What are your views?
Lets call the 2 people A and B and the third Z
NOTE - THIS IS A MASSIVE POST AND WILL TAKE A LONG TIME, SO PLEASE READ ONLY WHEN YOU HAVE NOTHING ON YOUR MIND AND HAVE A GOOD 60 MINUTES TO OFFER A GOOD READ ON FOOTBALL, CHELSEA AND LIVERPOOL.
-----
First this article was posted --- > This one
To which B replied
--
--
B - it's a good article and many of the points i agree with, particularly regarding other clubs getting bought out, thus making the league more competitive.
i think we'd all welcome that.
what critics would say is that while arsenal, man utd, and liverpool acquired their status as big clubs - and hence their huge resources - as a consequence of impeccable performances on the park, we did it the other way around, we acquired impeccable performances on the park as a consequence of someone coming along and bestowing upon us the biggest resources ever bestowed upon a football club.
this is a criticism consistently levelled against us and explains, in part, much of the resentment towards us, a level of resentment i feel that is unprecedented.
herbert chapman is cited as bringing arsenal to the fore, matt busy the mancs, bill shankly liverpool.
i fear our dynasty, if indeed it becomes a dynasty, will forever be synomous not with our manager but our ridiculously rich owner.
i hope i'm wrong.
--
--
A- I don’t think anyone needs to worry that any successful Chelsea dynasty would be synonymous with our owner and, even if this were so, why should it be synonymous with only him? Is Milan’s pedigree ever in doubt because of their “ridiculously rich owner”, Silvio Berlusconi? Who will forget Mourinho in world football or as manager of Chelsea even if he wins nothing again in his life? History records everyone who’s brought great success to clubs – from owners to managers to players to even fans! None is mutually exclusive.
I’m pleased that Englishman has brought to your notice once again Sir Henry Norris’s role with Arsenal, but the role of money as the spark for domination is evident also in the other teams you’ve mentioned. Though, it was relatively late in history before Liverpool began to dominate English football, they would not have been able to do this without the assets and foundations laid by John Houlding, the Conservative politician and self-made brewery millionaire who founded the club. This is a tradition which the Moores family, one of the wealthiest families in the UK, are continuing till today. Liverpool have always had money behind them - that was why they were able to acquire some of the biggest names in football consistently in their dominant period. The only problem now is that others have caught up with them and some have even surpassed them financially, including the change in the dynamics of the football market.
As for Man U, while we can now rightly say the chickens have come home to roost with their takeover by the Glaziers, we need not forget that they were going nowhere fast (apart from those brief halcyon days of the sixties) until that dropout and rugby-loving Martin Edwards made the mistake of attempting to sell the club first to the conman, Robert Maxwell and then Michael Knighton in 1988. When these fell through, the other members of the board angrily opted to float the club in the stock market. That was how they were able to raise the huge cash which they then used to dominate English football in the nineties under Alex Ferguson to the detriment of all others.
So, when the critics say Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool acquired their status as big clubs as a consequence of their “impeccable performances” on the pitch, we need to let them know that they’re getting their history mixed-up. First, they acquired the money, got the right personality as manager, built the team and spread their wings. That’s how every dominant football club in history have done it and that’s how Chelsea are going to do it. It is academic discussing scale because every epoch needs a different scale to make that necessary difference.
Even if you’re not going to use the above argument, it is worth questioning WHO determines HOW a team should choose to dominate. If you ask Man U supporters today, if they can put back the hands of the clock, they would have preferred an Abramovich kind of takeover (where he brings in his own cache of cash) to the Glazier kind where all they’re getting are debts and a diminution in stature. When all is said and done, history will only record our success on the pitch; it will not do so with dollar or pound signs, but with simple words talking about records falling and young men hitting legendary heights as part of an all-conquering team.
Anyone who listened to Ruud Gullit when he appeared in one of the Champions League Sky Sports programmes recently would have heard him mention how much Berlusconi had to do to make Milan dominant in his days of playing for the club along with Rijkaard and Marco van Basten. It was and still is all about money and acquiring the best players. Chelsea and Abramovich did not invent it; they’re only following a well-trodden path. Let’s therefore enjoy the moment while it lasts, because none of these other fans or critics gave us a thought when they were lording it over us and none of them will feel for us if it all ends today.
