.
Too bad you'll be knocked out by the USA
Morbs if you believe the money is going to charity then there is no need for the big cover up invloving Mr Terry and no need for a well known ticket tout to be involved.
The captain of England should be looked up to not disgusted by his and his family antics. For all brand Beckham's faults you never saw his parents shoplifting and drug dealing. Go back to the sneaky way Terry spat at Tevez in champs league final, the man is just a coward.
Granted he is one of the best defenders but that is not saying much. Woodgate and King would be ahead if they were fit but more chance of me getting fit to get a game. Ferdinand is also having too many injuries and lapses of concentration. Terry is still not worthy of the captaincy.
I think the good old U S of A have a very good chance beating England. We are very slow in the group stages to get started so every opportunity and besides we are very over-rated and believing our own hype, again!!!
Also another little fella trying to slip under my radar is Mr Bungpuss himself Redknapp! Shirley they must get him this time! They clearly want this man badly. The dodgy contract at Pompey where he gets 10% of all players sold! Then guess what? He goes back and buys them for Spurs! Reptile!
As for the Hammers. The sooner they are sold to the smut peddler the better. Can be any worse than the current set up. Still if we go down clear out a few of the dead wood fans who no doubt though will want tickets to any play off finals at Wembley but won't fancy Barnsley away. Pr1cks.
Merry xmas to you all.