Nick Chelsea
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
The Chelsea Thread
- Thread starter Ramires
- Start date
- Replies 35K
- Views 3M
When Filipe will start playing, i seriously doubt Azpilicueta can push Ivanovic out. Yesterday we've been caught a few times on the left, so either Azpilicueta improves his defensive positioning, or Filipe will take his place. If Hazard doesn't track back, then we need a LB who is more focused on defending IMO.
Nick Chelsea
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Rip.
sad news
Rip.
Nick Chelsea
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Jake Cohen https://twitter.com/JakeFCohen/status/504000281861181440 Net transfer spend since 2006-07
Barcelona: £358m (£40m py)
Chelsea: £297m (£33m py)
"Chelsea ruins football"
"Barca builds thru La Masia"
Barcelona: £358m (£40m py)
Chelsea: £297m (£33m py)
"Chelsea ruins football"
"Barca builds thru La Masia"
This is the point where people usually point out that we didn't earn our money. It's pointless trying to reason with people like that, they'll always find some other reason to dislike you.
Going by transfermarkt site it's 331 by Chelsea and 335 by Barca.
But if you add 3 more season to that Chelsea's net spend is 683 Million pounds whereas Barca's is 419M.
There's a slight difference between hoovering up every talented youngster in the world and thereafter throwing them at the wall and seeing who sticks, and raising local kids to be the best they can be in the best youth system in the world.
I suppose those are the same people who would rather see the Premier League turn into La Liga, where only 2 teams matter, and the rest are too poor to put up any opposition.
Passenaccio
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
And what exactly is Chelsea's net transfer spend since Abramovich took control of Chelsea? It's alright taking it from certain years which can distort the truth when you take it from a year that you actually make a profit. I bet it is a loss altogether.
I have posted that. If you add 3 more seasons then it adds up 300 Million to their net spend.
Chelsea became what it is today, thanks to Abramovich. If you want to become a big team, then you better have the money, because this is the only way to become one in these days. Promote academy players? Yea right. You promote them, and then here comes WeHaveMoneyToSpend FC ( not pointing at anyone) and buys them. You start all over again, and the same thing happens. There are very few competitive clubs who rely on academy products, or spending low.
Chelsea did what was necessary, and so did City, PSG, Monaco, Real, and so on. You don't like it, that's fine, i doubt the fans of any of these teams i mentioned give a ****.
Times change, and if you just bring up history all over again, then clearly you are history too.
Chelsea did what was necessary, and so did City, PSG, Monaco, Real, and so on. You don't like it, that's fine, i doubt the fans of any of these teams i mentioned give a ****.
Times change, and if you just bring up history all over again, then clearly you are history too.
They clearly do, else they wouldn't have such a chip on their shoulder about it.
What is success without the context of history to bring it into relief?
It's not really a chip on the shoulder when every single ******* argument always devolves into "hur hur chelski" "you bought your success" "financial doping" "no history, plastic fans".
It's a good feeling when you can look back and actually have something to look at, but just because your team won x number of titles 50 years ago, doesn't mean you get the right to be an ******* and minimize todays teams achievments, just because things have changed, and money is the keyword in football.
Passenaccio
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2014
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Well when Abramovich gets bored of you and then withdraws all his backing then basically all the Chelsea fans can look back and then bemoan about how they had a history while other teams are winning things in the top flight while Chelsea are languishing in the lower leagues because they are back to the days under Ken Bates.
For the modern day Chelsea fan Ken Bates used to be a chairman of your club but the newer fan hardly knows that history from back in the day.
For the modern day Chelsea fan Ken Bates used to be a chairman of your club but the newer fan hardly knows that history from back in the day.
I think everyone is waiting for that just to see how many Chavski fans then go on to support City.
