Spuds / Modric

Ask yourself this. If Spurs went out and signed four absolutely top drawer players all on £100,000 a week and you went on to win the league and Champions league would you be sitting there saying to yourself 'but we paid those wages to get there....not because we are there'? No of course you wouldn't you'd be crowing to all and sundry about what a top team Spurs are now. It's really clutching at straws for you to think a single Chelsea fan gives a flying f**k that we paid big wages and then went on to win titles. The FFP rules are a concern and I am interested to see what Roman has up his sleeve but that's beside the point.

Now imagine you you run a business and that you have a large competitor that you are desperate to overtake. You bump into the CEO of that company in a bar and you get chatting to to him and you are surprised on what low wages he's on, especially as he is responsible for the great success that company has had. You tell him that you will triple his wages, he takes over you business and you end up taking over your rival. Is that unethical? Or is that just good business sense? Do you think anyone would be saying 'They are only no1 now because they paid his wages, not the other one round'?

Unfortunately the way football is at present is that the top teams have the best players and they are on the highest wages. Anyone with half a brain can work that one out. Arsenal do buck the trend, but have still suffered 7 trophyless seasons because of that. Spurs finishing 4th on a third of the wage bill of Chelsea is commendable, but there's a big, big jump from scraping 4th place (and losing it again) and actually going on to win the league. The way things stand Spurs would have to increase their wage bill to win the league and Levy would have to decide between taking that big gamble or to carry on as things stand. It's obvious that he's decided on a business model and he's going to stick to it, but to come over all sanctimonious about it is just as bad as all the Gooners that claim that they prefer tippy tappy football to actually winning things.

 

Chelsea have bought their success off the back of a Russian Oilliargh.
That may not bother you, but it's just not an achievement.
There's no sport in it.
The fact that you're using business analogies says it all.

Arsenal don't buck the trend, either.
They have slightly punched above their weight, but still only slightly.
Their wage bill is over double that of Everton's, who are one of the only teams capable of breaking into the top four.

Chelsea winning the league with a bottomless pit of money just hasn't been something admirable.
I'm sure that you've enjoyed it and there's something to be said for that, but it's not a sporting achievement.
It's the equivalent of racing a stolen Ferrari against a family saloon.

Please do not use the word 'gangster' unless you have proof

 

Firstly money does not equal success. Successful teams do usually have money and there aren't any successful teams I can remember that didn't have money.

The fact you are resorting to that old tried and tested 'Russian Gangster' jibes proves you can't really articulate yourself very well, and no I don't really care what Roman does with his money. He got that money by taking advantage of some crazy selling off of national assets by Yeltsin, which was a quick way to bring in money to the government coffers, but long term was a terrible idea. If Richard Branson (I know you love a business analogy) came to you and said 'I am selling Virgin Atlantic for £1 million' you then sold your house and bought it. Does that make you a gangster? No of course it doesn't.

You need to wake up to the real world. Football is a business. It's not 22 blokes down a park on Sunday morning. You seem to be more than happy to bring up business figures when it suits your argument, but completely ignore anything that goes against you.

Everton capable of breaking into the top four? Have you seen them the last couple of seasons?

Arsenal don't buck a trend, but still punch above their weight? That's exactly the point I am making. Against the other top four their wage bill is lower.

I would love it if Chelsea did have a bottemless pit of money. It would be good to see Messi and Ronaldo in the same team....

If Chelsea sold their entire playing staff and instead used 22 starving African kids who played for food and lodgings who went on to win the league you would have something to find un-admirable about that. I can see the post now 'Chelsea exploit third world children for their own rotten gain'

 

Therefore, money equals success!
You did a full circle there!

I don't care what Abramovich does with his money, but you should care where it came from and it wasn't down to old crazy Boris selling national assets off on the cheap.
Just look at the people that he's associated with in his home country, for a start.
Look at the things that he's actually admitted to being involved in and the things that he's earned money from.

Everton broke into the top 4 in 04/05.
They've been mismanaged financially since and they're in danger of falling behind teams like Sunderland and Newcastle, if they're not careful, but they have a good manager and a decent fanbase.
A more astute chairman could see them challenge, again.

Arsenal marginally punch above their weight.
They generally perform a little better than their finances would suggest that they should, but they far outspend those outside the top 4, Liverpool excepted.

I'm not suggesting that Chelsea should scrape around and spend as little as is humanly possible, in the name of sport, but to succeed almost purely on finances doesn't involve a lot of skill or insight, does it?
There's no sport in it.

