They haven't bought trophies. And I will never accuse a club of buying trophies. Money guarantees nothing, otherwise we would have won every PL title and CL title between 2003 and 2010. It helps, for sure, but it guarantees nothing. You only have to look at Liverpools spending to see that
You would think Chelsea supporters would be grateful for all the millions RA has pumped into the club of his own money. All your recent success has been built on his money, yet your still not satisfied and expect him to be spending even more. You expect the guy to bankrupt himself just to keep Chelsea competitive. It's not his fault bigger fish have come along, like at City, and that Chelsea still can't compete with our revenue. Infact Chelsea's revenue doesn't even come close to ours. Chelsea's title last season, will likely be the last big trophy you guys win for a while, so you best get used to it.
Yes, agree. We should have played holding midfielder like Hargreaves alongside Carrick/Scholes + Lampard/Gerrard in a midfield 3. Beckham/Gerrard/winger wide, Roon in the middle, Joe Cole 4 3 3 Hargreaves/Carrick Scholes Lampard/Gerrard Beckham/Gerrard Rooney Cole England 2002-10 still needed some more width, did we have any decent wingers?
Someone makes the same statement every time we win a trophy. Money guarantees nothing. Otherwise, for all your colossal revenue, United wouldn't have gone 5 years without a league title
Your spot on money doesn't guarentee you success, but not spending it makes it much more likely you will fail. Take Arsenal for example, a big club that's been penny pinching for years, and that's why they are in the position they are in. I'm not even saying this as a wind up, and I've never said it before about Chelsea, but if your going to start penny pinching like you have been this season, and it's a trend that is going to continue, then it's very unlikely you'll be challenging for the biggest trophies. Us, you and City are all competing for the same type of players, and if your going to be continually outbid for these players over the next few years then eventually it will catch up with you.
Yeah I mean I should probably say, its not that we are spending no money really, its that it is being misspent. I mean we spent £90m + on Drinkwater, Bakayoko and Barkley, I would have rather spent that on Nainggolan and promoted a youngster from our academy, than sign three mediocre players on lower wages. It doesnt seem to be transfer sums they are scrimping on, but wages and contract lengths, thats why we didnt get Nainggolan or Dzeko.
to be fair we've been penny pinching for a few years now (ever since our big spend on hazard and co) relative to what was in the market and for the players we've been selling. Still won 2 leagues since
Chelsea vs Barca Sergio Busquets Most passes completed Most tackles Most touches N'Golo Gump Most huffing Most puffing
I think it depends what you are looking for from a CDM. If you are a side like Barcelona who dominate the ball, then Busquettes is definately the better player to have in your team. As he's miles better at passing and dictating play than Kante. If you are a lesser talented side and you spend a lot of your time without the ball, then you need a high energy midfield player who is good at hassling opposition attackers, so Kante is the better option. Busquettes would have never been as effective in your title winning side as Kante was, however Kante wouldn't be good enough on the ball to do the job Busquettes does for Barcelona. So I wouldn't say one is better than the other, I'd just say both have different strengths.
Yeah to be fair you have still spent a few quid, but you've also sold quite a few too. The players you where linked with in the last window where what kind of stood out to me, as a change in transfer policy. Crouch, Carroll and you end up signing Barkley and Giroud, 2 players who can't even get in Everton and Arsenal's teams respectively. Let's be honest here, they are not the level of player that a top side would look to sign. And it was never normally the level of player Chelsea would go after.
It might have started back then, but I think it's progressed to another level since then. RA clearly wants the club to be self sufficient, and doesn't want to be bank rolling it forever. The decline isn't going to happen overnight either. You still had good players then, and you still have some good players now. How long that will last remains to be seen. When we started spending less, it took a good few years and then SAFs departure for it all to come crashing down around us.
Dunno about penny pinching - for all LVG and Mourinho have been fast and loose with our purse strings, you have spent as much as us over the past five years. Your transfer spending seems to have settled into a pattern of new manager arriving and getting all the players he wants for the first season or two, until a title / trophy is won as a result of the spending. Then the boss decides he wants to buy younger / cheaper players and the manager is forced into this, causing in inevitable decline. Then there's a brief panic buying of players like Torres, Morata, Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Pedro etc when he realises the squad has fallen behind rivals. Then the manager gets the boot and begin again. It's effective because the players are used to it - they know they have to perform for a new manager so you get titles early on. Unfortunately they also know they can down tools once something has been won and wait for the new guy.
I only meant you have spent a lot of money in the PL era, yet have never won it. Far more than Arsenal and Leicester anyway, who have both won it.
We would have won it if that soft **** Rogers hadn't totally ****ed up our tactics against you shower Cue Smith with the 'Slippy G' ****e
