Lynk
Obsessed with discrediting Danny Welbeck
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 14,976
Milan were always a big club.Is Milan's success tainted? If it's not than I see no reason why Chelsea's should be.
Milan were always a big club.Is Milan's success tainted? If it's not than I see no reason why Chelsea's should be.
Milan were always a big club.
Chelsea and City are writing their history now if that makes sense. In 50 years not many will care how it all started. Arsenal themselves were upto some shenanigans when they started off, I don't see anyone crying about that now.Arsenal and Chelsea are nowhere near comparable.
Winning a Champions League makes you 'successful'. Being the biggest club is more than just success. You can't buy history.
For all that Chelsea win, it's not going to change the fact that the seeds were planted by a rich guy and they went from 4th-5th place to competing for the title over night due to a lot of money.
Manchester City are the same.
I would say the original big clubs of football will remain the only big clubs, as long as they maintain their success.
Always thought that's strange as well. Moratti at Inter is the worst example in recent years. You barely hear anyone saying Inter bought their CL title in 2010, often they're even praised for their brilliant transfers that season, yet they spend City-like in the 10 years prior to the win, I think it was around €700m which Moratti gave of his own money and Inter made a loss of around €250m during the two years Mourinho managed them. There's really no difference, imo. I prefer that no one is allowed to do it, but I don't think Chelsea's CL title is less deserved than most of Milan's, Inter's or even Real's in the 50's.I have always found that logic absurd. Clubs like Milan can spend money of their owner because of their 'history'. But for Chelsea to do it is not allowed.
Always thought that's strange as well. Moratti at Inter is the worst example in recent years. You barely hear anyone saying Inter bought their CL title in 2010, often they're even praised for their brilliant transfers that season, yet they spend City-like in the 10 years prior to the win, I think it was around €700m which Moratti gave of his own money and Inter made a loss of around €250m during the two years Mourinho managed them. There's really no difference, imo. I prefer that no one is allowed to do it, but I don't think Chelsea's CL title is less deserved than most of Milan's, Inter's or even Real's in the 50's.
City went from 4th-5th to competing for the title? I don't remember that.For all that Chelsea win, it's not going to change the fact that the seeds were planted by a rich guy and they went from 4th-5th place to competing for the title over night due to a lot of money.
Manchester City are the same.
Nice to see some people in here finally coming round and looking at facts rather than bandwagon jumping!
Obviously our success isnt tainted and no-one in 30 years time will care or remember where the money came from, in fact I don't think anyone outside of bitter rivals even think about it now. You still have to build and gel a team, bring in a top manager, and play 38 games like everyone else.
The economy of football changed, get over it, right now all of you would welcome a RA with open arms, and not care about anything else. The difference is you guys have had no idea what its like to be a higher echelons of the table club that cant get that extra level higher like we were in the late 90;s and early 00's, you were there at the right place at the right time to be self sufficient.
In the long run owners like RA will be seen as a positive thing, because it enabled more top talent to be brought onto our shores, increasing the strength of the EPL. Instead of a SPL and LL style 2 team title race we have more options. In an ideal world of course more clubs would have rich owners thus playing even more on a level field.
Bear in mind that it's three years we've had Torres and he simply hasn't worked. We have tried changing numerous things to get him firing. I don't think us spending big on another striker three years later is that ridiculous. Nor was his move without consequense. It clearly affected our ability to sign another top quality striker. United replaced Berbatov with RVP.Let's be clear I don't think it is on that likes of Chelsea and City can make multiple big money signing without any consequences. Meaning your 50m striker stank the shop, yet you are now gearing up to spend a similar amount on another one. That's something very few clubs can afford.
There is some truth to Chelsea's mini dominance forcing everyone in PL to raise their standards. English clubs' marked improvement in Europe was a testament to that .
Not true. The club was run right. Manchester United was a football world leader in the marketing department. Many Germany clubs have done well to self-sustain but United back in the 90's took a step that no other club did in their expansion abroad. It's evident now in the sheer merch sale and fan base.Nice to see some people in here finally coming round and looking at facts rather than bandwagon jumping!
Obviously our success isnt tainted and no-one in 30 years time will care or remember where the money came from, in fact I don't think anyone outside of bitter rivals even think about it now. You still have to build and gel a team, bring in a top manager, and play 38 games like everyone else.
The economy of football changed, get over it, right now all of you would welcome a RA with open arms, and not care about anything else. The difference is you guys have had no idea what its like to be a higher echelons of the table club that cant get that extra level higher like we were in the late 90;s and early 00's, you were there at the right place at the right time to be self sufficient.
In the long run owners like RA will be seen as a positive thing, because it enabled more top talent to be brought onto our shores, increasing the strength of the EPL. Instead of a SPL and LL style 2 team title race we have more options. In an ideal world of course more clubs would have rich owners thus playing even more on a level field.
