What Nucks said. Also, I think more clubs will get bought by billionaires in future, adding to the wage and transfer price inflation until it gets to a point where it has to crash. It cant go on like this forever but it can for quite some time, and there could be a period where even clubs with almost limitless money still cant compete, because so many other clubs also have limitless money. Then it might come back to traditional factors like history (and weather) again.
Chelsea vs Messi (Chelsea vs Barca thread)
- Thread starter S.A.N.F
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I guess that all depends on whether this financial fair play stuff is just the powers that be throwing a few shapes, or has actual teeth. I'm more inclined to the former than the latter.
Still, I think it's fair to say that both City and Chelsea have changed the paradigm of football ownership, with their insane spending over such a short space of time. We're seeing something similar happening with PSG, Malaga and that Russian team (can't remember their name?) but there's no doubt in my mind that the English teams set a precedent.
There's also no doubt that this new paradigm is very very bad for football. Much more harmful than the historical dominance of clubs like Madrid, Inter or United.
Still, I think it's fair to say that both City and Chelsea have changed the paradigm of football ownership, with their insane spending over such a short space of time. We're seeing something similar happening with PSG, Malaga and that Russian team (can't remember their name?) but there's no doubt in my mind that the English teams set a precedent.
There's also no doubt that this new paradigm is very very bad for football. Much more harmful than the historical dominance of clubs like Madrid, Inter or United.
I'd be all for living within your means. However, I understand where you're coming from, and purely from a selfish POV if United were bought by money men, and purchased the best talent I wouldn't complain.
Only person who is on a high horse here is you. You may not want such fans but implication is the same given you don't think it is possible for people on different continent to give more weight to traditional rivlaries. Just because you might consider Chelsea to be our bigger rivals than the traditional ones, does not mean other have to be that dim irrespective of their location.
I think the financial fair play stuff might make a bit of a difference but I cant imagine itll change anything much fundamentally. It is the way of the world that people with money usually find a way to get what they want. Im sure there will be loopholes that clever people will find to get around whatever restrictions FFP imposes.
To make it even more appropriate let's say you bought United as a multi billionaire and United were in similar die straits as Liverpool. No chance you will sit with all that money refusing to spend it because it won't be right. Instead you would invest as much as you can afford in trying to bring (buy as some put it) a title home.
So the problem is not with the likes of Roman or Arabs. Problem is the lack of caps. Introduce a salary and transfer cap. America which considers it self a beacon of free market and capitalism, has one in place for most of its sports. Baffling that European football does not
I posted a reply to this. But then I decided it was so far from what this thread was supposed to be about, I posted it in the IPOs / Finances thread instead.
Actually I would really like that.
And you are making a mistake if you think there is no difference between how much teams can afford to spend within a salary caped league.
Look at the US sports they are still dominated by the richest teams but not to the extend football is atm.
If you for example use a salary cap that gets calculated from the average revenue the clubs make in the league you would still have some financial hierarchy sine probably only the upper third of the league would be able to really exhaust the cap limit.
Made me laugh, even if it is a bit untrue.
That's my point, the Catalan and the Spanish state/Madrid poured hundreds of millions into these clubs.
That started with Perez, Real and the Galacticos.
Got any prove of that? The only thing I heard about was that the city of Madrid bought some land from Real for a ridiculous price a few years back.
These days it's about to waive half of the tax debts of all Spanish clubs if they pay the rest immediately.
I'm also talking about the money they make through actual sponsoring contracts, real fans going to their games filling up their huge stadiums and millions of fans around the world buying their merchandise.
All the stuff neither Chelsea nor City are doing in any comparable number.
While I'm sure some of the big European clubs got a few benefits form their City councils or the state it's still different to clubs like City and Chelsea whose entire success is based of financial doping.
Made me laugh, even if it is a bit untrue.
Not particularly great Chelsea players have a habbit of doing that against Barcelona, I recall Emerson Thome keeping Rivaldo in his pocket in 1999 and Khalid Boulahrouz did the same with Ronaldinho in 2006/7.
The Italian clubs at the back end of the nineties in particular, the money Lazio was spending was not incomparable with that of Man City over the last couple of years.
Science has determined the biggest possible cnut that could ever appear on television...
There is no difference fundamentally between what Ben Johnson did (and was universally vilified for) to win a running race and what Chelsea/City have done to win titles. In both cases an unfair advantage has been gained because of a set of conditions activated and manipulated by the perpetrators of the act of cheating. If Chelsea finally win the Champion's League and City the title because of the legacy created by their act of cheating then they rightfully should be considered with the same approximate degree of scorn which Johnson was and still is by neutrals. I'm actually surprised at the general current level of acceptance of this scenario if anything
The fundamental difference is that what Johnson did was against the rules, what Chelsea and Manchester City have done is not. It's more akin to Messi using Human Growth Hormone in his youth to give him a chance of competing at the highest level, and being the best player in the world because of the result of that act.