Real and Barca have cornered the financial market in Spain and they easily outperform everyone else there because of it.
Is there much to admire in that?
Not in my opinion.
There's a similar situation in Scotland, though the quality of the league isn't as good, obviously.

To return to your initial point though, compare the league table for the year that we have the most recent reliable figure for to the wages table.
There's very little difference.
http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine...age-totals-revealed-where-does-your-club-rank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–10_Premier_League#League_table

 

...and your family saloon is towing a caravan (der Vaart)

 

Therefore, money equals success!
You did a full circle there!

Not quite numb nuts. There are lots of teams that have spent big in the transfer market and not had any success. Look at the money that Newcastle have spent over the years and how much Man City have spent to achieve 3rd place in the league. The point I was making was that money does not equal success, in that if you have money it does not equate that you will definitely have success but you didn't quite understand that did you?

I am sure your understanding of all of the dealings within the Russian criminal community must be much better than mine. I have read quite a bit about Roman and from what I have read it's all just hearsay and there doesn't seem to be any hard evidence, but I am sure that won't get in your way. I am not for one minute saying he is squeaky clean, and he did get the oil company at fire sale prices, but do you really think that I lie awake at night worrying about the Russian people who lost out because of Yeltins negligence? It does seem to worry you though. Perhaps you could set up some sort of charity to help buy the oil companies back for the Russian people as it seems to really, really concern you so much.

Everton do indeed need a more astute chairman. One with more money. Perhaps Madoff could set up some sort of Ponzi scheme for them?

 

Newcastle overspent, but were only being competitive with the teams around them.
They stayed at a relatively high level, til the money ran out.
They didn't vastly outspend everyone around them with a new injection of cash, after overspending for a number of years, like Chelsea did.

City have spent a lot in a short period of time, but they didn't have the decade or so of spending that Chelsea did to build on.
They've basically been playing catch-up.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that you should suddenly develop a conscience.
Far be it for me to taint your success by reminding you of how it was financed.

Everton don't need someone to spend a lot of money on the club, they just need someone to do some better deals with regards to sponsorship and marketing.
Their deal with Chang is pitiful, for a start.
They should groundshare a new stadium with Liverpool, too.
They've both used Anfield as their home ground, anyway.

 

City have spent a lot in a short period of time, but they didn't have the decade or so of spending that Chelsea did to build on.
They've basically been playing catch-up.

City are playing catch up because Chelsea were already a top four club when Roman arrived. City were a long way off so have been spending big just to achieve a top four place.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that you should suddenly develop a conscience.
Far be it for me to taint your success by reminding you of how it was financed.

That's the whole point though isn't it? That's entirely what you are trying to do, to try and undermine Chelsea's success to taint everything that we achieved. It's amazing the causes people will align themselves if it means they can have a dig at another team. I don't suppose for one minute that you were keeping up to the minute on the ever changing political and economic changes in Russia in the late 90's where you? You where kept awake at night worrying about how Yelstin couldn't sustain his government and how unfair it was to sell of the utility companies at such low prices? Did you become a cause celebré for the Russian people? No of course not. If Roman hadn't come to Chelsea you wouldn't probably even remember anything about Russia in the late 90's. It's just shameless opportunism to try and knock a team that has done better then your own.

 

Man City are now more or less in the same position Chelsea were when RA took over. Of course one of the teams, who stopped them getting 4th last season were Chelsea, who went down the same route several years before.

 

I was typing a reply when this came through. Top response mate.

Fact is, if you want United to just win the league every year then that's your problem. If a Chelsea and City can come along every now and then and upset the status quo (like Blackburn and Newcastle in the 90's) then i'm all for it. At the end of the day, money or no money, it's 11 v 11 on the field not cash v cheques. That's the sport.

 

Cheers 100 years. It does get irritating have to deal with these people who seem hell bent on having a pop at other teams. I come on boards such as these to have a good old natter about my club and that's that. I have no interest in going on the Spurs boards or Liverpool boards or any other boards in order to slate their teams or fans. I do occasionally have a look to see what they make of certain topics but I just don't understand why people get so bitter they feel they need to have a pop. It's a shame as pleasenotpoll does seem to be brighter than your average WUM, but he still can't help himself having a go at us.

 

Price of success I guess. I suppose we can take joy from the fact we annoy them so much!! I wonder what their stance on Roman would have been if he had picked them........