City went from 4th-5th to competing for the title? I don't remember that.
Bear in mind that it's three years we've had Torres and he simply hasn't worked. We have tried changing numerous things to get him firing. I don't think us spending big on another striker three years later is that ridiculous. Nor was his move without consequense. It clearly affected our ability to sign another top quality striker. United replaced Berbatov with RVP.
Nice to see some people in here finally coming round and looking at facts rather than bandwagon jumping!
Obviously our success isnt tainted and no-one in 30 years time will care or remember where the money came from, in fact I don't think anyone outside of bitter rivals even think about it now. You still have to build and gel a team, bring in a top manager, and play 38 games like everyone else.
The economy of football changed, get over it, right now all of you would welcome a RA with open arms, and not care about anything else. The difference is you guys have had no idea what its like to be a higher echelons of the table club that cant get that extra level higher like we were in the late 90;s and early 00's, you were there at the right place at the right time to be self sufficient.
In the long run owners like RA will be seen as a positive thing, because it enabled more top talent to be brought onto our shores, increasing the strength of the EPL. Instead of a SPL and LL style 2 team title race we have more options. In an ideal world of course more clubs would have rich owners thus playing even more on a level field.
Parker was an odd one but I'm not sure he was signed to stop others. However I'm sure Mourinho would rather have spent the money on strengthening his team so I'm unsure whether he really would have been signed for adverse reasons. SWP was actually a signing I was strangely excited about. The price was extreme though. There was a time when he actually looked good. he made 27 league appearances in all three of his seasons here so I'm not sure you could argue he wasn't needed.It is not just that. You bought likes of Parker and SWP simply IMO to stop your domestic rivals from getting them.
To be fair, I dont think ours is quite the same as Citys in that we were a much more attractive prospect than City, being a club that already challenged for the title a couple of years before and won trophies, plus having a recent history of continental flair. Ours was more gaining that extra level, than jumping form nobodies to the very top. We were winning European cups whilst City were in the second or third division.
I agree with you. I'll always defend Chelsea from being lumped in with City. City were taken from obscurity and made unrecognisable. You were taken from a respectable position, akin to a Spurs now only with several high profile cup wins and kept much of your spine, including Lampard and Terry. Fans ignoring this just like throwing mud.
The Everton stuff is sheer nonsense. We took Fellaini cause Moyes wanted a player from his previous club, like most managers. Similar with Baines. Barkley? Pretty much every big club has been linked to him.Also you only have to look at United dismantling of up asnd coming clubs that are trying to make their way up naturally to make the whole point moot.
As soon as Spurs were getting a decent team United poach Berbatov and Carrick then develop an interest in Modric and Bale.
Now Everton are getting better they took Fellaini, and have an interest in Barkley and Baines.
Thats ok though since its Uniteds own money?
Bigger clubs will always do things that keep the lower ones down whether its with their own money or not.
The Everton stuff is sheer nonsense. We took Fellaini cause Moyes wanted a player from his previous club, like most managers. Similar with Baines. Barkley? Pretty much every big club has been linked to him.
Do you think? Like who? I always figured City had a massive (ahem) potential fanbase. They still got 30k in the third tier, based in a big City with the ability to attract more supporters. They're failing somewhat but it's there. The only others I could see would be Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Newcastle. And you could say that all of those were already pretty big clubs anyway. City weren't.I maintain that the only reason City were chosen was to create stories and history with City being the rival to the most successful team in England. There were plenty more attractive options.
Do you think? Like who? I always figured City had a massive (ahem) potential fanbase. They still got 30k in the third tier, based in a big City with the ability to attract more supporters. They're failing somewhat but it's there. The only others I could see would be Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Newcastle. And you could say that all of those were already pretty big clubs anyway. City weren't.
There are only three big clubs in England: Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
My problem was that you were implying that we're intentionally trying to do to Everton what we did to Spurs or City did to Arsenal, which is nonsense.Yeah its not just United that do it, but thats my point, all the higher clubs do things that push the smaller ones down, its easier to overlook when its done with your own money I guess, but it has the same outcome.
No I dont really think that, but its self righteous to believe everything we or City do is wrong and everything United or other clubs do is fine purely because its their own money.My problem was that you were implying that we're intentionally trying to do to Everton what we did to Spurs or City did to Arsenal, which is nonsense.
Success is only plastic if its earnt through subtefuge.
If it was proven club A paid off referees or chairmen to win games, then club A's success can be considered plastic.
Simply having a lot of money is not reason to call a clubs success plastic.
Its like saying someone who won the lottery after working all their life doesn't deserve to have what they do or whatever they spend it on.
There are only three big clubs in England: Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
You can keep telling yourself that.
Only two really - United and Liverpool.There are only three big clubs in England: Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
You actually don't understand what I've written?City went from 4th-5th to competing for the title? I don't remember that.