--
--
B - don't agree A.
liverpool's dominance had little to do with money in my opinion, they were just a phenomenal club.
often, when big names came on the market, liverpool lost out to other members of the big five, everton, spurs, arsenal, man utd, often because those clubs had more clout.
liverpool had money, sure, but shankly didn't have a major financial advantage over his main rivals, and nor did fergie when he joined the mancs.
any advantage they subsequently attained was caused, first and foremost, by what they achieved on the pitch.
notts forest won the european cup before they broke the one million pound barrier (hope my memory isn't playing tricks on me.). that's the way it normally works. win things then you acquire the resources to outspend your opponents, though of course there are plenty of examples of clubs speculating on success before they've got it, leeds and newcastle come to mind, and chelsea to a certain degree, though at least we won things.
forest weren't even one of the big five and yet they could compete financially, so i don't really see the comparison with today.
liverpool were the dominant force thirty or so years ago, until the eighties i think the only player they spent big money on was dalglish, and even then he proved a bargain, and the funds were probably accrued by selling keegan, i don't know.
rush, souness, hansen, lawrenson, how much did those guys cost?
their success came about by the legacy left by shankley. i'd be interested to know how much his first title-winning side cost? i'll bet you any money not much more, or less, than any of his main rivals. the same can be said of fergie but not of us, not that that's important but i think we should be fair.
sure, fergie spent money, he'd been there years before he won his first title, and utd were a big club with spending power, a legacy left by busby. but they were still competing with their rivals for the top signings, even after he had started winning things.
he wanted gazza, as everyone knows, but he went to tottenham. he wanted shearer, as everyone knows, but he went to newcastle. that was the reality. those guys didn't snub utd for less money.
we're not competing with anyone, at least not on these shores, and that's unprecedented.
no-one begrudged liverpool's success because of money. that wasn't why they were superior to us or any other big side. they were just a better run club, certainly better than us, mind you, you couldn't get much worse.
milan are rich but so are a few other italian clubs, inter, juve, they don't seem short of cash, lazio broke the world transfer record at one time, or was it roma?
the playing field has never been so uneven before, therefore we have a bigger advantage even over those clubs who have previously enjoyed an advantage over us, there seems little point in denying it. that's why fans of others clubs are probably entitled to begrudge us a little bit more than they were in liverpool's day, plain and simple. it's not about scale it's about proportion. if you took every other club in the world and pooled together their wealth, it'd probably still be less than ours. that may be an exaggeration, but it may not. after all, we have a bottomless pit.
money doesn't guarantee success, as we may all find out when jose leaves us, therefore i'm not saying our success is without merit and that we shouldn't enjoy it, not at all. we're entitled to the cash, as englishman would say 'that's life', and we're entitled to enjoy the success it has reaped, and yes you're right, much of the resentment we inspire is caused by jealousy.
but i think you're kidding yourself when you say we're following a well-trodden path. i've followed football a long time and abramovich is a pretty unique character. yes, there's been sugar daddies before, but never like this.
i'm not interested in looking at this issue purely from a chelsea perspective and that's why i'm going to get a lot of objections. fans of any club in general lack objectivity.
you felt the lyon president was out of order for instance, i'm sure the lyon fans may have had another view.
you wanted their star player for a fee of your liking and on your terms. how spoilt have we become? we've already got by far the best squad and we want more and we get upset when we don't get it how we want it and when we want it. how quickly we forget we were a selling club not so long ago so if anyone should see the other side it should be us. their man dug his heels in and rightly so. why? because he was looking out for his club and standing up to the richest club in the world.
if you didn't support chelsea you'd have been proud.
--
--
A - Your memory is indeed playing tricks on you. Francis joined Forest in February 1979 when they were the reigning league champions and League Cup holders, not European Cup holders or winners. But it was in May that year they won the European Cup for the first time when they defeated Malmo by 1-0 (goal scored by Francis as noted by Backbiter) and defended it successfully the following year by beating Hamburg by another 1-0 score-line.
