Since 2005 Chelsea have won 10 trophies and ManU 9. So why do people say you need stability? (Trophies = CL Prem FA Cup League Cup) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/96...wner-Roman-Abramovichs-methods-They-work.html
You deluded twat lol Without a fluky CL win you're nowhere near in terms of class. You didn't even make top 4 last year and will be lucky to do so again now you have Liverpools cast off in charge. Just goes to show you can buy trophies but you still can't buy class. As a certain fat waiter said in 2007:
why do all man u fans think that their team have class? when they are milked by their owners and basically propped up by the FA these days
7 years is such a strange number to choose. Why not 5, or 10? Oh that's right because both of those show us miles better than you One fluky CL win and one PL and you've not won anything of note for 6 years.
For the amount of money Chelsea have spent in the last 7 years they should have won a lot more trophies.
Not really, we've been a thorn in each others sides. United and Chelsea have been different class over the past 10 years in comparison to others.
Yes but as he said, for the amount you've spent you should be miles ahead of Man Utd. If you'd kept Mourinho you probably would be.
and it's total bollocks, why should we? It's been proven time and time again it's not as simple as just spending money.
No way should we have been able to win as much as we have under the Glazers while Chelsea were spunking money like P Diddy on a bender. Obviously Fergie's brilliance had a lot to do with it but so did Chelsea's inconsistency. Do you not think Chelsea would have won more trophies if Mourinho had stayed and continued to have the financial backing some of his successors had?
Possibly, but they are merely what ifs. Like I said, United are the only exception to your point, we've been far better/more successful than the 18+ other teams. Agree with you regarding Fergie and our inconsistency though.
It's not as simple as just spending money but I doubt many people think its just a coincidence that Chelsea have had the most successful period in their history under Roman and now Manchester City are the current league champions. Pretending that spending copious amounts of money can't buy success is akin to pretending that Chelsea isn't Roman's real life fantasy football team.
Yep, we can argue who has been better all night long ( its United btw ) but what we can agree on is everyone else is a long way behind.
You'd need to ask the author of the article but I assume it's because that was the first year of RA's first appointed manager as opposed to an inherited one. So in essence the amount of time people say we've been 'short termist'.
