Well. Roman never did anything to me personally and neither did the headhunters tbf, but those two are what most people would dislike Chelsea for and probably JT, but that's just my humble opinion and I could be wrong.
You're probably right. If JT didn't play for us then I probably wouldn't like him either. The bit with Roman puzzles me though. Nobody seems to mention him these days, as other clubs have rich owners.
Its probably because without his dosh Chelsea wouldn't have won what they have since he arrived, whereas others already had wealth they'd earned. Although i could be wrong, but even the mancs are trying their best to buy instant success at any cost despite their supporters slating Chelsea and City for doing the same.
There is no denying that Chelsea have more than their fair share of bone headed gobshites squeezing their beer bellies into ill fitting Ben Shermans. Just as any gathering of Spurs fans is rotten with wannabee Ray Winstones in knock-off Stone Island, and half of West Ham's notoriously leary support clearly failed the audition for the next **** British Gangster movie starring Danny Dier. It's all a bit embarrassing frankly.
What, and Liverpool haven't been spending obscene amounts to get instant success? And the only ones slating Chelsea on this thread are Liverpool fans. Can you not see the hypocrisy and irony in that comment
I think in general London clubs are a bit more like that than others tbh. When I was drinking in The Beehive in May prior to our game at WHL, there was a 40-50 year old Spurs fan who looked like he wanted to kill me Simply because when he told me Kane was the best young striker in Europe I said 'I agree, and for Englands sake I look forward to him realising his potential at United' He was actually foaming at the mouth though his mates took it in good spirit... seeing him after the game was even funnier I don't know what it is with the London clubs, but the majority of them do seem to have a more sizeable element (by %) than most others outside the capital. Saying that, the scummiest fans in our leagues are without a doubt Cardiff... certainly not a minority with them (compared to others). Horrible little ****s.
As for Liverpool I probably wouldn't mind them winning the league this year. I disliked Rodgers massively as he's an arrogant prick and a fraud... going on about their history and the fans lapped it up thinking he was the messiah. I can't help but like Klopp though, such a character and one of the top 5 in the world imo. Also like teams who play good football. I actually used to really like Liverpool as a kid growing up in the 90s. My old man doesn't support a team (strange right?), so watching on telly Robbie Fowler was my first idol... followed by Owen. It was only once I started attended live matches I truly fell in love with the mighty Saints In summary I don't mind if they win the league this year, provided we beat them in the League Cup final and Lallana has to watch Saint Jose lift the trophy at Wembley Plus, it's always good to see one of the smaller, unfancied clubs win the league
Now now trebs, the Fergie days are long gone, although Moysey wasnt given the keys to the OT safe LvG and Maureen were/are, don't pretend they both haven't paid way over the odds for players. Of course us, yourselves and Arsenal have paid lots of money for players, but the difference now with man u is they'll pay whatever it takes in fees, wages, managers wages to get instant success, so much so they've allowed Maureen to abandon their youth promotion policy.
I have to agree with this to be honest... I've always thought that it's harsh to compare Uniteds spending with City & Chelsea because they fairly earned it through a period of dominance. But since Fergie retired it is starting to seem like United are just another 'money club' now, rather than the way they were run that made them a bit different under Fergie.
So do you think that Liverpool fans would have complained if Roman had taken them over instead of us?
I think your question is a bit wonky tbf Blueman, its not within a supporters remit to choose who buys/owns their club, if Roman would have purchased our club he would have done a Chelsea and bought us success, but we were already a rich club anyway. So yes we no doubt would have accepted the success that(hypothetically) Roma's dosh would possibly have brought.
Come on mate, compared to 99.99% of English club owners Roman's Roubles rule, up until then we were richer than Chelsea.
No I don't think they would have but I'm not sure what your point is? You & City clearly wouldn't be where you are now without the massive cash injections you recieved. I don't think that's up for debate. I was just saying previously the difference with United was that they earnt their vast wealth through constant success - and great timing with the conception of PL and worldwide tv/interest I might add - and largely under Fergie saw off the challenge of Chelsea and City (while spending considerably less) through shrewdness and good planning. Though since Fergie retired they seem to me to be just another club who just chuck money at a problem (rather like Pool between end of Rafa & end of Brenda) without a real plan in place. I wasn't digging Chelsea at all so am suprised by your response... though I can if you want? I mean you're not historically a big club are you? Just Millwall who won the lottery