--
--
Z - True enough, B. Forest have never been a rich club and to do what they did under Clough was incredible, even if they broke the million pound barrier. Terrible management both on and off the field has seen them plummet through the leagues. Sad. Remember - they offloaded SWP as a youngster. Wonder if they got a cut of the £21m we paid?
You could say that Chelsea played their way up through total poverty and near extinction in the 70s and 80s, surviving due in part to their fanatical support through the bad years. They started to build on their name, status and potential in the 90s by attracting some star players. They won some big trophies, rebuilt the ground and expanded their fan-base and appeal before qualifying for the CL in 2003.
This is what made us attractive to an investor, who just happened to be the richest man in Europe. It's not as if we've risen up from nowhere on the back of his cash, as these 'no history' pillocks keep claiming. We were already one of the elite, a massive club with the potential to become the biggest in London, as Bates always knew. Now we're up there it's pathetic to keep hearing the bleating of most of the media and the other clubs who we've overtaken.
--
--
A -
B,
Z has actually said a lot of the things I was hoping to say; nonetheless, let me just add a few comments.
The point of the debate here is not in comparing teams, but mechanisms of operation of successful football clubs over the ages. The point I’m making is that money has always been key to the success of any football club at the highest level. Of course, it isn’t the only ingredient, but it’s key. Other factors will include a good manager capable of bringing success and who can be depended upon to build the foundation of continued success, a good organization, inspired players and a great fan base. Note that in this debate, I’ve never taken you up on Nottingham Forest, because I believe their success was an exception to the rule, but even Clough still needed to play the money game to be able to sustain their success. The fact that today they’re struggling in the third tier of English football is testament to the fact that such exceptions to the rule aren’t usually sustainable.
So, back to Liverpool, even Shankly did not build with stones. For instance, Ian St. John was brought in from Motherwell for a record £37, 000 in 1961, which was more than double the amount the Liverpool board had previously paid for a record buy. It was that same swoop that saw the big money move for Ron Yeats and Tommy Lawrence. Two years later, Shankly was spending another record £40,000 on Peter Thompson from Preston North End. In 1968, his big-spending broke another record with the acquisition of teenager Alun Evans for £110,000. His last signing was Alan Kennedy, whom he acquired for £180, 000. These were before the days of Kenny Dalglish whom you wrongly assume to be the only player they spent money on. Even he was acquired from Celtic in 1977 for a British record fee of £440,000, a king’s ransom in those days. Before him was Alan Hansen and after him was Souness for £350,000 – all within a six month period. It was the Paisley era that also saw the arrival of the Australian, Craig Johnson for £570,000 in 1980 and Steve Nicol from Ayr United for £300,000 in 1981. The Kenny Dalglish management years saw the arrival of John Barnes from Watford for £900,000 and Ray Houghton for £825,000. Dalglish also paid the English record transfer fee of £1.9 million for Peter Beardsley in 1987. Souness as manager also spent a lot of money on some not so successful players, but it was under Roy Evans again that they broke the British transfer record by paying $8.5 million for Stan Collymore from Forest.
Of course, money alone does not make a great team. Shankly was an astute and knowledgeable manager who built a template for success that people who worked under him like Paisley and Fagan were able to duplicate. This is what I meant by saying one of the factors for success is “a good manager capable of bringing success and who can be depended upon to build the foundation of continued success”. Liverpool was lucky to have such a character in Shankly, but without money the whole project would have failed. Notthingham Forest had such a manager, but without money, the success was not sustainable. Chelsea today has such a manager and because we have money, everyone is afraid, knowing that domination is near inevitable. It is no coincidence that Liverpool’s dominant era, as was Manchester United’s and Arsenal’s were achieved under a period of managerial stability. I’m sure it is our hope as well that Mourinho stays long enough to establish a winning culture at Chelsea, so that anyone succeeding him will know what standard to aim for.
