Bluemoon goes into Meltdown

The Neviller said:
Right, so those two haven't been there since 2003 then, and therefore shouldn't be included in a list of players at Chelsea since 2003.
Click to expand...


Stop being pedantic, you know what I meant. For a start cole didn't come til 2006 or Essein untill 2005 so if I had been simply saying 2003- present I wouldn't have included him either. 200 3 was when our team started coming together though.

Bottom line is City did not attempt to build a proper team, they simply went and tried to buy all the best well known players and throw them in together to see if it worked, well so far it hasnt worked because 2 trophies in 4 seasons is not a great haul for the investment.
 
Well done for going to thew trouble to do that by the way unless it was copied and pasted Alex!

Thing is a core is generally a small group, its rarely a large amount of players and its what you sustain success around.

Would anyone actually debate whether our team 04-08 had a better team ethic and was a better team than Citys in the past few seasons?
 
ItsEssexRob said:
Well done for going to thew trouble to do that by the way unless it was copied and pasted Alex!

Thing is a core is generally a small group, its rarely a large amount of players and its what you sustain success around.

Would anyone actually debate whether our team 04-08 had a better team ethic and was a better team than Citys in the past few seasons?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. You were getting there slowly unlike City who as you say threw shitloads of dosh in the hope that it would buy them success.
 
ItsEssexRob said:
Stop being pedantic, you know what I meant. For a start cole didn't come til 2006 or Essein untill 2005 so if I had been simply saying 2003- present I wouldn't have included him either. 200 3 was when our team started coming together though.

Bottom line is City did not attempt to build a proper team, they simply went and tried to buy all the best well known players and throw them in together to see if it worked, well so far it hasnt worked because 2 trophies in 4 seasons is not a great haul for the investment.
Click to expand...
Its just absolutely fecking laughable to see a Chelsea fan try to take the moral high ground over City with regards their transfer activities, and somehow try to claim you've done it the right way. You're cut from the same cloth, they pretty much just copied your template.

Also, I wasn't being pedantic. This is what you said
team that has been there since 2003, the likes of Lampard, Terry, Cech, Drogba,Carvalho,Cole, Essein
Click to expand...
if you're going to say the first bit of that line, you can't include players who aren't there now or weren't there in 2003. Because then you haven't kept the same spine since 2003, like you're trying to suggest.
 
Goooose said:
He's got a point though, Chelsea were an improving side when the Wolfman bought them.
Click to expand...
They hadn't won a league title in 50 years until they dropped a fecktonne of money under Mourinho. They also ditched a manager who had done some good work there to bring him in. City may have done it quicker, but they've done nothing new. Chelsea showed them the way. Yes, they were further up the ladder than City were when they started their spree, but if anything that might make it even more crude as you could say it was less necessary.
 
ItsEssexRob said:
Stop being pedantic, you know what I meant. For a start cole didn't come til 2006 or Essein untill 2005 so if I had been simply saying 2003- present I wouldn't have included him either. 200 3 was when our team started coming together though.

Bottom line is City did not attempt to build a proper team, they simply went and tried to buy all the best well known players and throw them in together to see if it worked, well so far it hasnt worked because 2 trophies in 4 seasons is not a great haul for the investment.
Click to expand...

But Alex's post shows that Chelsea did pretty much the same thing. They signed loads of players - often well-known ones, just for the sake of it, like Shevchenko or Ballack - and threw them together to see if it worked. It didn't work so well with Ranieri but Mourinho did make it work. To claim it was some sort of long-term project is bullshit and you know that. He got loads of new players, put them together and got pretty good stuff out of them.

The only difference between Chelsea and City is that City did not have a Mourinho so far. Mancini is not that calibre. He did try to build a team though, just didn't do as well as Mourinho.
 
