Football - City Bid the Wrong Type of Sterling

[polishgenius]

7 hours ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Considering we still beat Tottenham at Wembley this season, despite our supposed meltdown, considering they still can't win at all at Wembley for love or money, and have dropped more points there this season than they did the whole of last at White Hart Lane, and considering we are above them in the league, the present is better at Chelsea and the future looks like more of the 'same old Tottenham'.

It's three games into the season. To be sure, they need to sort their Wembley thing out fast, but playing every week I can't imagine they won't, really.

Anyway, they're a well-managed, well-run club on the up and you're a criminal's plaything.

[baxus]

16 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Yes i get the point, you have racked up lots of victories/trophies since Premier league era/Roman came along, but you spent most of your history being a shitty little nothing club whose claim to fame was hooliganism. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Aaaah, you're one of them, think that football year zero was 92. 

To be fair, '92 was 25 years ago. Few people under 30 can remember pre-Premiership football.

[polishgenius]

Anyway, I have to say, given our post-Fergie transfer dealings until now, it was nice to see us get our business done early then chill while most of our league rivals and Liverpool did the embarrassing chaotic bit.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

20 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

As ever deadline day has a bunch of exaggerated hype that can't be fulfilled and ultimately leaves the fans unhappy almost everywhere.  Liverpool future-bought Keita, retained Coutinho, sold Sakho for close to their target fee, bought AOC with those proceeds plus a bit, loaned out Origi who fell below Solanke in the pecking order, and decided against any compromise candidate for CB.

Well, isn't the Spanish transfer window still open for a few hours? But yes, you probably retained Coutinho. Who will continue to quietly suffer as Liverpool's highest paid footballer.

[Consigliere]

UEFA has opened FFP investigation into PSG. Don't expect anything of note to result from this. At worst, I expect PSG to receive a hefty fine if found to be in breach. More likely is the investigation finds no wrongdoing. The PSG/QSI suits must have done their homework to avoid FFP sanctions and there will probably be some inflated sponsorship deals to boost PSG's revenue. UEFA could discount some of that but not all of it.

[Jordan La Cabra]

24 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Yes i get the point, you have racked up lots of victories/trophies since Premier league era/Roman came along, but you spent most of your history being a shitty little nothing club whose claim to fame was hooliganism. 

I'm not talking about off the pitch issues. I'm talking about success on the actual green grass, which is what the game is all about. That you've resorted to that says everything about Spurs inferiority to Chelsea. 'Oh, no! I can't out do this Chelsea fan with tales of trophies and great wins so I'll throw out the hooligan card!' Bore off. That was before my time, so it means nothing to me. Unless you were about getting kicked at Stamford Bridge by the Shed Boys in the 1960's, I doubt it means much to you, either.

Come back to me when Tottenham win a Champions League title. Or a Premier League title. Hell, an FA cup would do. Been so long since they've won one of those I imagine they forget what it feels like.

I'm saying this all without even being sure you are a Tottenham fan, as you haven't actually specified you are. I don't know you, but I hope for your sake that you aren't a Tottenham fan. Having 'putting pressure on Chelsea and Leicester' the past two seasons and finally, after two decades, finishing above Arsenal in the league as your club's highlights rather than winning trophies must get weary.

I hope you aren't a Spurs fan, and that you're just someone who hates Chelsea because you're jealous of their recent successes. Which leads me onto...

9 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

It's three games into the season. To be sure, they need to sort their Wembley thing out fast, but playing every week I can't imagine they won't, really.

Anyway, they're a well-managed, well-run club on the up and you're a criminal's plaything.

A 'well managed' and 'well run' club that has won three trophies since the beginning of the 1990's. If they are all that, what do you say of a team like Chelsea who have won 19 in that time?

I don't know why you, like your mate @BigFatCoward are so keen on bringing outside factors into this discussion. This is a football debate, not a debate about 1960's hopliganism or how Roman Abramovic made his billions, that has nothing to do with Spurs living in Chelsea's shadow. The fact these are what you are resorting to to attack Chelsea says you know we are winning in the game of football, which is what this thread is about, believe it or not. 

