On the basis that the OP wasn't a total wind-up and in an effort to possibly return to a discussion/debate (shoot me down if that is not what is required), then a couple of points: - on Chelsea's spend vs United. Although a reasonable cup-team and consistent league results, for anyone to really (and over the long-term) come in and challenge with the power of United, Chelsea had to spend big over a continued number of years (like City are doing). Initially, there is a significant amount of wasted £'s, as money is thrown around in an attempt to buy anything that looks like it will improve the club/team. Over time, the purchases become more selective and, hopefully, more fruitful. - on the impact of Fergie leaving. Sir Alex has been a massive influence for Utd over the last 1/4 of a century and has had a significant impact on the end-result each and every season. Yes, it is the players that kick the ball, but his ability to bring players in, sell-on those that may end up having a longer-term negative impact on the team at the right time (Beckham, Staam, Ronaldo etc.) for good money will be missed by your lot. Yes, he will still be involved in club matters, but your new manager will want to control that. The impact of him not being the manager can only be negative (no matter how little) - new manager Moyes. To be honest, I think Moyes has consistently achieved very solid results at Everton, a team where the total has appeared to exceed the sum of its parts. I don't think (in the long term) that he will be a disappointment for you. Can he match it instantly and will he immediately be as effective as Fergie - surely not - Jose to Chelsea. Immediate/short term result (I guess) will be the owner giving him some cash to spend where he thinks we need strengthening. The fans will be happy to see him back and he will bring some joy to the media (I'm sure). End result - positive on where we are now. Net result, slight negative for Utd, slight positive for Chelsea - should make the 2013/14 season bloody interesting and tight. Long-term, is Jose the man to "do a Fergie for Chelsea"? I don't know. It would be nice, but I can see him leaving in 4 years to take on the role of Portugal Manager
That argument may hold for City, but not so much for Chelsea. When Abramovich took over you weren't all that far behind us, and you shot past us in both the league and Europe in his first season, when Ranieri spent £150m plus, and when Mourinho spent another £170m in his first two seasons we could barely see you for dust. Since then you've not had to spend to catch up, but rather have spent relatively poorly, and wasted a whole lot of money or marquee players trying to chase the CL rather than actually building a strong and balanced squad that can challenge for the league on a regular basis. Part of that is that chopping and changing your manager so much tends to make a cup squad rather than a league squad, as seen by the fact that since Mourinho left you've won one league title and five cups, whereas Utd have four league titles and three cups. But part of it is that your owner seems to have way too much power over what players are bought and sold, and that's something which you will need to address if Mourinho's going to have the impact of his first two seasons in charge. As for the rest of your post, you will probably be right, but I don't think you can be as certain about all the impacts. I'm sure plenty of Liverpool fans expected the impact of Shankly not being the manager to be negative, Paisley to be less effective than Shankly, and expected the return of Dalglish to be a big positive for them. There are no certainties in football, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
The funniest thing is.... chelsea outspent us 1992-2003 and 2003-present. yet they tell us we bought the league.... They must of bought an average of 6th place while we scraped the change to get 8 titles before 2003
Swarbs - consistency of Manager is paramount. With the chopping & changing (which Roman would argue has won us the trophies), each new manager probably knows that the sack maybe just a few losses away. I guess that means they want to go out and buy "guaranteed" match winners / marque players, rather than invest time and energy working through the club with the youth etc. The problem then is self-perpetuating. There is a perceived need to "buy" for each new manager, who will spend away, quite literally filling his boots, rather than risking the long-term growth of the club. If, and it's a big if, a manager is given a proper run at it, that desperation should start to dissipate. I don't disagree that the Holy Grail of the Champions League had a significant impact on what/who was bought. On the whole impact situation, you are right, whose to know what effect it will have - let's face it, if every game was played on paper we'd have won a fortune at the bookies by now. The significance of those changes won't be know for sometime now. I just have a feeling things may well level up next season. UiR - don't think all Chelsea fans are of the opinion that Man U have bought the league. I also think the spend in a particular season or on one player is a little bit of a red herring. It is a culmination of player spend / salaries / investment in the youth set-up (£'s & time) / management etc. etc. In reality, although there are exceptions to the rule, payback is rarely instant. Investment (or re-investment of profits) will always be required, particularly in today's game..../.....business! Many of Jose's great players in the first EPL win, were in place or put in by Ranieri (like Gronkjaer, Lampard, Gallas, Robben, Duff, Cole, Glen Johnson, Makelele, Cech, Drogba {I think I'm right on those, but might have messed up a little). Although some of those never played under the Tinkerman, they were purchased on his watch. Sure, he also bought some stinkers, but that core of players wasn't too dusty! Jose continued what had been started.
