The 2012 FA Cup Final

Neutral

Chelsea to win - Torres to score with his hand in the 97th minute with the last 'kick' of the game...but only after a legit goal by Bugs Bunny is ruled out.

Mockney

In fairness, they'd won 2 FA Cups, a League Cup and a European Cup Winners Cup and qualified for the CL before Abramovich brought any money to Chelsea. They were a better prospect than Spurs are now. It got them the League in the end sure, but they didn't just get successful out of nowhere through sugar daddy money *cough* City *cough* ...this is the second time I've argued this today. I'm not incredibly sure why?

People the FA like to refer to as "The football family" Which is essentially staff affiliated to different FAs, charities, and clubs, plus representatives of Fifa and the PFA. Plus of course anyone they want to curry favour with at that particular time.

Neutral

Think it was Pete that pointed this out the other day...but winning all those trophies, with the players they had, had them in a situation where they were more like Portsmouth than Tottenham.

Roman well and truly was their knight in shining armor.

Mockney

Well they obviously weren't, because Portsmouth were a lower to (at best) mid-table club who fluked an FA Cup with a favorable draw. Chelsea hadn't finished below 6th since 1996 & had won 4 "big" trophies in a short time. Odd, and rather disingenuous comparison tbf.

They had a shit load of debt though yeah. But a lot of teams trying to "step up" then did. It's what did for Leeds. If Spurs fail to get into the CL but continue to spend like they are, they will be too soon enough. Roman may have saved them from a possible folding, but he didn't make them successful.

Neutral

That's what I mean...it was unsustainable, and something was going to give, and Roman came in and rescued them. I compared them to Portsmouth because of the living beyond their means not so much the trophy count, Portsmouth paid the ultimate price, and Chelsea had a real chance of going down the same route, but Roman changed all that.

Mockney

It's still a bit of guess work. Bates was a shyster and I wouldn't believe a word he says. They weren't at the point of utter collapse, they were just in a lot of debt. We're in a lot of debt.

Comparing them to Portsmouth is just rather disingenuous IMO (not that you initially did it) because it implies they were a struggling footballing semi non-entity punching above their weight and only given clout by a sugar daddy. Which is the kind of mythos a lot of people like to throw at them. Which is a bit unfair. Even since Hoddle they'd been doing alright, and after him they developed as one of the glamour teams in the early Premiership years. They were on a very good platform football wise before Abramovich arrived. Zola would be regarded as a semi-Cantona figure for them, and he left before the "revolution". They weren't plucked from obscurity. Debt or no debt.

Again, dunno why I've ended up defending them. I guess I feel it's the kind of perpetuated myth that gathers more and more moss. Plus everyone should know how much, much worse City are. Fuck it. Cunts the lot of 'em.

amolbhatia100

In that case you have to define success. It's a huge leap to go from where spurs are to where chelsea then went in the space of such little time. From a good team they were suddenly the best, a champions league regular (they may have been a one off entrant) and capable of getting almost any player they wanted. It's a huge jump. Not of city proportions which is plan ridiculous but its actually the hardest jump to make.

rcoobc

The thing that interests me about Chelsea is for another investor Chelsea could have been a very shrewd buy. They didn't have the fan base of Arsenal or Tottenham, but London football should have grown and grown along with the city size and the explosion football went under anyway.

Get Chelsea a new stadium and with the right advertising model they could possibly fill it with 60,000 fans. Same with Tottenham but they have their waiting list. What is fascinating is that for all Abramovich's money, Chelsea didn't sell more season tickets and I don't know why, but it seems to have been handled badly.

With those three clubs you have the makings of a great rivalry for the next 50 years. Taking a "if we build it they shall come" model is obviously dangerous, but if you don't build it they can't. Fill the London Underground with advertisements for all three of those clubs season tickets or day tickets, and led the word of mouth and the rivalry spread.

That just never happened though; Chelsea are still the same chavs, still the same fans, and there is nothing wrong with that but it seems like they never tried to be anything different. Maybe its because the fans own the stadium and Abramovich felt it wasn't worth trying. I do really admire Stamford Bridge for the passion it can generate.

But yeah Chelsea didn't have a terrible business model, just a dangerous one.

Mockney

Chelsea had been a relative mainstay of the "top 4" (or what it's vague equivalent was back then) since the late 90s. When Gullit took over essentially, they became a fairly formidable team. That was 7 years before Abramovich. Trying to paint them as flash in pan is also a bit wide of the mark.

