Football is a lottery mate. You seem to be doing what Liverpool fans do, and exult their club above others because of how you feel about them. You are going to be sorely mistaken if you think that anyone will give a ****. I have only carried on this discussion a) Because I have a modicum of respect for you b) Half my family are Arsenal fans c) I am bored
Wait a minute... You're actually going to try and claim that "Chelsea's success since Roman took over is arbitrary" is a fact and not an opinion? Simple answer please... Yes or no.
I'm not 'exulting' my club at all, I'm simply saying that Chelsea wouldn't have won the titles they did without Roman's juice. You've already agreed with that. Modicum returned
Thats like saying, "Well Sir Alex Ferguson could have moved to Aston Villa or Leeds instead of Man United, the fact that it was man United that eventually got him instead, makes their success arbitrary". Even if you spend a **** ton of money, doesnt guarantee success, you still have to get it right. Look at Madrid's galacticos, or the current United team. Money poured in by the **** ton, and nothing to show for it.
This arbitrary crap is something I have found, mainly from Arsenal, Spurs and QPR fans. Its basically because another London club has jumped into the limelight. Man United fans don't spout this bullshit, neither do Liverpool fans, nor would City fans (if they had any, and if they did it would be a tad hypocritical). It's a way of soothing the bitterness caused by the perceived injustice of Chelsea being more successful in the last ten years, than Arsenal, or indeed everyone (except United). It's a defense mechanism. Just realize that sometime **** happens. God isn't watching over Arsenal making them play better.
The situations aren't comparable, Fergie needed the platform of a big club like Utd to enable him to build title winning teams. He also brought through a generation of young home grown stars. (Although he still spent big at times) But Utd were in a position where they could spend that money, due to their previous successes and status as a big club that attracted the best players. Chelsea were going nowhere fast (although I did have a lot of respect for Vialli and the Italian contingent), your success was driven by the massive cash injection, to an obscene amount, which basically bought you titles.
No, it's because your success was arbitrary. As mentioned, if Roman had decided to sink his rubles into Spurs, then it would have been them who'd had that success.
You talk such ****. Chelsea were going nowhere fast We were already in the Champions League. According to your board that's the pinnacle of success. Thats like saying Arsenal now are going nowhere fast. You finish top 4 and win the odd trophy. Thats exactly what we did when Roman arrived.
Why do you keep saying that? Interjecting a discussion every other sentence with some random bullshit. You wouldn't have won the title 12 years ago if not for Arsene Wenger. Guess it's arbitrary all around then.
On the contrary. Arsenal were in the doldrums under Rioch, Wenger brilliantly steered our club to a double in his first full season all whilst spending within our means, and unearthing unheard of gems like Vieira, Henry, Ljungberg, Pires, Anelka etc, buying them for a pittance and turning them into world class stars. It's the complete antithesis of the approach that Chelsea took.
Ah so it's the amounts that make all the difference, cos Wenger bought them cheaply, it's not arbitrary....I see dividend. So I take it any goals Sanchez scores for you from now on will be arbitrary, since he cost a lot of money, money awarded to Arsenal by Sky and merchandise sales, since only prize money from winning cups counts.
You've missed the point, but I think you're being obtuse on purpose. It's not about Sanchez costing a lot of money, it's about the way in which a multi-billionaire decided to juice Chelsea instead of Spurs that makes your success arbitrary.
You are not getting the point. I dont equate Sky giving you money because they charge a ****load for their subscriptions as "earning" your money. Same with the Champions League. Given to you by Sky, given to you by Roman....... Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
I admit that the landscape has changed again in terms of finance from the big TV money, but that doesn't somehow sweep under the carpet the massive artificial leg up Chelsea got from Roman's rubles.
It doesn't. Doesn't make it arbitrary either I mean, if you won the CL, Bayern Munich fans could claim it was arbitrary because of how juiced PL teams are by TV money compared to other leagues. Would you see it that way?
You're missing the point. Specifically Chelsea's success was arbitrary in the way that Roman could simply have chosen to bestow it on the Spuds instead. There was absolutely no indication whatsoever that Chelsea would have been able to win a title otherwise until Roman came along.
The fact that Roman abramovich was thinking about investing his money into Spurs and a number of other clubs, means that it's arbitrary that Chelsea eventually ended up being the beneficiaries.
