Now now. Let's all get along. We're all pals really even if some of our vocabularies don't stretch beyond four letters too often.
perhaps! he also mentioned Shevchenko, but anyone who does this against the Spuds is worth much more than their transfer fee if you ask me [video=youtube;NpfpMAs7v9g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpfpMAs7v9g[/video]
The thing is, that CFC can throw £25m at a player like Essien, who was good for a couple of seasons and very average after that, and make it look like it was money well spent, when, in fact, the player was worth no more than half that. Spurs simply do not have that kind of money to waste on "good" players. Scrabbling around in the £2m to £8m market (which is where most of those players Ozzie listed were found), we are bound to make more mistakes, because the quality is going to be far more variable. I really don't see what any of this proves, other than that CFC makes more expensive cock-ups that THFC, but does it less often because they can throw money at a problem. But we already knew that. HIAG's Verdict = failed wum thread.
what are you talking about ? You appear to have been very offended by this thread. Essien was arguably the best DM in the world and most certainly the league during his first few seasons with us. Injury thwarted his progress and ability unfortunately, he didn't flop. It's also not about money spent, the list of Chelsea buys you have presented were all world class players at some point and therefore you take a gamble with that, where as with Spurs it's about how many times you throw **** at a wall to see if it sticks, and ultimately that didn't happen with all names mentioned
Our Verdict on your banned worthless opinion = Useless pathetic idiot please log in to view this image
While you're crying here's another awful goal by the Chelsea flop! [video=youtube_share;M_Jzzaw8NPU]http://youtu.be/M_Jzzaw8NPU[/video]
You know all about failed wum threads, you're the chief architect of them. They should come with a TM trademark like your North London Power shift And spurs know all about wasting good money on players. Rebrov, Bent, Bentley were all double figures in the millions, so you can't try and wriggle out of it by saying they were all in the £2m to £8m range. Like I said, Spurs have spent fractionally less than Man Utd in transfers since the PL begun and £156m more than Arsenal ! and achieved basically **** all, whilst we have won the double, the FA cup, got to the Champions League final and finished in the top 4 every season since Wenger took charge. Making a failed wum comment about Essien, isn't going to hide the fact that Spurs are the mugs of the transfer market.
Not good, Oz, not good at all. I went to tarmac the Terry family home and they hate the colour. The bastard's trying to pay me with a behind the scenes Chelsea tour too.
Didn't we make a profit on Bent? Also, I wouldn't agree that he was kak. He was a good, natural goal-scorer, it was merely that he never seemed to be able to fit into our system.
No, not at all, Drogs. Quite the reverse, in fact. I love wum threads, even the failures. It shows that someone out there cares enough to have a pop.
Typical yid, its not all about the money, Football owners don't run football clubs to make money they do it for love, well not your club who are in it only for the money. Talking of Bent didn't you say you was a Marmite driller?
Oh yeah, Abramovich absolutely loves Chelsea, Glazer loves United, Fernandes and Mittal can't get enough of QPR. Of course it's about money or, in the case of some nowadays, status or even security.
No you didn't make a profit on him, neither did you with Rebrov, Bentley or many other of the duds you got flogged. Also the bit that you glossed over in my comment was that Spurs have spent £156m more than Arsenal on transfers since the PL began - and we have comfortably made you look like Cannon fodder in that period
He may not have done when buying the club but he certainly has an attachment with the club now. People have told me countless times he only bought Chelsea to raise his profile because of his apparent criminal past, so that disagrees with your suggestion he bought us as a cash cow. His spending since owning us also suggests this.
I don't think it's a cash cow at all. Presumably he's lost hundreds of millions. It's security in his case, in my opinion. Far less chance of Putin 'getting' him when he's so recognisably attached to a business like Chelsea. Saying that, I don't doubt he grew to care, particularly in the first few years.
