OT - 10 years of Roman

Europa league doesn't count? Why? Because you couldn't win it?

 

Even though arsenal crippled themselves with the stadium and liverpool in a mess finacially?

 

What Roman brought to the game was a belief that hard work and effort were no longer needed. No longer will we see clubs build for the future and have long term plans. Its all about the her and now. Instant success at any cost.

Clubs have always spent but spending has been a calculated risk or the result of hard work and success. Thanks to Roman this i no longer the case.

Thats the sad thing.

 

Because in order for Chelsea to win it you had to fail.

Just dont consider it a major trophy.

 

See what your thinking but I don't see that arsenal or liverpool would have really challenged due to finances.

 

In 2003?

Arsenal went on to win the title unbeaten the following season. Had Roman not bought Chelsea its safe to assume Arsenal would of been far more successful.

Liverpool in 2003? Were they in debt? Thought that came later and was in part down to them trying to compete with Chelsea.

 

Surely though we had to make the final to win it. Agree that clubs who fail in th cl group stages shouldn't get a crack at europa. But if you get the chance then you take it imo.

 

See what you mean but arsenals problem occurred not long after. And liverpool spending to keep up with us: sn't really our fault.

 

Bless.

 

Suppose.

You only took it serious as everything else had gone tbh though. It gave a silver lining to a poor season.

 

Oh it's a trophy. And a trophy is good to win. But winning the EL does not compare to winning the PL or the CL in most people's opinions.

That's the point UIR is making - Utd and Chelsea have both won 11 major trophies since Abramovich has taken over. But Utd have five league titles over that period to Chelsea's three, therefore they have been more successful in terms of winning the big pots. Doesn't mean Chelsea haven't performed really well since Abramovich took over, Utd have just done better.

 

Fair shout. So which is bigger pl or cl?

 

Oh I think you took it seriously but you ran into a very good side.

 

PL.

The CL is a cup competition which can be decided on a refereeing decision or stroke of luck. The best team in the league always wins the title (unless it's Manchester United).

Of course a great achievement is to win both in the same season without having to sacrifice one for the other.

 

PL imo.

Everyone plays the same teams, home and away, over the long haul, and every game counts. The CL is the showpiece, and is generally more exciting, but depends a lot on performances on the day and the luck of the draw. If the better team loses on the day in the PL then they still have 37 other games to make it up. If they lose on the day in the CL it can be game over, even if it's down to the ref or just bad luck.

 

Go back to school please. The adults are talking.

 

It's the Chav Foreskindave!

 

I've always thought that. Surprising how many people think differently though.

 

Yet more drivel.

 

We looked like we didnt care one bit v Bilbao. One of the only times I have seen us put no effort in. the others were early pre season friendlies.

And the Pl is the bigger trophy. It the hardest to win of the lot and the only real way of finding out who is the best.