As for owners, you can say what you want about Abramovich outside of football, but he runs Chelsea well as a football club. The success we have had in his time at the club compared to the success Man City have had in their Sheikhs' time at the club says it all.

[Rorshach]

BigFatCoward suffers the terrible fate of being a Newcastle fan.

[Jordan La Cabra]

5 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

BigFatCoward suffers the terrible fate of being a Newcastle fan.

@BigFatCoward, I am so sorry I ever accused you of being a Tottenham fans. 'Howay the lads!' and all that...

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

As for owners, you can say what you want about Abramovich outside of football, but he runs Chelsea well as a football club. The success we have had in his time at the club compared to the success Man City have had in their Sheikhs' time at the club says it all.

So you see no connection between how Abramovich created the cash outside football, to pamper up Chelsea? In all honesty I am curious how that works. The Saudi (and Qatari) princess splashing out cash for their toy things is a similar story, but since no PSG or Citizen is around, I don't see how that is relevant.

As for your rant against BFC, I don't think he even supports Tottenham.

[BigFatCoward]

I'm a Newcastle fan. So I have no dog in this fight. Historically Spurs are a far far bigger club than Chelsea. Chelsea fans are almost universally dicks, used to be violent lunatics, now they are glory hunting and entitled. I've policed every ground in London and they are by far the most obnoxious, i'd rather work milwall, at least they are genuine football fans, not bandwagon jumpers. I just don't get how any club that idolized John Terry cannot be judged and found wanting.

That being said, you're new round here and the football thread is my favourite. We can always do with new blood so welcome. Even though I hate your stupid football team. 

[Mark Antony]

2 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

Haha, nice.

Oh, and just to add my tuppence worth to the Rooney thing: what an absolute weapon that man is. He earns 80 squillion pounds a second, why on earth doesn't he use a driving service?

Firmino did the same shit last season. Beyond dumb. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Ânyway, back to the actual related news and rumours.

Rumour on the street is, that Barca is considering a 60m € offer for Özil.

[Jordan La Cabra]

19 minutes ago, Notone said:

So you see no connection between how Abramovich created the cash outside football, to pamper up Chelsea? In all honesty I am curious how that works. The Saudi (and Qatari) princess splashing out cash for their toy things is a similar story, but since no PSG or Citizen is around, I don't see how that is relevant.

As for your rant against BFC, I don't think he even supports Tottenham.

To be honest, I know little of Mr. A other than what he does for Chelsea, so I'm in no position to go into it.

The comparison to Man City was that money hasn't exactly guaranteed them success as they've only won 5 trophies since they were bought over. It's not just as easy as 'here's money, go win things.'

19 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm a Newcastle fan. So I have no dog in this fight. Historically Spurs are a far far bigger club than Chelsea. Chelsea fans are almost universally dicks, used to be violent lunatics, now they are glory hunting and entitled. I've policed every ground in London and they are by far the most obnoxious, i'd rather work milwall, at least they are genuine football fans, not bandwagon jumpers. I just don't get how any club that idolized John Terry cannot be judged and found wanting.

That being said, you're new round here and the football thread is my favourite. We can always do with new blood so welcome. Even though I hate your stupid football team. 

I've never witnessed violence once at Stamford Bridge. I've been to Tottenham and Chelsea at Wembley and still witnessed no violence whatsoever, from either team. 

Chelsea have a reputation, true, and as you have policed at grounds, you've been witness to it, but does the work of Chelsea fans from decades ago mean you have to tar us all with the same brush? I don't think so. 

I have supported Chelsea since I was a boy and since they were poor and we won nothing. I've never been involved in any problems with other fans at matches, nor have any of my friends, so your prejudice against Chelsea fans and view of us all being 'universally dicks, used to be violent lunatics, now glory hunting and entitled' is totally wrong.

Trying to ask a fan not to idolise their most successful ever captain and one of the greatest defenders in English football history is just down right ludicrous. We have plenty of reasons to idolise him for what he has done on the pitch for the football club.

