Chelsea never had this kind of spending power, never at this rate. But what I think is nice about the way the team is shaping up is not that they are all superstars, but that they are all young, hardworking players that are hungry. They have all either been where they cannot win, or were not able to contribute to their full potential and they all want to win more than they want to be the next ManU posterchild or the latest member of Galacticos. These are dark horses. Even the established Chelsea players like Terry and Lampard and Gud are all dark horses. They are all young, just starting to hit their prime. We will see, but I am really impressed at the composition of that team. I would like to see them upgrade their keeper though. I don't think Carlo is good enough to survive the Champs league.
Bah, they lack the truly great players necessary to win in a top league. Lots of good ones, but few great ones in comparison to Arsenal or Man Utd. I can't stand Chelsea or Real Madrid. If a club can make money and build a mega-squad, more power to them. If you have a billionaire or the government backing you... then it's nothing more than a vanity project. Come on Newcastle... beat the Chelski money machine with youngsters and Shearer. Come on Man Utd... one more for the Class of 92. Come on Arsenal (even, puke)... let the brilliance of Wenger conquer the mercenaries. Chelsea will be bankrupt and in the Unibond in 20 years. Abramovitch will not stay forever. But as long as he does, they'll dominate. Not this year, I think... but soon.
Are you kidding? ManU and Real and every other top team in Europe all stay on top by money. I think it is cool when I team that was going bankrupt is taken over by an individual looking to win. All of a sudden there is a new world power to shake things up a bit. I was getting so bored of the ManU Arsenal battle at the top. I think Liverpool will do great next year, and I would love to see Newcastle win it but I don't see it. I will tell you straight up I will be rooting for ManU because I played on one of their third string youth teams a long time ago but I love to see some shake up of the establishment. New rivalries will be born. It will be fun. I especially want to see them in the Champions league.
Ahhh... I'll admit Man Utd is my team. But you didn't really read my post. I don't care how much money a squad spends. I care whether or not its supported by actual profit, or by a billionaire (Chelsea) or government (Real Madrid). It's only fair (in a way) that teams like the Yankees, Braves, Man Utd, and co win more... because of good marketing and lots of fans. Teams like Chelsea (or Fulham or Real Madrid) sort of abuse the system in my mind, damned cheats. I don't think one man, like Abramovitch or Paul Allen, should make up for millions of fans. I was moderately fond of Chelsea before the takeover. I like Ranieri. Zola was a joy to watch. But this isn't going to be good for European soccer in the long-term (transfer funds at the top clubs are going to get screwy, and the mid-table talent in the EPL is going to be diluted further). The last thing that soccer needed was an arms race. I realize that the EPL could use some freshening up. But I'd much rather Newcastle and its youth policy would have been the challenger to the duopoly, rather than a bunch of mercenaries.
I completely disagree with you. The reason why ManU can raise so much profit is because it is a part of English history and tradition. People born anywhere near Old Trafford are born to live and die a red devil. Half of London sees red. Chelsea and Arsenal compete for the other half. There is no way that Chelsea would ever be able to draw in the crowds or sell the kits or TV deals to come any where near ManU's money. Then along comes Roman. Bam, no they can compete. I think that is cool. The free market. I thought it was cool when Huizenga came in and shook up baseball for a little while. It is fun to see the status quo overrun. If you want to talk about a team that spends without regard to chemistry it is Real. Why did they need Becks? Marketing could be the only reason. When you have five national team captains on your team you might be buying too many superstars.
You mean when he spent on a bunch of players, won a World Series - then in a hissy fit over not getting a new stadium traded them all off and just about killed baseball in South Florida? If Abramovitch were a fan, this wouldn't be such a big deal - but he doesn't seem to have any particular connection to Chelsea besides near total ownership. What happens when he gets bored?