City do have a spine though - Hart (though not for much longer), Kompany, Toure, Silva, Aguero. Chelsea's was just better. City were also miles behind where Chelsea were when they were taken over IIRC - they had friggin Sven Goran Eriksen and Darius Vassell up front a year or so before the sheikh came in ffs. Sadly money has bought them success - they are now one of Europe's top teams and they are currently a better side than us. Five years ago you'd have been laughed out the room if you suggested that.
 
Goooose said:
They've been hopeless in Europe. Are you going off league form?
Click to expand...


Of course. I would say PSG are also now on their way to becoming one of Europe's top teams despite having done nothing of note in the champions league so far. You just have to look at the sort of players they have - Cavani, Ibra, Silva. These clubs just throw money at players and eventually it brings them success. Providing City's sheikh remains and doesn't piss off I can't see how they won't win the Champions League at some point in the near future.
 
shaggy said:
Of course. I would say PSG are also now on their way to becoming one of Europe's top teams despite having done nothing of note in the champions league so far. You just have to look at the sort of players they have - Cavani, Ibra, Silva. These clubs just throw money at players and eventually it brings them success. Providing City's sheikh remains and doesn't piss off I can't see how they won't win the Champions League at some point in the near future.
Click to expand...
Can't get out of their group and you are talking of City winning the CL?
 
shaggy said:
Of course. I would say PSG are also now on their way to becoming one of Europe's top teams despite having done nothing of note in the champions league so far. You just have to look at the sort of players they have - Cavani, Ibra, Silva. These clubs just throw money at players and eventually it brings them success. Providing City's sheikh remains and doesn't piss off I can't see how they won't win the Champions League at some point in the near future.
Click to expand...


They probably will win it at some point but it doesn't have to be the near future. Look at the amount of money Madrid spend and they've not won it in over a decade!
 
coolredwine said:
Can't get out of their group and you are talking of City winning the CL?
Click to expand...


They will win it at some point if they spend £100 million on players every bloody year.

fergieisold said:
They probably will win it at some point but it doesn't have to be the near future. Look at the amount of money Madrid spend and they've not won it in over a decade!
Click to expand...

Good point. Though I doubt even Madrid's spending compares with City's. It would be an absolute travesty the day City win the Champions League.
 
No amount of money can guarentee the champions league. Chelsea spent a lot of money attempting to win it, and it could be argued it was our poorest side post 2004 that actually managed to do so. Real Madrid can't even get near despite their spending. There is a lot of luck involved in winning it too.
 
BarneyLFC said:
They missed out on the team that knocked youse out/semi finalists and the runners up of the competition. There is absolutely no shame in that.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, if only they had at least won against Ajax and finished 3rd, then that would actually make sense. Finishing 4th without winning a game was truely awful.
 
Balu said:
Well, yeah, if only they had at least won against Ajax and finished 3rd, then that would actually make sense. Finishing 4th without winning a game was truely awful.
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read above, you would have seen that I covered that. Ajax aren't easy opposition. They should've beaten them at home, but an away game in Amsterdam is tough.
 
The fact that our last two CL finals have been against possibly the best side of all time still makes me feel a little sick. Against any other team, we would have had a chance.
 
City will get out of their group this time round, so we'll see how the current mercenaries perform in the competition; if not well then they can be replaced - there's always another transfer window coming-up. They shouldn't win it this season, but as Spiersey mentions luck plays a big part in knock-outs, and makes it less predictable as Chelsea's win showed beyond doubt.

As for them winning it at some point soon - they'll do so at some stage as long as Mansour's money keeps pouring in, but they'll face at least two other sides doing the same in Chelsea and PSG (soon Monaco) so there might need to be more substance than just spending money endlessly and luck. Bayern should remain strong, as should Barca. And if we're talking money then Real are obviously always in the hunt. The sides that will have to make way are ones that either can't spend (Milan? Dortmund? Juvi?) or refuse to spend (us, and maybe Arsenal depending on if Ozil is the start of a real change of philosophy or not).
 