Chelsea's resilience reminded me of our own successful CL run only a few years back. We had defeated Barca in similar fashion, albiet not as desperate as were weren't a man down. That's how you beat Barcelona. Nullify their Plan A, and rely on a moment of brilliance to win the tie. Although to be fair our team was far stronger back then and could've and should've won by a larger margin.
Chelsea has always been my least hated club in the top four. I don't mind Arsenal either but some of their (younger) fans are still too arrogant and delusional, still clinging on recent memories of their Invincibles era.
Chelsea has always been my least hated club in the top four. I don't mind Arsenal either but some of their (younger) fans are still too arrogant and delusional, still clinging on recent memories of their Invincibles era.
That's non sense. It is not Chelsea or City's fault that football has or had no regulations regarding club finances. Did people really expect them to observe a self imposed transfer and wage cap?
Some people are really getting on their high horse about all of this money spending stuff with Chelsea and City here. Admittedly it's maybe not the most pleasureable way of getting success, but the fact of the matter now is that it's really the only way for sides who are generally mid-table to work their way up to being in title contention. It would be nice if sides could do it bringing through youngsters, but it just doesn't work now. As soon as those youngsters start playing well, a bigger club takes them. We're guilty of that with Jones for example. There's nothing wrong with it, but it does stop those smaller clubs from competing without insane money.
Is it a problem at all? To an extent. If anything though, it highlights that there's now no other way for teams to compete other than spending. Now, football is a game that, like everything, naturally progresses and changes, but I don't think the idea of it being a game which only revolves around money is good. Thing is though, it has gone that way, so clubs who exploit it are not cheating. We've spent plenty of money under Fergie as well. Nowhere near as much as City or Chelsea if you're going for averages or whatever, however what do you deem as an acceptable amount to spend? FFP is supposed to solve that, but the reality is that it's probably not going to change anything long term.
We have no right to complain though. If we were to get a billionaire owners ourselves and started spending insane amounts of money on signings, then most people would probably advocate it. It's double standards to do that but complain about Man City and Chelsea. Those who say they wouldn't condone it are probably lying, in all honesty. Some may be telling the truth, but still they're silly not to accept it while it's within the rules.
Is it a problem at all? To an extent. If anything though, it highlights that there's now no other way for teams to compete other than spending. Now, football is a game that, like everything, naturally progresses and changes, but I don't think the idea of it being a game which only revolves around money is good. Thing is though, it has gone that way, so clubs who exploit it are not cheating. We've spent plenty of money under Fergie as well. Nowhere near as much as City or Chelsea if you're going for averages or whatever, however what do you deem as an acceptable amount to spend? FFP is supposed to solve that, but the reality is that it's probably not going to change anything long term.
We have no right to complain though. If we were to get a billionaire owners ourselves and started spending insane amounts of money on signings, then most people would probably advocate it. It's double standards to do that but complain about Man City and Chelsea. Those who say they wouldn't condone it are probably lying, in all honesty. Some may be telling the truth, but still they're silly not to accept it while it's within the rules.
Lets not forget, whilst people whine about Chelsea and City, Madrid do much the same, they've assembled the most expensive side on the planet in order to challenge from silverware again.
too good.BBC did a nice summary:
Madrid press:
Marca: "Leo's worst night" - "Bad luck is often paired with those who deserve it least. As Messi, who has had a superb record-breaking season, found out last night...the club has lived through the worst nightmare of the Guardiola era"
AS: "A tale of impotence" - "It was cruel and undeserved if we cling to aesthetics, but hard-won if we stick to the codes governing the professional world... Barca played better, but Chelsea were the better competitors."
Barca press:
Sport: "Football punishes Barca with the most injust exit" - "It is difficult to explain how the club could throw away a match in which they were so infinitely better than their opponents. The Chelsea team at Camp Nou was like that of the first leg at Stamford Bridge, stingy, cowardly, miserable."
And one more from me from a Barca paper
Spanish equivalent of Barca won the moral cup.
Madrid press:
Marca: "Leo's worst night" - "Bad luck is often paired with those who deserve it least. As Messi, who has had a superb record-breaking season, found out last night...the club has lived through the worst nightmare of the Guardiola era"
AS: "A tale of impotence" - "It was cruel and undeserved if we cling to aesthetics, but hard-won if we stick to the codes governing the professional world... Barca played better, but Chelsea were the better competitors."
Barca press:
Sport: "Football punishes Barca with the most injust exit" - "It is difficult to explain how the club could throw away a match in which they were so infinitely better than their opponents. The Chelsea team at Camp Nou was like that of the first leg at Stamford Bridge, stingy, cowardly, miserable."