So we disagree. No big deal - I see the other side. It will create an interesting power as long as he's there. But it's not really the "free market." The free market is a myth, as far as sports are concerned. To use free market analysis, you've got to look at it as a commodity with the ultimate goal being financial. A competitive product is merely the means to an end. This is more the case of Abramovitch being a kid playing CM4 on his pc, editing Chelsea to have 3,000,000,000 pounds, and taking it from there. PS - I see problems w/Real too... but not because of chemistry, but their lack of anything resembling defense. It was poor... and it got worse.
With Desailly, Terry, Bridges and Johnson in the back Chelsea now have one of the best back fours in the world.
Desailly - do you really think he's as good as he was 2-3 years ago? Johnson - he wasn't really a great defender last year, just the best West Ham had and excellent for his age. Bridge - He's a very good defender, but I'd hardly say he's proven any degree of greatness yet. Terry - could be great, but as of yet has merely been very good. You didn't mention Gallas, who is truly spectacular. They'll have the best or 2nd best defense in the league, though. Which I guess would make htem one of the best in the world after all . But then, it isn't that much better than last year.
Chelsea were smart to buy young talent, and especially smart to buy Bridges, Johnson, and Cole. These players won't leave Chelsea for a long time and develop a loyalty towards the club. Having said that, I don't think Chelsea will win the EPL or the Champions League this season. But I would say they'll dominate these competitions for years to come. I think they'll finish second in the EPL, and make the semi finals of the Champions League. If they get Makelele, I may change my stance. But with this team as of RIGHT NOW, those are my projections. As for best back four in the world, what about this: Maldini Nesta Simic Cafu P.S. Don't knock on the Fly Emirates!! That's my country you're talking about!
Sane: So you really think Joe Cole is that good? He looked like crap for West Ham for long portions of last year. I think he was a bit misused by Roeder, but he certainly looked like the lesser prospect compared to Defoe.
" L-I-V...E-R-P...Double-O-L, Liver...ah, forget it... No love for Liverpool, asks the man who knows next to nothing about Premier Football in the past few years...But when I was paying more attention, mayn talked about Liverpool as a team of the near future, with some great young players...what happened?
If that's in response to my question, I don't know enough about the subject to understand, and will need further explanation. If it's not, I'll be over here....
Ha ha ha ha!!!! Most of Manchester is blue. MU's fan base is London. Joke: How many Manchester United fans does it take to change a lightbulb? Two. One to change the bulb, and one to drive them up from Surrey.
I think you are mistaken. As a percentage of their whole fanbase yeah, but count them up and you will still have more people supporting United locally than City.
It was, but I dont think it is the reason. More so Liverpools fanbase always think "this is the year, and in a few years we will dominate" of their own team.
I think Joe Cole CAN be very good in the proper role, which is a wide midfielder. He has an uncanny ability to maintain control of the ball despite going full throttle (full speed). I think he can also be quite devastating if he plays exactly behind the 2 strikers. At the moment, he lacks big game experience, and it makes a big difference to train with Chelsea than to train with West Ham. Just being in a club that's so much more prestigious, so much more capable, with so many more world class players, he will improve his skills, and gain the big-game experience he needs to become consistent. Wasn't it Ronaldinho who couldn't pin down a spot on PSG, but was just recently bought for about $24M? It's all about what they CAN do on YOUR team, not what they've done in the past. It would be utterly useless to have Makelele, for example, on a crappy team. You wouldn't even notice his brilliant skills, and his value would diminish greatly. However, doing the dirty work for a superb team like Real Madrid, you see where his value lies. Real Madrid lost in the Champions league simply because no one could do Makelele's job adequately. If they sell him and decide to replace him with Helguera or (gulp) Beckham, Real will end the season with a huge dissapointment.
Unfortunately, I have to also admit that "this is the year" is the Liverpool slogan, lol. It just seems my luck leaves me with teams that always end up saying "this is the year.....(months later)... but we'll definitely win it next year, and dominate after that.." Liverpool Inter The only club that I truly support that wins consistently is the local club here, Al Ain. I support Real, but I'm no true fan, I only support them because I support Ronaldo and Roberto Carlos.
Dude I didn't know wtf you were talking about. I swear to God I thought after reading the first few posts I was reading about a Qidditch cartoon.