And as I said, they were a level above Spurs. As evidenced by actually winning shit. Including a European trophy (that, admittedly, no longer exists)

They did make a jump to League winners indeed, but to claim they "got" successful isn't true. And it's the kind of thrown about assumption that's just sort of accepted as it sounds like a good way to diss them. It still isn't true though.

antihenry

It's impossible to make, unless you get a wealthy owner willing to spend serious money.

Mockney

Arsenal managed it. They've never spent on silly levels like you, Leeds, Blackburn or Newcastle did to compete. Though you could argue they were already at that "level" historically.

amolbhatia100

I don't think so. It only seems so because you have the likes of City and Chelsea up there occupying those places making the entry of others easy. Arsenal should have made the jump (did for a bit) but for reasons not known to anyone they seem to not have money. Spurs would probably have regular cl football for years to come if city and chelsea weren't around as well. The revenue that would generate would give them a shot.

Point is greatness should be achieved by, you know, doing great things. A large portion of the success of footballs two most successful clubs in the last couple of decades (united and barca) has been down to having a great youth set up. Teams don't need sugar daddies to do that.

rcoobc

You say that, but United are a few games away from making it 6 in a row. Or they would have been if Chelsea hadn't pipped them to the title by 2 points, with a contentious game at Stamford Bridge and our appalling form after the Bayern Munich games.

Seriously how ridiculous is that. If it wasn't for a very lucky season by Chelsea, United would be closing in on 6 back to back League Titles. In the era of Abramovich and Wenger and now Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan

Of course City could still pip United to the title and go on to dominate for the next 5 years and this will be forgotten.

gooDevil

That's assuming we might not have lost any of the others due to luck had things been different. We only won by 2 points in 2007-8, for example, Chelsea might argue we got lucky and it should be them with 4 titles in 6 years.

I agree we were robbed in 2008-9, just that whenever I think 'if only luck had been different' it reminds me that a lot of things could have gone different as well, just as easily for the other team.

I'm sure SAF is very pleased with what we've managed to win, no need to 'what if' such amazing success. Not that i'm saying that's what you were doing, coob.

rcoobc

It's just when Arsenal and Chelsea have barely managed to win a title in recent years despite the obvious talent in their squads, and the squads of Liverpool and now City it shows how difficult it has become. Arsenal and Liverpool, two of the biggest teams historically and today haven't finished above United in 7 years.

Of course had Chelsea and City not been sugardaddied things would be different, players would have gone to different clubs and clubs would have won different competitions. But using United as a standard candle, 7 years is a long time for no self sufficient club to have finished above us.

Also I don't think United have got steadily worse or better in that time either. Losing Ronaldo was a blow and would make any team worse but we switched back to 4-4-2 and used proper wingers again and the net result has been similar. Similar number of points and before this year a similar result in Europe.

Crustanoid

If it wasn't for the sugar daddies driving up the wages to a stupid degree we wouldn't have as much of the problems we are facing now with stupid demands from players who haven't even done anything in the game, mercenary culture and even FIFA and UEFA having to step in. Nobody knows the exact effect but the trickle down to the smaller clubs who are fighting for their lives is also a major concern.

If Chelsea and more lately City hadn't warped the transfer market / player wages we might also have seen proper clubs like Newcastle / Spuds / Everton being more of a fixture in the top 4 or more of a meritocracy at least.

But this was all started by the Abromovich takeover and the antics of people like Kenyon trying to force a situation where Chelsea became a 'global brand' overnight, not by playing football on the pitch, put by chucking money around.

antihenry

There's a lot of if/then argument in your post. You don't know how Arsenal or Spurs would have fared without Chelsea/City fortune, and this is not what I was talking about,anyway. You could possibly make a case for Arsenal if they weren't so tight with their spending, but they were up there already by the time Roman started his crazy spending spree. Spurs were never a title contender and are not one now. If Tottenham don't make it into the CL spot this season the likes of Modric and Bale will be out the door and they'll be back to square one.

As for brilliant youth setup, there's a reason Barca's gifted offspring or MU's generation of Beckham, Giggs, Scholes etc only happen once in a while and when they do, only big wealthy clubs are capable of keeping them from being poached by other teams. Where would United's golden generation end up if MU weren't already a successful club with lots of money? Just ask West Ham if they'd rather have kept the likes of Lampard, Rio, Joe Cole or Jermaine Defoe or Everton if they were ecstatic about selling Rooney.

peterstorey

Well we missed the boat around 1991 when we'd just won a second league title in 3 years but didn't realise the paradigm shift that the PL was about to make and spend some of the money coming in.

ben_foster

can both teams lose?