 

Chelsea were in a better position that City because of the massive overspending that started at around the same time Matthew Harding (RIP) invested in the club, as I've already mentioned.
Had it not been for the intervention of Abramovich, then you'd have been bankrupt.
People often falsely associate the Russian's reign with the start of Chelsea splashing the cash, but it's simply not true.

My remarks about you developing a conscience were supposed to be blatantly sarcastic.
I apologise if it wasn't crystal clear.
The fact that neither Chelsea nor City fans appear to care what's funding their success is appalling, frankly.

11 v 11? Don't be so naive.
When the league table and wages table align so accurately, I'd suggest that it's more than a coincidence.
Having far greater resources is a clear advantage.

Are you going for the Ironic Quote of the Day Award or something?
You spend more time on the Spurs board than you do your own!

 

Their called Wum's give them short shrift

 

thats the thing.. he didnt pick the spuds and for good reasons clearly... we really do annoy them a lot... the fact is we are better than them and they dont get over it

 

Ahh the Irony....all this from someone that has been on the Chelsea board all day!

People associate Romans reign with spending that was unprecedented at the time. It's true that Ken Bates tried his best to run the club into the ground, but Roman paid off all our debts and with Jose took us to the next level.

You must be quite some guy to know what every Chelsea and Man City fans thinks about what's funding their success as you clearly speak for them all. So far all I have heard about Romans money is gossip and hearsay and he doesn't seem to have any convictions so until someone can come up with some clear evidence of wrong doing I don't think I'll be getting my 'Abramovic out' banner out just yet.

There will always be teams with more resources than others so you need to get over that. Man U are always going to have more resources than a team like Stoke for example and we don't have a draft system like they do in the states to give the smaller teams access to the best players.

You just need to accept that Chelsea are at present a much better side than Spurs. It's obviously hard for you to accept as you seem to be very bitter and your constant posting on here just shows that. Yes we have more resources than you. You can spend all day and night trying to think of any way to discredit these resources, but it's not going to change a single thing. Do you think Roman is going to read all this and think he had better sell up and move on? Of course not. Your pathetic bleating is like pissing into the wind and branding all Chelsea and Man City fans as all having zero conscience is breathtaking in it's narrow mindedness. If you are so obsessive about finances are you constantly on the Leeds, Southampton, Portsmouth and Plymouth boards as they were all really badly managed financially or do you just target the ones that win more than you do? Why would that be?

 

Class midfielder? Moutinho?

 

Agreed, but we have players in that role...Modric is a class player, almost Zola-esque given his size, zip and low center of gravity.

Also note:

Lampard, Ramires, Essien when fit, Malouda, McEachran and Luiz....different players to the above but all have something to offer.

 

I posted on this thread as a response to Chelsea - I've Supported Them For 10 Minutes trying to get an answer to his original question on a couple of articles on the Spurs board.

Did I claim to know what was in the hearts of Chelsea and City fans?
I can only go with what's been publicly shown and that's complete apathy, at best.

Despite having reservations about how Man Utd acquired some of their money and status (G14, part ownership by BSkyB) and some of their on- and off-field tactics, I don't begrudge them their success because it's been built upon previous success.
They have more resources than other clubs because they've been run well and grown over time.
They haven't had someone come in with dubiously acquired cash and outspend everyone else in the country, if not the world.

Chelsea are better than Spurs at the moment and I'm not trying to claim otherwise.
That hasn't been earned in any way though, so it's a completely hollow victory.

I don't go onto the boards of the teams that you've mentioned because they don't ask questions of Spurs fans on the Spurs board, which are totally off-topic for what's being discussed.
Perhaps you shouldn't make claims about my motivations until you have a clue what you're talking about?

 

I couldn't tell you what the Man City fans think about their club as I don't know any. You can't gauge what an entire fanbase thinks from the TV and message boards so I wouldn't come up with any sweeping statements as claiming that Man City fans are apathetic about the money coming into their club. That doesn't seem to bother you though.

Man United a well run club? They have the biggest club debt in the country and the club has been bought with borrowed money, not a single penny of it earned by the glazers. The fans clearly don't think the club is well run as the Glazers out campaign has shown us. You are still banging on about dubious money with out a shred of evidence. You seem to have double standards that you twist and turn to your bitter arguments.

Our victories are hollow to a bitter Spurs fan like you. Pathetic really, but I have loved every time those trophies are lifted and our name will go down in the history books whether you like it not. Get over it.

Your motivations are simple. You may try and wriggle out of them. You want to belittle our success. That's it in a nutshell. Moan and groan all you like, it won't change a single thing along with your bitterness.