--
--
B -
shankly wins first title without spending disproportionately to his main rivals;
hence he creates a basis on which to start spending bigger, particularly given the fact that liverpool are well-backed and have a big fan base;
and the period of domination that ensues allows them to carry on spending big into future eras.
exactly the same could be said of fergie.
it would be the same if abramovich wasn't around and newcastle went on to appoint a proper manager and win the title and create a dynasty, fanciful as that may sound, and i know that sounds fanciful.
you'd say their success was built partly on money but you wouldn't say they were operating on a completely different scale to their main rivals in pursuit of their first title for god knows how long.
they merely spent comparably to the other challengers of the day, liverpool, arsenal, chelsea, man utd, more than some but less than others, even boro have spent a fair few quid in recent times.
actually i think it's unfair to even cite arsenal there because of wenger's staggering transfer record.
the others spent big, as did we before abramovich arrived, the other club to spend big of course was leeds, but i omitted them for obvious reasons.
in fact, if abramovich hadn't arrived, as my example stipulates, i should really have omitted us too, by virtue of the fact that we'd have gone the same way as leeds in all likelihood, or at the very least we would have been in a far more unhealthy position, and we wouldn't have even been considered newcastle's rivals.
imagine that, not even newcastle's rivals, perish the thought.
--
--
A -
The football business is not a communist enterprise. It is a myth to talk about clubs spending proportionately or to expect that such is possible. It is the economics of each particular club and the personal spending preferences of their owner(s) that determine how they spend. After all, n pre-Abramovich’s era, you didn’t have a conference of clubs where Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and all these other clubs sit down to say, hey, my friends, this year’s spending limit for players or wages is this or that. It just doesn’t happen! Every club spend as they deem fit.
When Shankly was spending big buying Ian St. John, Ron Yeats, Tommy Lawrence and Peter Thompson in his bid to win his first Liverpool title in the top flight, no other club in England had his spending power, except Bill Nicholson’s Tottenham Hotspur and, to an extent, Busby’s Manchester United. But nobody made a fuss; clubs just got on with it, because they know that money alone does not a good team make.
You know, in my first post, I raised the pertinent question of who determines how a team should choose to dominate. The obvious answer is nobody, because teams simply do what they have to do to dominate legitimately. Chelsea’s budding domination is certainly not unique; what is unique is that we have an owner who seems to love football genuinely and who would spend what is necessary to see his beloved team achieve the dream of us all. Manchester United has a billionaire as owner as well; so why are these supposed grumbles by other clubs’ fans not directed at them? Is it that Malcolm Glazier cannot afford to spend as much as Abramovich on players? Of course, he can; the difference is that he won’t spend because he’s there to cart away the profits immediately. His love for the football side is almost zilch!
What supporters of other teams should be praying for is that more Abramovich-like investors come into football and that the old dinosaurs running things now shouldn’t discourage them. We (and the football community generally) are lucky to have his kind; if anyone begrudges us, it’s their bloody problem.
--
--
B -
whatever the reason, and whatever the right and wrongs, it doesn't take away from the fact that the playing field has never been so uneven before, in terms of what one manager can spend compared to others, and that's no good thing, not in my opinion, and it's just an opinion, you're fully entitled to have no problem with it.
to my mind, there are similarities with the past, also crucial differences, and i'm not afraid to acknowledge them.
in fact, roman is probably the most unique owner in the history of british football, that's why so much fuss is made about him, which is apt, because he bought the most unique of football clubs.
but i don't know, have this debate on a liverpool forum and see what they say.
then report back.
--
--
A -
whatever the reason, and whatever the right and wrongs, it doesn't take away from the fact that the playing field has never been so uneven before, in terms of what one manager can spend compared to others, and that's no good thing, not in my opinion, and it's just an opinion, you're fully entitled to have no problem with it.
Oh, of course, you’re entitled to your opinion, but anyone, including me, can disagree with it or aspects of it. While I do not doubt the fact that the playing field is “uneven”, I question the rationale for proportioning it now only because Chelsea are apparently awash with more cash than the rest. Why should proportion be an issue now when it wasn’t before and when whatever obtained before since the advent of the Premier League has offered us nothing more than a two-horse race, year in, year out? Why should the proportion of cash Chelsea have now be a problem when we all know money alone does not make a great team? I mean, it is not as if all the great players on earth are locked up in Stamford Bridge - there’s a limit to the number of players we’ll need or the players we can buy and there are great players in Liverpool, Arsenal and Man United, so why the hoopla? Real Madrid spent more than Chelsea this summer, but from what we can see so far, it doesn’t look as if it’s guaranteeing them anything. Inter has been known to spend far more than the rest in Serie A, but so far such spending has brought them nothing.