Annihilate Now!

Whoever wins, Football is surely the loser.

unitedbhoy

No, but Terry could get injured, Chelsea could win, and it would be a perfect scenario [which isn't beyond the realms of possibility].

njred

What happened. Did someone from Liverpool give you a hiding when you were young? Or did you just get laughed at.
Every post is vile drivel. Traumatized?

Magnus

I hope Chelsea play them off the park and win 8-0 but sadly I think the scouse scum will win

Bread

When United went out first thing I said was "right I want Everton v Spurs in the final" Both make the semis, neither makes the final.

Great

MUFCgal

I would prefer Chelsea to win.

Don't want them scouse bastards winning two trophies this season.

Mockney

Though you did still have a fair nucleus of those Graham teams still in the side when the Prem started. The famous back four. Then again so did Leeds & Liverpool and it didn't help them. I'd agree with Crusty above, Chelsea's main crime was polluting the market and inflating the spending required. Though if we're honest, Real were doing that anyway, and the italian teams had started before them. They were as much a consequence as the cause. You haven't won the League since Chelsea first won it though. Which says a lot.

misterredmist

this

towcester_red

Terry/Suarez 50-50 which results in both getting crippling injuries and being sent off by Uriah Rennie who is guest referee.

Plan M

Wishing injuries on other players is the kind of shite we expect at RAWK, not here.

amolbhatia100

Exactly. A successful club with lots of money. Not a club with lots of money looking to be successful as a result. Therein lies the difference.

antihenry

So how's a club that wants to become successful but doesn't have the money supposed to make that jump? If you work hard on your youth setup and develop top talent, it'll end up somewhere else before it can even make an impact, and you can't improve your squad to get to the next level without serious spending on the transfer market.

Floyd

A friend's paying £1100 for a ticket. Cnut's got way too much moolah.

mariachi-19

The FA are fucking stupid. Why not have it at 3pm kick off. Not only is it better for people making the trip, but it's also a better time for the Asian audience.

rcoobc

International fans don't care about the fa cup. I strongly believe this.

Claymore

Mockney, how on earth did Romans money not make them successful? Since he came in he brought in the players and managers that got themm that first league title in 50 years. He also invested heavily in other areas of the club and not just outbidded us for players but also poached our chief exec!!! He turned Chelsea into a beast that we'd never seen before, way more than Walker did with Blackburn.

Bottom line is Chelsea had 1 league title in 100 years of football or so pre Abromovich, now they have 4. Says it all. Also think you forget about the Matthew Harding investment before 2003 which helped with the graveyard players like Zola, Vialli or Desaily etc etc which helped with some of the FA cups or that Cup winners and Super cup!!! Its kind of like City how they got a lesser rich owner just before now which boosted them from nothing to around 6th place before the Sheik took it to another level. Chelsea and City had two big investors and are very similar IMO.

Two European CL finals since Abromovich got there when previously they had none. The second one was helped getting there by a £50m player, we've never had a £50m player!

I hope Chelsea batter the dippers tomorrow but lose to Bayern.

JustAFan

Not even sure I will watch. If Liverpool win I have to watch Kenny and his gang lift a trophy and honestly while I am a big boy and it won't ruin my life, it is still not something I want to watch, lol.

If Chelsea win, I get to watch John Terry getting the trophy.

Though of the two, I think I would prefer Terry. However if Liverpool win it, it will be fun to hear them talking about how it shows they are going to finish in the top 3 next season.

Maybe we can get a massive brawl late in the game with the score tied, benches clear, everyone red carded, FA declare the whole thing null and void and nobody will get a the title. Yeah that sounds better, impossible, but better.

Utd heap

Wishing injury on racists is fine by me.

Inflicting is even better.

Claymore

^ yeah agree, watching Kenny do that stupid laugh with his hands in the air would be awful. Much better when he's looking down and making excuses....just.

duffer

I just did a quick google and the most recent FA Cup final I could find worldwide viewing figures for was 2005. 484 million. That's fucking loads (seems far too high actually but it was on the FA website)

I'd imagine it was a lot less last year (Stoke v Man City).

Anderson's Cat

Viva John Terry