They went to Chelsea A) Because we were playing in the Champions League - The highest level of club football B) Because we offer high wages C) Because of where we are located D) Because it is a Big Club that is dormant and is improving E) Because they can make a name for themselves whereas at places like AC Milan, Barca and Real they wouldn't. The reason why Modric wants to leave Spurs is primarily because you don't offer A) and B) which are the top 2 things players look for. Not every player plays just for the money. I don't believe for a second that any player in his prime would go to the MLS ans double his wages, instead of staying at a top European club where he can play CL football and win accoldades such as the Ballon D'or. Spurs don't operate on a profit so I don't believe what you are saying for a second.
Rubbish. Arsenal's wage bill is huge and about the 4th highest. What the media don't tell you is that whilst Arsenal don't spend as much in terms of transfer fees as the likes of Chelsea and City they have ALWAYS had players on huge wages.
I'm well aware of that DL, but their revenue is extremely high, too. Taken from Companies House figures: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/55741334 Arsenal turnover minus property income: £226m Arsenal wage bill: £110m Compare that with Chelsea's revenue of £213m and their wage bill of £174m.
Man Utd used to make a decent profit, until The Glazers came along. It is the most extreme examples of clubs using non-revenue generated money, like Citeh, and Chelsea, that make a nonsense of the whole thing. If it's just going to become a "pissing contest", nobody can compete with Citeh - not even The Chavs. Citeh have amply demonstrated that if you have enough money to operate a "**** against the wall" policy, it's only a matter of time before you buy whatever success you want.
yep. What do you think players like RVP, Fabregas, Nasri, Sagna and Henry, Vieria, Campbell in the past would have been there for the fun of it? don't think so. Problem is they don't spend decent money on transfer fees, meaning the wages they are paying is going to be less than there competiors i.e. Chelsea's, Man U's, Man city's now.
Our wage bill will come down significantly when Drogba, JT and Lampard and some of the old guard leave. I'm not saying we are a perfectly run club, but we'll get as close as possible.
Who's tapped who up? Can you provide even a shred of evidence to come out with such a libelous statement? It was Levy that came out and said THFC had rejected the bid not us. Everyone knows Spurs have the media in their back pocket due to various links. Have you seen one Chelsea affiliate come out and publically even talk about a bid for Modric? Compare that to how many times Levy, 'Arry and even the Bootboy have had to say on it. Modric is unsettled because he doesn't want to be at a club that doesn't match his ambition. Why on earth would Modric want to stay at Spurs when he has the opportunity to play for a bigger club at a higher level of football AND earn twice as much whilst doing so. Even 'Arry realises this. Fact is any player in their right mind would want to move.
You seem to have a "poultry" (paltry) recollection of the whole thing! Zola alone was 4.5 million... http://www.chelsea-mad.co.uk/news/tmnw/zola_signs_new_chelsea_contract_9623/index.shtml
I don't like the picture at the top of the page, it looks like a sex offender peering over a fence...oh wait!
District Line: Seen a fair bit of your stuff and it's usually balanced and pretty well informed... but this? Are you sure? Liverpool were a great club between the mid 60s and mid to late 80s. They were many people's second team (including mine in many ways). As I recall, their success was largely built and maintained on home grown cohesion at all levels. Whilst managers and players came from within as if on a unique production line, their youth development did also include young and hungries from elsewhere... BUT relatively cheaply (e.g. Keegan from Scunthorpe if memory serves). There was of course the occasional top dollar marquee signing (Dalglish, Barnes etc.) to enhance strength and appeal. Apologies for going off topic but as I said, you're pretty well informed so it's worth putting a case!
Getting back to the original question, 'do you prefer having more or less London teams in the PL?', I'm surprised no one has pointed out the inevitable if not invariable London 5 factor. Like or not we (London) have, in the last 50 or more years, rarely had more or less than 5 teams in the top tier. Normally that's been Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, West Ham, and one of: Fulham, QPR, Charlton, Watford, Palace, Millwall or Wimbledon. [No idea whether Brentford, Orient, Barnet or anyone else has ever featured. Would have been more than 50 years ago if they did.] This year's a bit different in that West Ham have sunk (again) and Fulham and Rangers complete the London 5. Only Tottenham and Arsenal have managed to maintain top tier status in the last 50 years. To think that of 32 (active) London boroughs, that just one of them (as someone said earlier), Hammersmith & Fulham, a compact inner-London borough, will this year accommodate 3 football clubs in what is pretty much the world's premier league, is both phenomenal and beyond compare. And here's the rub: little wonder then that for both reasons of limited space and local population, that regardless of success QPR has to remain a relatively small club!
My post was a little myopic there, Liverpool did have some great players coming through their system but they did also prize away many of the top players at lower clubs.
Take your head and your rear end for a moment and just wake up and smell the coffee. The only club that has come out with any class and dignity in this whole affair is Chelsea. With the Cole affair I was totally on Arsenal's side as we were in the wrong and it was proven. There are many things to have a go at Chelsea over, but this isn't one of them
The issues with Modric and his contract at Spurs and his problems with Levy and Redknapp etc have nothing to do with us. Explain to me in black and white, what exactly have Chelsea done wrong in your eyes? Over this whole affair
How about - Chelsea have continued to bid for a player, having been told verbally, and in writing, he is not for sale, not 'we don't like the offer', he's not for sale, insisting PL and FA rules are adhered to. I'm not sure I believe the latest bid story, because it will be going against what was in that letter from Levy. Whether Chelsea care about the consequences is another matter.
1. In what way have we used the media? no Chelsea affiliate has voluntarily spoken to the media about the topic in question 2. If you bothered to read the interview. Terry was actually asked a series of questions about our pre-season and then one journalist asked him what he thought of Modric as a player and whether he'd like him at Chelsea? What was he supposed to say. The media twisted his words and later apologised to him for putting in false quotes. Terry was asked a similar question about Modric's contract situation and declined to comment and said he would not talk about the situation as it would be disrespectful to Spurs. Levy was the one that broke the gentlemans agreement, which is why this thing has happened. AVB has continually refused to talk about transfer targets out of respect to other clubs. How many times has your tax dodging manager come out and publically identified transfer targets in press conferences to try and unsettle other players. Which club was it that was accused of tapping up Robbie Keane and Stewart Downing? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Chelsea. Now tell me which club has acted with class and which hasn't?
There is nowhere in PL and FA rules that says we can't bid for him. Spurs have a reputation for caving in when players "aren't for sale". Robbie Keane and Berbatov both went despite "not being for sale". At the end of the day if the right money comes in Spurs will sell. Whether it be £50m or £30m