[polishgenius]

22 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I don't know why you, like your mate @BigFatCoward are so keen on bringing outside factors into this discussion. This is a football debate, not a debate about 1960's hopliganism or how Roman Abramovic made his billions, that has nothing to do with Spurs living in Chelsea's shadow. The fact these are what you are resorting to to attack Chelsea says you know we are winning in the game of football, which is what this thread is about, believe it or not.

When you claim that you're a bigger club than Spurs, then how you come by your success and where the money comes from certainly factors. If he ever gets bored or Putin kills him, you're fucked. Spurs might not have reached your highest heights yet, but they're climbing under their own power.

31 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

As for owners, you can say what you want about Abramovich outside of football, but he runs Chelsea well as a football club. The success we have had in his time at the club compared to the success Man City have had in their Sheikhs' time at the club says it all.

Well that just says City's owners aren't as good as splurging money all over everything as Roman is. But that is at least in part because they're at least trying to make City a self-sustaining entity whereas Abramovic isn't. And also because by the time they took over the effects of mega-money owners weren't quite as pronounced.

[Jordan La Cabra]

2 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

When you claim that you're a bigger club than Spurs, then how you come by your success and where the money comes from certainly factors. If he ever gets bored or Putin kills him, you're fucked. Spurs might not have reached your highest heights yet, but they're climbing under their own power.

Well that just says City's owners aren't as good as splurging money all over everything as Roman is. But that is at least in part because they're at least trying to make City a self-sustaining entity whereas Abramovic isn't. And also because by the time they took over the effects of mega-money owners weren't quite as pronounced.

I suppose you're hoping that that day comes, aren't you? I'm afraid Mr. A has been through quite a lot a Chelsea and hasn't packed it in yet. I think he actually cares about the club, so don't hold your breath.

Oh, are they not? Who just spent the most this transfer window? Who, in the last 3 years has spent more than £50m on 5 separate transfer? Oh, that was Man City.

You clearly haven't been paying attention this transfer window if you don't think Roman is trying to make Chelsea self sustaining. We are a selling club. We make money on sales and loan fees and that is how we fuel our transfers fund. If money doesn't come in, it doesn't go out and we miss out on players, as we have done to Man United, Man City and Spurs this window. Man City, on the other hand, spend as if it comes from a bottomless pit.

[Consigliere]

Looks to me like Abramovich has been working to make Chelsea self-sustaining, which they currently are and have been for a while. You only need to look at the spending over the last 5 years (2012/2013 - 2016/2017). Sure, Chelsea spent €601m but outgoing transfers totaled €438m giving Chelsea a net spend of €163m in that time. Abramovich is clearly no longer bankrolling the club the way he did in the first few years and hasn't been for some time.

[polishgenius]

 

Manchester City's turnover through last season: £393 mil. Chelsea's turnover through last season: £335 mil. So they've built their commercial base up better in less time. But more importantly: City's wages as percentage of revenue: 51%, fractionally over the 50% mark that's considered responsible housekeeping. Chelsea's wages as percentage of turnover: 67% (admittedly, the only clubs that actually manage below 50% are United and Spurs, but you're miles away and it should be easier for a big club to get in the limit and still compete).

You missed out on players this season because past mismanagement has left even Roman needing to square up the books. The very fact that you're needing to sell to buy isn't exactly proof of your point. City spend money that they have, more or less- you've spent years spending (or promising, in wages) money that you don't have and now you're paying for it.

 

ps: I'm not arguing that City are a paragon of a football club here. Just that arguing that you're a well-run club because you've won more than City is pretty laughable.

[baxus]

@JordanJH1993

Abramovich is one of the people who have and are still ruining Russia. They are the reason why Russian people are living the way they are, while their oligarchy lounges on their super yachts and stuff like that.

Arguing that Chelsea is a well run football club is one thing. Ignoring the fact their owner is a despicable human being is quite another. And so is their "most successful captain", while we're at it.

[ljkeane]

It's true Abramovich is almost certainly a criminal. City's owners are worse though to be fair.