Ah, so that sound I heard a bit ago was your post going right over my head - was wondering about that!
Chelsea 2022/2023 | THIS IS LAST YEARS THREAD YOU NUMPTIES
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
- Status
Ah, so that sound I heard a bit ago was your post going right over my head - was wondering about that!
I hear you, and you’re right, nothing is guaranteed and Chelsea could implode and fall back into mediocrity. When I say we’ll be fine, I don’t say that with any kind of arrogance or naivety. It’s just the feeling I have seeing the money being spent and how they continue to fill out the football operations structure. But yeah there’s no guarantee of anything, you’re right about that.
This year there's every chance your club are going to get the type of investment you have shown visible distain that.
I'll be very curious to see if your stance remains as strong if/when that happen.
The idea we were superbly run in the late years of Roman is a huge myth, you only need to look as recently back as the last big signing of that era as proof of that.
We were still competing in many cup thanks to the winning mentality he installed still being there but our recruitment was the major reason we have been 20-30 points of the pace every single season since we last won the league (and the first couple of those we still had peak Hazard who alone should have been a guarantee of being in the race).
Ironically if we were as well run as opposition fans think we were Boehly probably wouldn't have had to have been as aggressive in the market as he has been, for example £100m is saved from the get go if any of two of Christensen, Rudiger and Guehi were retained under Roman/Marina.
We were successful on our own long before the new ownership. We don’t have to buy our seat as a top club like you and City have had to do.
You haven't been anywhere close to being successful for almost a decade though. If a state-backed oil regime buys your club, fills it with shiny new toys for everyone and gets you back to winning titles then what's the difference really?
You'll be just another vehicle for sportswashing owned by people with literal blood on their hands but when it's your own club it's somehow completely fine because you won some trophies in previous decades? Okay mate, gotcha.
Even though they are in a low position, I'm not sure they are really massively underachieving with their squad.
Look at the nine teams above them and you could argue that every single one of them has a better attack than Chelsea, which is terrible.
With the injuries on top of that, I don't think their current team is any better than Brentford and the ilk, to be honest. It is not really surprising that they are struggling because they just are a midtable side.
Look at the nine teams above them and you could argue that every single one of them has a better attack than Chelsea, which is terrible.
With the injuries on top of that, I don't think their current team is any better than Brentford and the ilk, to be honest. It is not really surprising that they are struggling because they just are a midtable side.
As much as it's bad news for my club that you and Liverpoool are about to become sugar daddy/state owned I've got to say the backtracking from all these years of moral preaches is going to be hilarious.
"We were successful on our own long before the new ownership" is probably the most predictable, yet amusing retort. It translates to: I pretended to care about who Roman was and what he did, when really I was just upset that his money affected my club.
Whether you were successful or not before a takeover should have no bearing whatsoever on your thought process. A scumbag owner is a scumbag owner. It just exposes your fake morals for all to see, not that it wasn't obvious anyway. Tribalism 101.
Whether you were successful or not before a takeover should have no bearing whatsoever on your thought process. A scumbag owner is a scumbag owner. It just exposes your fake morals for all to see, not that it wasn't obvious anyway. Tribalism 101.
It’s already started. They’re literally begging to be state owned on here and the very same people claim we are everything that’s wrong with football and our fans have no morals. If/when they do get sold I am going to enjoy watching and reading the self-justification.
As much as it's bad news for my club that you and Liverpoool are about to become sugar daddy/state owned I've got to say the backtracking from all these years of moral preaches is going to be hilarious.
Interestingly it’s also factually correct
It’s absolutely true just as it’s true that we’d be no different if we are indeed taken over by oil state sport-washers.
It’s also true that Chelsea fans are absolute plebs.
Interestingly it’s also factually correct
Of course it's correct, but these mental mathematics also prove that to people like @BluesJr the rise of Chelsea/City/PSG/whoever was never about the source of the money despite that always being used as a stick to beat the clubs with.
Even though the intentions were always masked with some moral/ethical ramblings, with the fans of the more traditional big clubs it was most of all about just feeling threatened that a new kid on the block dared to challenge the status quo of the old elite. And with fans of the smaller clubs it was mostly jealousy I guess?