And one more from me from a Barca paper
Spanish equivalent of Barca won the moral cup.
Barca & City... Moral Cup winners...
It's the same bollocks whenever they lose. I could be wrong, but I can't remember many instances of a team holding out for a draw or win against us where we've moaned like that. We expect that kind of play against us and usually berate ourselves for being toothless or impotent in front of goal when it happens...Were there many calls of Everton's point being unfair or unjust cos we had the better of most of the game? Or did we blame our defence for lazy defending and players for switching off? That couldn't be it for Barca though, oh no. They deserve to win every game, whether they actually do enough to win it or not.
Barca were anything but imperious yesterday. Bar their goals and the pen, they had few chances, and those that were denied them weren't through luck but through great, determined blocking and goalkeeping. They passed around and passed around and refused to anything but pass around impotently for an hour. Self important bollocks if you ask me.
Barca were anything but imperious yesterday. Bar their goals and the pen, they had few chances, and those that were denied them weren't through luck but through great, determined blocking and goalkeeping. They passed around and passed around and refused to anything but pass around impotently for an hour. Self important bollocks if you ask me.
So Barca should have gone through against United in 2008, as the latter played uber-defensively while the former put on a show of attractiveness.
indeed, but people love to see underdogs wining
it's holliwood magic put in football
but then you get to see a greece vs portugal europe cup final
instead of germany vs england or italy or france
And how much better is that Barcelona side then A. Arsenal, and B. so far ahead of most teams in it's league. Some might even say they're the best team to ever play football, but at the end of the day, he's walking away this season with relatively feck all. Certainly much less then he anticipated when joining Barcelona.
But it's alright because they're moral winners or something.
Barcelona had 36 goal attempts in the two games, 11 of them were on target, they hit the woodwork four times, missed a penalty, and scored a (barely) offside goal.. They scored 2 goals..
Chelsea had 9 goal attempts in the two games, 4 of them were on target. They scored 3 goals..
I don't think the result of the tie was about creating chances..
Big Man (TM) apoligizes
Terry has revealed he apologised to Roberto Di Matteo and his team-mates for getting sent off in Chelsea's staggering Champions League triumph over Barcelona.
Terry also used his programme notes for Sunday's Barclays Premier League game against QPR to say sorry to Blues supporters and pay tribute to the 10 men who produced a heroic comeback at the Nou Camp on Tuesday to reach next month's final.
The Chelsea captain wrote: "I want to start my notes today by saying how sorry I am for getting sent off at the Camp Nou and for putting the players, the manager and the club in that situation so early on in such an important game.
"I apologised to Robbie, the players and the staff after the game. I'm big enough to come out and man up when I make a mistake and, clearly, I made a mistake on Tuesday.
"I'm sorry for that and I owe it to you, the fans, to come out and say so."
Terry has revealed he apologised to Roberto Di Matteo and his team-mates for getting sent off in Chelsea's staggering Champions League triumph over Barcelona.
Terry also used his programme notes for Sunday's Barclays Premier League game against QPR to say sorry to Blues supporters and pay tribute to the 10 men who produced a heroic comeback at the Nou Camp on Tuesday to reach next month's final.
The Chelsea captain wrote: "I want to start my notes today by saying how sorry I am for getting sent off at the Camp Nou and for putting the players, the manager and the club in that situation so early on in such an important game.
"I apologised to Robbie, the players and the staff after the game. I'm big enough to come out and man up when I make a mistake and, clearly, I made a mistake on Tuesday.
"I'm sorry for that and I owe it to you, the fans, to come out and say so."
He really does like pointing out how big he is.
Such an arrogant tosser.
shouldnt he apologise to alexis sanchez too?
he is not sorry for kicking another player, he is sorry for getting caught
Genuine question - do you think any of the Chelsea players are in anyway embarrassed of Terry? I mean he seems to have self-appointed himself as 'Mr Chelsea' and never misses an opportunity to point to how much of a 'big man' he is.
As important a player as Terry has been for Chelsea over the years (not the most important person obviously, that's Roman) it does seem to have reached the stage that Chelsea would be better placed without him. He is such a distraction, rarely a season seems to go by without him disgracing himself or the club in some important way and if he is as dominate in the dressing room as suggested then he has to take some blame for the farcical way the club has been run recently.
As he declines as a player the case for them keeping him lessens.
As he declines as a player the case for them keeping him lessens.
Not a surprise. He did the same in 2008: http://thechelseablog.org/2008/05/26/john-terry-public-apology-necessary/
And once again he comes out with that 'big man' stuff.
He's big and he's a man. His constant need to remind us suggests a severe lack of confidence.
it's so hard to like someone like John Terry. Just a disgraceful man