The truth is that this whole jive about Chelsea’s cash and so on and so forth is a convenient excuse to deny the Chelsea players their incredible achievement; it is a roundabout way of undermining whatever they’re likely to achieve in the future under the astute management of Mourinho. Yes, we can have a proper debate about how to fund and run football at all levels so as to spread the benefits more evenly, but Chelsea’s rise should be no excuse for such a mission. That yearning need has been there from time immemorial - long before this budding Chelsea domination. We aren’t doing what others have not done – essence and not proportion should be the issue.
to my mind, there are similarities with the past, also crucial differences, and i'm not afraid to acknowledge them.
Exactly! But acknowledging them is one thing; properly analyzing and responding to them is another. Why should anyone hate Chelsea because we have more money than them and are prepared to spend it to benefit ourselves and those we do business with within football? Why should anyone begrudge us our good fortune when all we’ve done is do what is legally acceptable within the business? Why should anyone begrudge us because we spent and won the league title, rather than go the way of Inter? Why should anyone hate us because we’re winners? They hated Man U when Man U were dominating; they hate Liverpool when Liverpool were dominating; they hated Arsenal when they had their brief moment; so, why find other reasons to hate Chelsea beyond the very obvious one, which is that we kick
imperiously when we’re on the pitch? in fact, roman is probably the most unique owner in the history of british football, that's why so much fuss is made about him, which is apt, because he bought the most unique of football clubs
Excellent! Let them make as much fuss as they want, Roman will simply keep his head down, as he’s always done, and get on with the business of making Chelsea the dominant power in world football. If anyone does not like it, let them put their money where their frigging emotion is!
but i don't know, have this debate on a liverpool forum and see what they say.
then report back.
Why do I need to go to a Liverpool forum? I’ve discussed this countless times with my friends who’re Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Man U, Middlesbrough and even Brentford fans and I’ve always asked them whether or not they wish that someone like Abramovich takes over their club and spends as much as he’s doing now with Chelsea on them. Not surprisingly, they all say they would dearly love that for their clubs! So, when I then ask what their problem is with Chelsea if they really wouldn’t mind that for themselves, the answer becomes obvious even before they open their mouths – hypocrisy!
So, let’s not go down the route of asking me to go to a Liverpool forum. The outcome is easily predictable. And, in any case, you’ve tried very hard to make their case for them here; I don’t think they can do a better job than you have done making their case. But if any Liverpool fan you know feels compelled enough to want to discuss this, you can direct them here and we’ll have a grown-up chat about it.
--
--
B -
i'm not making the case for liverpool A, their fans are far more qualified to do that, i'm just seeing both sides of the argument, please don't make it about winning and losing, but about sharing.
you see the similarities between how liverpool achieved their position of dominance and what we're doing, i see the differences, that's all.
like i said in an earlier post, i'm not interested in looking at this issue solely from a chelsea perspective, that's possibly what you find so infuriating, that's why i suggested you go on a liverpool forum, because they might offer you a new perspective, just like your views may offer them.
while you're at it, go on a lyon forum, you'll probably find the same.
i've noticed that you tend to side with chelsea on just about every issue, cole-gate being another, almost to the point where you argue black is white, meanwhile however you have no qualms about attacking lots of other clubs, not in this thread perhaps but in others, which more or less tells its own tale, like it or not, you lack objectivity, therefore it might do you good to preach to someone other than the converted, for you might see the other side more readily.
if you want an address for a liverpool site i'll happily find you one, but please do us all a service and report back.
--
--
B -
A, just found an article by a liverpool fan, makes for interesting reading and might help you see the other side.
incidentally, the website it comes from, football 365, has a letters page, i'm sure if you respond to some of the points raised, in a concise manner, they'll include it, and it will be interesting to see what sort of response you provoke.
however, they don't do the cut and paste thing this site provides, so bear that in mind.
don't be making us look bad now...