Whether a club has been successful in the past or not has absolutely feck all to do with the intention of sportswashing by the bloodthirsty ME-regimes. Either they'll spend less money on buying the club and more on building it up, or they buy a top club with ready-made global fan base for billions and then just spend whatever's necessary to get them back to being competitive. Either way the goal is to shape the opinions of people around the world and clearly they're about to be very successful when they haven't even bought the club yet and people are already defending them.
Of course it's correct, but these mental mathematics also prove that to people like @BluesJr the rise of Chelsea/City/PSG/whoever was never about the source of the money despite that always being used as a stick to beat the clubs with.
Even though the intentions were always masked with some moral/ethical ramblings, with the fans of the more traditional big clubs it was most of all about just feeling threatened that a new kid on the block dared to challenge the status quo of the old elite. And with fans of the smaller clubs it was mostly jealousy I guess?
Whether a club has been successful in the past or not has absolutely feck all to do with the intention of sportswashing by the bloodthirsty ME-regimes. Either they'll spend less money on buying the club and more on building it up, or they buy a top club with ready-made global fan base for billions and then just spend whatever's necessary to get them back to being competitive. Either way the goal is to shape the opinions of people around the world and clearly they're about to be very successful when they haven't even bought the club yet and people are already defending them.
Oddly in this situation it’s the Chelsea fan trying to use the possible scenario to get ‘one over’ on United fans.
It’s all a bit daft considering.
I wouldn't group all United fans as a homogenous bunch because looking at the 'Would you be okay with state or state-backed ownership?' thread there are seemingly many who would be uneasy about it. It's only the hypocritical ones I'm calling out, the ones who for the last 20 years have gone on and on about how the Abramovich money was dirty (which it was) but who at the same time would welcome an oil regime buying their own club with open arms if it just meant they get a few more shiny trophies in return.
When it comes to Chelsea I have no problem with someone calling a spade a spade when it comes to Abramovich and his money, but let's not pretend it would be any different if the club in question was United and they were bought by an oil regime with a problematic history.
The difference would be the clubs history and success wasn’t built on said monies. Chelsea, City and likely Newcastle can’t say that.
Obviously there’s no difference to the morality of it all.
Well it won't be Russian money will it. As I have said before if it is KSA money I will stop supporting the club.
This is the concept they are unwilling to grasp. They’d be nothing without it.
I'm pretty sure too that at the very least if Utd do get taken over by someone with tons of dodgy blood money you won't get Utd fans singing affectionate songs and chants about him the way Chelsea fans are still doing with Abramovich.
That's likely very true, but the context of the takeover is also very different.
How is that relevant? Do Chelsea fans not have access to the news?
I’m not trying to defend Chelsea fans. Just saying that the information available on Abramovich in 2003 isn’t the same as the information available on potential ME billionaires in 2023. Speaking for myself, I had no idea who Abramovich was and what he did to earn his money when he arrived at Chelsea. I started seeing Matthew Syed shed some light on it like 6 or 7 years later, so I started to fill in some of the gaps myself, but by then it was difficult to emotionally uninvest yourself from this owner who had brought insane success to my club. It took me years to detach my support for Abramovich from my support for Chelsea but I’d like to think if Abramovich was taking over my club in 2023 my reaction and feelings towards it would be very different. I certainly wouldn’t spend years supporting him and his ownership.
That you didn't know in 2003 is fine, but the information was available. It was common knowledge how the oligarchs had made their money.
Yeah that’s fair enough. I can’t speak for other Chelsea fans. Just explaining what my personal experience was. I was also just a teenager in 2003.
It's perfectly fair for you as a teenager in 2003 to not really know or understand the situation and I was the same pretty much.
However we had Chelsea fans singing about Abramovich on Sunday when everyone knows the kind of man he is and how he got that money now. There's no excuse for that.
So you really are in no position to be trying to score morality points.