I think you have it right crocarno - changing manager may eventually win you a few trophies, if the players respond and the manager gets the breaks, but rarely gives you the consistency to do well in the league. In fact, if you look at Chelsea since Mourinho left, every sudden managerial appointment has arguably taken you backwards in the league. Grant did ok, but hardly outstanding, Scolari took you backwards, Hiddink didn't really shine in the league considering you had the toughest fixtures out of the way when he arrived, AVB took you backwards, RDM further so, and so did Benitez. Ancelotti was the only new manager to do anything for your league position in the short term. Even the trophies weren't necessarily down to the manager - the CL was almost certainly down to RDM, but would Ancelotti or AVB not have managed the FA Cup in 2012? And RDM or AVB managed the Europa in 2013? Like you say, it's a big if that a manager will get a proper run at the Chelsea job, particularly with Abramovich's history of of sacking at the first major wobble. Mourinho has as good a chance as anyone next season, but even if he lasts four or five years his successor will still feel the axe above his neck right from day one, and that won't be great for the league. As for the whole buying the league thing, I honestly don't get why so many Chelsea fans (you can guess the ones I'm talking about!) seem determined to compare their financial spending to Utd's. Making up all this BS about some magical £200m investment Utd got at some unspecified time just looks embarrassing. As, imo, is the claim that it took all the hundreds of millions invested just to compete with Utd's mythical financial superiority. Ultimately we have always been competitive financially, but never dominant in the way that Chelsea or City have been, other than when we've been flush with prize money after very successful seasons. And Arsenal were able to break our 'monopoly' without massive financial investment - like you say they invested wisely and waited to reap the rewards, combined with some excellent management. Seems that some Chelsea fans (again, you can probably guess who ) seem to feel they have to justify their own spending as some sort of equaliser, rather than admitting that Chelsea have had a massive financial advantage over pretty much everyone in the league barring City recently, and that the majority of that money has been squandered on bad buys and poor management, which is the ultimate reason Chelsea have underperformed since Mourinho left.
Banned from the Chelsea board hahaha. District Line doesnt like being made to look a fool. Dont ever ban the **** from here though, we need someone to laugh at
I think most people who've ever intimated that Chelsea aren't the perfect football club are banned from the Chelsea board. For someone who considers himself to be an ace WUM he's got absolutely no tolerance for anyone either taking the piss out of him or disagreeing with him. Although to be fair he's clearly a bit of a simpleton. I suspect he includes his Not606 Mod status on his CV.
Hes one of the most clueless people I have ever come across. Everything he says is wrong yet he thinks its gospel. Ive re educated most Chelsea fans ion their spending pre roman and after and it doesnt make pretty reading. Two of them ****ed off swiftly after making the lazy remark of how we bought the title as per usual. Its ok though, should I need to laugh at someone I just need to check the Arsenal or Spurs boards where you can find District Line spouting his usual ill informed anti United bullshit that when questioned simply doesnt add up. He's too scared to come on here as he gets eaten alive, h makes a rare appearance now and again mind.
Chelsea board opinion - Man Utd bought the PL UIR fact of the week - Chelsea outspent United during 6 PL title winning seasons before Roman abramovich bought the club. Seems some have been educated whether they like it or not.
