You've quoted my post that's not about bureaucracy instead of spackers, that, albeit as incorrect as usual, was.
You know, here's the thing. I know a number of Chelski fans, and although they enjoy getting one over on ManUre and Arsenhole, they say a similar thing - they feel a bit hollow because they don't feel like its THEIR club that grew and developed into a winning team. They feel the "instant" team Roman gave them and then added to hasn't really been "theirs", and in a way I can see where they're coming from. I know a couple of Citizens who feel the same, they struggled to celebrate their title success last season. One said it was like "cheating in Football Manager" and that word "hollow" came out again. It is a funny one, having your club taken over by a billionaire, an instant team being bought that you have no feeling for, a whole stack of new glory supporters who have no affinity with your club or interest in its history buying season tickets because its "fashionable"........
Correct, if that success is bought. Some silverware and glory can still be achieved through hard work, luck and ingenuity, so it's wrong to say all potential Leeds success would be cheapened like Chelsea's has been.
You Northerners aren't half deluded are you? When was the last... no sorry... first time silverware and glory was won without spending money?
I think you'll find that Glasgow Celtic qualify as northeners, and they won the European Cup in 1967 whilst spending about £1bn less than Chelsea did. And they were on appallingly low wages! In fact, whilst we're on the subject, I might mention that all of the team were born no more than 30 miles from Celtic Park - a feat the has never, ever been equalled. Not one EC winning team has even had 11 people from the same country, far less such incredible proximity.
Our league win of 91/92. Hence why we call ourselves the last true champions. Man U and Blackburn consequently imported the Italian trend of hyper-expenditure on transfers which originated there in the 80s, an art since refined in the English top flight by Leeds and Liverpool (unsuccessfully, thank God) and by Chelsea and Man City (successfully). Before the shift to the 'Premier League', trophies were won by the factors I mentioned above - chiefly by hard work - rather than by a pissing contest which is 3/4 based on who spends the most, and 1/4 on which manager can be more of a **** and force his side to the most crucial victories. Before that, I think those factors were vice-versa. Yes, Leeds Chairman Bill Fotherby spent a perceptible wedge on Wilko's promotion and championship-winning side, but no-one doubts it was still a victory by underdogs who fought their way fairly, in an environment in which much of the division could have mounted a title challenge, as opposed to today where only three teams have a chance. So to answer your question directly: no professional side ever managed to win anything without spending money, otherwise they'd be amateur, Sunday league pub teams. But for the first 100 years of football, 1885-1985 let's say, almost everything was won without wealth being the main causal element.
Hate to say this old boy, but you're wrong! Queens Park have won the Scottish Cup 10 times. Only Rangers & Celtic have won the cup more often.
Fair enough, way back in the days when football and rugby were almost indistinct from each other! Queens Park also invented the art of ball retention, according to Jonathan Wilson, as a method of combatting the all-too-familiar tactic of hoofing it up to the big bloke up top. I do have respect for the amateur model, but don't think it's workable on the scale of a club like Leeds or Chelsea who probably should be run as a registered business in order to be accountable, competitive and sustainable. All credit to the small Scottish and non-league teams who manage like that and still have a healthy number of fans who have a stronger bond with players who play for the club out of love, not greed.
Bottom line is most Chelsea fans feel empty because its not their club anymore. They also fear for the future when Roman goes. Funny how Chelsea "fans" chant Benitez out instead of Roman out!! After all, it wasn't Benitez who sacked Robbie. Oh, of course, can't abuse the bankroll can you? Bunch of muppets!! A sorry club run by that thug Terry.
Given a slight twist of fate - us finishing in the Champions League in 01-02 (a failure that only happened due to an absolutely bent refereeing decision to rule a Wes Morgan own goal out as 'offside'), and Abramovic pursuing his interest in Spurs, which would have left Bates' Chelsea down the ****ter - you'd probably be levelling the same accusations at us, and we'd be up there with the Mancs now at the top of that stale and tedious league. Just glad it's gone this way and our club have no tainted trophies in our fine cabinet.