You are speaking to me as if I represent all Chelsea fans. I don't condone those Chelsea fans. In fact, if we set aside the morality of it, it's just an extremely toxic thing to do, but also just very tone deaf considering all that has gone on in the last 12 months, let alone Abramovich's now well documented personal history.
I don't think you represent all Chelsea fans but you did talk about the context of the takeover being different in 2003 and I'm agreeing with that. Chelsea fans, such as yourself, not knowing the full story in 2003 is fair enough.
But also there's clearly a sizeable number of Chelsea fans, and the away fans are usually the hardcore fans, that still love Abramovich in 2023 despite knowing the sort of man he is. So trying to say oh if Utd get taken over by a despot or someone with blood money they're the same as Chelsea is wrong.
I'm surprised more wasn't made of the Abramovich chants on Sunday to be honest, the media were reporting it only in the context of Chelsea fans not being happy with Boehly and Potter but it's pretty dodgy when you think about it, to be chanting Abramovichs name in 2023.
Last edited:
Oh, gotcha. Yeah that's all I meant by the context being different, but you're right lots of Chelsea fans still don't care. They were singing his name during the takeover process, and are still pining after him now, so clearly to them the source of the wealth is a complete non-issue as long as that wealth benefited Chelsea.
It is with great difficulty I have took the decision to step down from my role in keeping our resident Chelsea fans grounded and accountable in their behaviour on the forum.
John Terry falling over in Moscow was a great highlight along with the end of Russian Criminal Roman Abramovich.
This now feels the right time. My work here is completed.
With immediate effect I will no longer be active in any of the forums Chelsea related threads.
Best wishes.
John Terry falling over in Moscow was a great highlight along with the end of Russian Criminal Roman Abramovich.
This now feels the right time. My work here is completed.
With immediate effect I will no longer be active in any of the forums Chelsea related threads.
Best wishes.
Aw mate, don't go, we like having you around. This thread would be nothing without you
Aye.
It's a complex situation, if Utd were taken over by Qatar or Saudi Arabia or something like that, it really would be an issue for me I think. But then how could I just stop supporting my football club? It's very tough. Suppose we'll have to see if it comes to that. I understand Chelsea and City and Newcastle fans being torn over it and decent fans such as yourself clearly are. Seeing your team successful is a fantastic thing and can cloud judgement, that's why sportswashing works so well. If we get taken over and are suddenly signing Mbappe next summer you'll get a lot of Utd fans on board.
Those chanting for Abramovich or making signs and banners thanking their new overlords like we've seen at City and Newcastle deserve criticism though.
They are in a mess. But they have signed felix, close to signing mudryk and look to still bring enzo fernandez over. Those 3 additions plus their best players returning from injury (kante, reece) surely makes their squad on par with the best?
And the concept you don't seem willing to grasp is for the last two decades we've been told it's was moral reasons people didn't like this type of investment.
Now with the very real prospect of United and Liverpool having similar ownership the mask is slipping with many (not that it wasn't obvious anyway but still).
Pulisic is out for several months again, probably for the rest of the season.
You jammy bastards.
He's been a massive letdown hasn't he.
We'll always have Playoff Pulisic to remember and cherish. Because yeah, he's way too injury prone to be of any use to anyone. I don't even think he's that big of a talent generally speaking but he's good enough to be worth persisting with if he wasn't so bloody injury prone.
Pulisic you mean?
If so then yes he has. Still living off that couple months great form post-lockdown in 19/20 season where he almost turned into prime-Hazard for a whle. Other than that he's mostly been shit/inconsistent and really prone to injuries too.
Every time it looks like he's building up some kind of form and starts getting consistent playing time he immediately gets himself injured and when he gets back he always takes forever to get his form back, not that even an in-form Pulisic apart from that aforementioned period in 2020 is all that great but at least it's still hell of a lot better than an out of form Pulisic which is what we've mostly been getting.
So yeah, apart from a brief glimpse three years ago it's been one disappointment after another with him. Also hate his entitled attitude, thinking he's much better than he really is, and his dad who always loves to talk big even though his son is really not that good.
Would definitely bin him in the summer when he only has one year left on his deal too.
- Status