Chelsea – Killing Football For Us All
Thursday September 22 2005
By
Paul Tomkins
There is much navel-gazing taking place in football at the moment. A lack of goals in big games; two-thirds of the Premiership looking to avoid relegation with stifling tactics; the empty seats at many stadia; and, in the case of Liverpool fans, the dip that follows any 'high' in life, be it heroin, caffeine or sugar. If you go up, you can only come down again. Sometimes with a bang.
Romance in football may have been on the decline for a while; but last season's Champions League proved it is alive and well, just obscured from time to time. But Chelsea are the equivalent of a man who has never given his wife a bunch or flowers, and who goes down the pub with his mates on Valentine's Day. Chelsea are the death of footballing romance.
First of all, I don't have any great hatred of Chelsea. Sure, they've never been one of my favourite clubs, and there's always been plenty to dislike about them (not least, the loathsome Ken Bates). But there was always plenty to like, too: namely their annual soft-bellied capitulation at Anfield. They rolled over, and were tickled.
Chelsea suddenly got some money in the 1990s, but it was a wealth comparable to other top clubs. They shopped in the same stores as the rest, albeit ones in a more trendy milieu. Now they don't so much shop as own the shop. And not just any shop. They own Harrods. (Actually, the owner of their neighbours, Fulham, owns Harrods ––but this is Footballing Metaphor Harrods).
They have it all. Money, talent and a prime location to entice the world's best. They have a collection of brilliant footballers, marshalled by a remarkable manager.
How can football ever be a fair competition with such radical financial disparity? Plenty of clubs have had outside investment in the past, but it's been of a smaller nature, and a temporary boost. As much as £100m might buy you some good players, and maybe even the occasional trinket, but not sustainable success. Unlimited money buys you a chance at unlimited success.
Other 'rich' clubs have built their wealth on the back of success on the pitch, and a broad fan base. It's been assembled over a period of time. Football has never seen anything like Abramovich's Chelsea before.
It's one thing having lots of money, another spending it wisely. For the most part Chelsea have done just that, and in Mourinho they have a man who can control the players and get them to subvert their egos. The players themselves know that they are all dispensable.
Chelsea are in the envious position of being able to pay tens of millions for a player and happily sell him twelve months later for a massive loss if a better player comes along, or the first one fails. It simply makes no difference.
Liverpool, Arsenal, even Manchester United, have to justify any significant outlay; just one expensive mistake in the transfer market can lead to long-term problems. I'm sure Alex Ferguson will eternally regret not spending the £28m on Seba Veron in a more effective manner.
Since Abramovich arrived in 2003 Chelsea have spent approaching £300m on transfers. In return they have recouped a incredibly small percentage from sales. Again, it makes little difference to them. Abramovich spending £10m is like you or I spending £10 on a CD, and if we don't like it, we'll just write it off as a mildly inconvenient loss. It might irk us, but it won't break us.
Premiership clubs need to be careful, prudent; Chelsea do not. They could go out and buy a whole new £300m team in January if they wished. They have that massive safety net. Money doesn't buy success; but unlimited money makes it far, far easier to succeed.
Sour Grapes
It's not bitterness or sour grapes at Chelsea's success. It's just that, in my eyes, it's hollow success because of the grotesque expenditure that ensured it.
In the hands of Ranieri that money wasn't necessarily a godsend; that could have been interesting. In the hands of a top manager, it makes them virtually unbeatable. How did they attract a top manager? By having tons of cash. Without that money, Chelsea would almost certainly not have Mourinho.
While I (obviously) never liked Man United's dominance in the 1990s, I couldn't help but grant them grudging respect. Ferguson spent money, but he also developed his own players. I also felt that a good team could always come along and usurp them.
That team was Arsenal. For a while the Gunners had a sublime football team, built on a medium-range budget. They spent big occasionally – only when they had to. But they're entering a transitional phase just as Chelsea step up another gear. I never resented Arsenal their success. I do resent Chelsea.
I don't find Chelsea's football boring. I find their money boring. Their style of play may not please everyone, but it's the age-old formula of world-class goalkeeper, super-tight defence, strong midfield, and a clutch of players who can score goals, allied to strength in depth.