BarneyLFC said:
If you had bothered to read above, you would have seen that I covered that. Ajax aren't easy opposition. They should've beaten them at home, but an away game in Amsterdam is tough.
Click to expand...
There's still a lot of shame in it and no, Ajax away isn't that tough of a game for the top teams, Dortmund and Real won easily last season. If we're talking about teams with the potential to win the CL, finishing 4th behind Ajax is shameful.
 
Shark22 said:
The fact that our last two CL finals have been against possibly the best side of all time still makes me feel a little sick. Against any other team, we would have had a chance.
Click to expand...
Well, you could say, that not meeting Barca at any point before the CL final was quite lucky. All the CL winners in the last years had to beat Barca on their way to the title, United in 08, Inter in 10, Chelsea in 12 and Bayern in 13. Seems like, if you don't beat them, you don't win it, doesn't matter when. United didn't.
 
Siorac said:
But Alex's post shows that Chelsea did pretty much the same thing. They signed loads of players - often well-known ones, just for the sake of it, like Shevchenko or Ballack - and threw them together to see if it worked. It didn't work so well with Ranieri but Mourinho did make it work. To claim it was some sort of long-term project is bullshit and you know that. He got loads of new players, put them together and got pretty good stuff out of them.

The only difference between Chelsea and City is that City did not have a Mourinho so far. Mancini is not that calibre. He did try to build a team though, just didn't do as well as Mourinho.
Click to expand...

That was precisely my point. Apart from the 9 players I highlighted, Chelsea have made a further 71 signings. Granted there are a few youngsters that might go on to become a core part of the team, but the past 10 years has shown us that it's probably unlikely. I'd say I was stretching it a bit for some of the ones included in that spine anyway. I don't really think Malouda or Ivanovic are really part of a spine despite the number of appearances, and Essien, Makelele and Carvalho all spent about 4 or 5 seasons as a major part of the squad before leaving. As I pointed out, the current crop also looks to be a bit void of anyone that you'd say is part of a the squad's core. Ramires might, but then again he might be another player who's fecked off after 5 years. Luiz could be but as he was apparently off in the summer I wouldn't be surprised to see him disappear. I thought Mata would have been a certainty but Mourinho doesn't like him for some reason so he'll probably be off at the end of the season if not in January. It's too early to say with the rest of them; I've not really seen much from Hazard that's convinced me they'll persist, Lukaku might when they stop loaning him out but by then they might have splashed out on another striker which could keep him out of the team, and Oscar stands a chance but a short spell of bad form could mean the end for him. Torres is just too inconsistent I think to be ever properly considered. The amount of players that stayed for one season was crazy, and even the majority of those who stayed for longer were only there for two or three without really playing any sort of key role. They've also signed a shit load of youngsters that were let go without ever really being given a proper chance in the first team.

There's no denying that City have basically bought an absolute metric feck-ton of players but the signs are there that they are building some sort of core, and as pointed out, they were a long way behind Chelsea when the money came in. Chelsea already had a squad capable of challenging for Europe, and Terry and Lampard were already there. City basically had no one of that quality, with Micah Richards never really progressing as he might have and Hart was still a kid so couldn't exactly be considered a central figure in the squad. As it stands, City have had Zabaleta and Kompany since the money came in, and both have been pretty consistent figures in the first team, Toure, Silva, Aguero and Nastasic have been pretty much ever present since signing and don't appear to be going anywhere, and Dzeko, Nasri and Milner have all played a part in the team for a few years. It's still too soon to say with a lot of City's signings, but they seem to have followed a similar pattern to Chelsea for the most part. To deny that Chelsea have signed and released players for fun is just re-writing history.
 
I've just looked on the transfer league and Chelsea actually signed 2 more players in the first 6 years since they were taken over than City have so far, and City's first transfer window with money literally lasted a day.
 
shaggy said:
Of course. I would say PSG are also now on their way to becoming one of Europe's top teams despite having done nothing of note in the champions league so far. You just have to look at the sort of players they have - Cavani, Ibra, Silva. These clubs just throw money at players and eventually it brings them success. Providing City's sheikh remains and doesn't piss off I can't see how they won't win the Champions League at some point in the near future.
Click to expand...
Regarding PSG, they haven't done 'nothing of not' in the Champions League so far, they actually came very close to knocking out Barça last year. And they're walking their group this year.
 
I can't really see any difference at all in the way that City and Chelsea have tried to build.

Both resonably well-known and well-supported clubs that won the lottery, spent a ton of money on pretty much any top class player that they could persuade to join them, and then not surprisingly improved both their teams and their fan-base.

The only difference I can see is that Chelsea did it a few seasons earlier, so their fans probably feel that they are now a more established member of the elite. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I look at Chelsea nowadays I still see a club that won the lottery and bought their way to the table. I don't think that will ever change.
 
Bilbo said:
I can't really see any difference at all in the way that City and Chelsea have tried to build.

Both resonably well-known and well-supported clubs that won the lottery, spent a ton of money on pretty much any top class player that they could persuade to join them, and then not surprisingly improved both their teams and their fan-base.

The only difference I can see is that Chelsea did it a few seasons earlier, so their fans probably feel that they are now a more established member of the elite. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I look at Chelsea nowadays I still see a club that won the lottery and bought their way to the table. I don't think that will ever change.
Click to expand...

I think it's easy to forget with Chelsea because they've been part of it for so long, and weren't really far off the top when they got the money. It's still relatively fresh with City, and they went from being a mid-table side to suddenly having the resources to challenge for the title. Hell, there wasn't really much time between them being relegation fodder and getting taken over, and they'd somewhat hit the jackpot with that Thai bloke before the Shekih anyway. I think they'd already spent about £40million pound in that transfer window before they had any money from the Sheikh.
 
Bilbo said:
I can't really see any difference at all in the way that City and Chelsea have tried to build.

Both resonably well-known and well-supported clubs that won the lottery, spent a ton of money on pretty much any top class player that they could persuade to join them, and then not surprisingly improved both their teams and their fan-base.

The only difference I can see is that Chelsea did it a few seasons earlier, so their fans probably feel that they are now a more established member of the elite. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I look at Chelsea nowadays I still see a club that won the lottery and bought their way to the table. I don't think that will ever change.
Click to expand...


The main difference as I have always said is that Chelsea had finished in the top 6 for the 7-8 seasons prior to RA, had won the FA cup twice and the cup winners cup and Super cup, playing with players like Di Matteo, Zola, and Jimmy Floyd.

Werent City in the 3rd division as little as 8-9 seasons before they got taken over?
 
ItsEssexRob said:
The main difference as I have always said is that Chelsea had finished in the top 6 for the 7-8 seasons prior to RA, had won the FA cup twice and the cup winners cup and Super cup, playing with players like Di Matteo, Zola, and Jimmy Floyd.

Werent City in the 3rd division as little as 8-9 seasons before they got taken over?
Click to expand...


Weren't they also bankrupt and didn't Roman save the club from bankruptcy/administration?
 
NM said:
Weren't they also bankrupt and didn't Roman save the club from bankruptcy/administration?
Click to expand...


Yes he saved us as we faced an apparent crisis, but thats different to a team thats just floundering with zero ambition. I feel that the whole reason City got chosen was because of how successful United were, otherwise why not more attractive clubs like Spurs, Liverpool or even West Ham?
 
ItsEssexRob said:
Yes he saved us as we faced an apparent crisis, but thats different to a team thats just floundering with zero ambition. I feel that the whole reason City got chosen was because of how successful United were, otherwise why not more attractive clubs like Spurs, Liverpool or even West Ham?
Click to expand...


It may be diffeernt but the criticism is the same. You would have been bankrupt/in administration and probably relegated because of that if Roman didn't buy you. That is probably even more of a benefit than what City had.

I agree that City were chosen because of United's status in the game - but I really think Chelsea benefited even more by being taken over.

We all can't complain though - money is taking over all aspects of the sport. It is what it is.
 
best_animated_images_car_jump_in.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.