The 4-5-1 formation doesn't make it less exciting. I'm sure Real Madrid would kill for some of Chelsea's defensive stability. Chelsea have some great attacking players, but they don't take the risks associated with other great attacking sides. And why should they? They don't need to. When you don't concede goals, you only need to score one. None of that bothers me.
Had Chelsea evolved over a number of seasons, making the odd expensive signing but picking up players of the quality of Robben, Essien, Wright-Phillips, et al, for reasonable fees by good scouting, then I'd respect them. But they were all the 'obvious' players that only the biggest pot of gold could buy.
Although they'd have struggled to attract him, I'd like to have seen Mourinho managing Chelsea without Abramovich's backing (i.e. the Russian had not come to England). Mourinho would have them challenging for the top with his canny methods, but he'd have to work with players who were not his first choices. Or his second, or even third choices.
It would be a really interesting four-way race for the title, without Chelsea's obscene wealth. As it stands, Chelsea can spend their way to another league title. I'm sure even Chelsea fans would enjoy that more; they may not admit it now, but it will dawn on them in time.
Obscene
Chelsea's wealth does so much. It allows them to unsettle their rivals. They have the power and wealth to influence the media. A bid for Gerrard, a rumour about Henry, an approach for Ashley Cole. You just know stories will appear in the papers ahead of the Champions League game next week. You can set your watch by it.
Their expenditure has also driven up the prices for other teams. Just when transfer fees were getting sensible, Chelsea blew it all out of the water. They can't have it all their own way, but they can have what they want often enough. They can't buy everything: Gerrard said no, Henry said no, and others have failed to be enticed. But they can still buy the best players at clubs unable to resist the ruble.
Cup competitions remain the best place to beat Chelsea. Any team can have an off day, and underdogs can prosper in the lack of pressure. Liverpool were able to do that very thing last season. The pressure was all on Chelsea. We've seen it in the Carling Cup this week.
Chelsea's quality and depth will see them win nearly all of their league games. Those they don't will be rendered insignificant.
Cup competitions – devalued for so long – may return to become the only interesting thing in English football. Teams cannot dominate cup competitions. Cup competitions rely more on luck, and that element of risk, of chance, could add spice to an increasingly predictable footballing landscape.
And 'competition' is the operative word. Look at the sport of the summer in England: cricket, and the Ashes series. The Australian cricket team are like the Man United of the mid-90s: snarling, intensely competitive, arrogant, talented, and hard to beat.
And yet the Aussies looked almost happy to lose the series. Unbelievable! I've never seen such smiles from men not used to being beat: it would be like Keane, Ferguson and Neville happily applauding a crushing defeat. The Aussies were not happy at being second best; they were 'happy' because at long last they'd been given a good game (or rather, five five-day tests) that could have gone either way.
Their sport became meaningful again. And that's the danger football faces: Chelsea's success will be great for them (initially, at least), just a death knell for the game itself.
And then Chelsea's success will become meaningless. Because no-one else will care.
--
--
A -
Now, you’ve brought what you call an article from “the other side”.
Well, let me ask you these:
Since you accuse me of lack of objectivity and blindly supporting Chelsea and so on, should I accept that Paul Tomkins piece above is indeed an objective and fair one? Since you’ve brought this article here as a view “from the other side”, would you mind asking Mr Tomkins if he would be writing this if Abramovich had chosen Liverpool to splash his millions on instead of Chelsea? And do you, Cubano Pete, buy Mr Tomkin’s arguments in whole or in part? If you accept his arguments fully, let us know; if in parts, let us know which parts you agree with. It is not enough for you to claim you’re being objective or that you’re not looking at this purely from a Chelsea fan’s perspective, especially as one finds it difficult to know exactly what you believe over this issue.
Frankly, I’ve been reading Paul Tomkins before today; so, I know fully well what his issues are. There’s no issue that he’s raised in the above piece that we’ve not debunked already on this thread alone. Personally, I find the piece naïve, myopic and a little sour for obvious reasons. No amount of denial by Mr Tomkins can hide this.
In any case, if you think there’s one issue he’s raised that we have not responded to properly in our responses here on this thread, let’s hear it. Otherwise, like all prejudiced hee-haws from his kind, ignoring them is usually the best policy, because no matter how hard they try, they simply cannot outfight reality.
--
--
B - in answer to your question, i find paul tomkins' view more objective than yours, truth be told.
however, i think we should call a truce on this one.
ta-ra.
--
--
A -
You can’t call a truce where there’s no war. At least, I do not believe I’m at war with you. To the best of my knowledge, I’m simply trying to share ideas with you. So, let’s just be ourselves, but at all times strive to discuss like the adults that we are. We can disagree with each other as much as we want; it really shouldn’t stop us from being civil. And yes, I can differentiate between jokes and insults; but you’re perfectly entitled to believe I can’t.
Now, just for the record, you didn’t answer my questions. There is nothing like Paul Tomkin’s view being “more objective” than mine. It’s either it is objective or not, no half measures.
Below is my challenge to you:
And do you, B, buy Mr Tomkin’s arguments in whole or in part? If you accept his arguments fully, let us know; if in parts, let us know which parts you agree with. It is not enough for you to claim you’re being objective or that you’re not looking at this purely from a Chelsea fan’s perspective, especially as one finds it difficult to know exactly what you believe over this issue.
So, if you’re really interested in answering my question, deal with it in the form I’ve requested above. If nothing else, it may afford us an opportunity to take the microscope to Paul Tomkins prattles and see whether there’s really any value.
Of course, you can ignore this post if you aren’t keen.
--
--
B - find mister tomkins objective only in part, but i find him more objective than you.
i hope this answers your question and i hope it doesn't cause offence.
i would go into what parts i find objective, as you requested, but i feel we'd only be going over old ground.
let's agree to differ and move on.
--
--
A -
No problem. We can certainly agree to disagree. Thank you.
All,
Here’s an excerpt from GREAVSIE: The Autobiography by Jimmy Greaves:
The age of innocence came to an end in 1963 in football as well. The roots of the money-ridden game as we know today are to be found in the Champions of 1962-3, Everton.
Ipswich Town had won the First Division Championship with a team comprising local lads and cheap signings. With the exception of Derby County in 1972 & 1975 and Blackburn Rovers in 1995, little did we know that no other 'town' team would ever lift the Championship. The English Championship was to be the preserve of the rich clubs of the cities. In winning the Premiership in 1995, Blackburn, though a town, did so thanks to the millions of pounds invested by their then owner, Jack Walker. Up until 1962-3 it was still possible for a provincial town club such as Ipswich or Burnley to win the Football League Championship. Following Everton's success in 1962-63 it became harder and harder.
Everton spent heavily to win the Championship in 1963. Having spent what was considered at the time to be an astronomical amount of money, £200,000, on 5 players, the Everton manager Harry Catterick then spent £60,000 on Tony Kay from Sheffield Wednesday and £45,000 on right winger Alex Scott from Rangers. In terms of transfer fees, £305,000 doesn't seem a lot of money these days but in 1963 it was an unprecedented amount for a club to spend, and the press responded by dubbing Everton 'THE CHEQUE BOOK CHAMPIONS'.
You never see such a thing for what it is at the time. Only with the passing of the years did people realise the effect Everton's spending spree was to have on football. It gave birth to the notion that, while money is not a guarantee of success in football, a club will never achieve success without it.
Everton's money-fuelled success was not the sole reason for the end of the age of innocence in football, but was a major contributory factor. Money was now seen as a key player in the game.
In other words, long before Abramovich came along, some other clubs have been "buying" the title. So, we aren’t doing anything new now, or are we?
--
--
Z 2 -
Schoolboy error A
In that paragraph you are saying we did buy the title! Months and months of sweat and toil fighting your corner destroyed by one momentary lapse.
Akin to what England fans if the current age would call a Jamesian!
--
--
A -
The error is yours. If you look properly, you’ll see that my buying is in quotes. Surely, any schoolboy knows what that means!
--
-----------------------------------
This debate is still on and a lot of people have joined in, thus its become A talkint to X and B talking to Y and A replying to B's post which was titiled to Y etc etc ..
.. id just like your views on this subject as i feel a lot of well thought and valid points have been made above.
Thoughts?
you expect someone to read that thrash....... 
