Chelsea Discussion

[LFCMadLad]

On loan 36 

 

[Cicero]

Evident premier league was a big step for him. 

[The Liquidator]

25 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

On loan 36 

 

[Spike]

10 hours ago, Danny said:

Chelsea's academy is less productive for their first team than ours, and we don't have one.

You say that but fail to take into consideration that the youngsters are sold at a premium to purchase players for the first team.

[Danny]

16 minutes ago, Spike said:

You say that but fail to take into consideration that the youngsters are sold at a premium to purchase players for the first team.

Aye but we're talking productivity, players who actually go on to play for the club. That's an academies sole purpose, anything else is just extra.

[Danny]

7 hours ago, Bluewolf said:

You seem to have some anti Chelsea agenda today for some reason... very strange behaviour

My grandad was Chelsea so I can't hate you that much! However you lot being an oil club is hardly an agenda, just disliking of what modern football has become.

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Danny said:

Aye but we're talking productivity, players who actually go on to play for the club. That's an academies sole purpose, anything else is just extra.

An academies purpose is to make money. 

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

My grandad was Chelsea so I can't hate you that much! However you lot being an oil club is hardly an agenda, just disliking of what modern football has become.

You are not alone.... 

[Spike]

45 minutes ago, Danny said:

My grandad was Chelsea so I can't hate you that much! However you lot being an oil club is hardly an agenda, just disliking of what modern football has become.

I bet people have been saying that since the 60s.

[Danny]

8 minutes ago, Spike said:

I bet people have been saying that since the 60s.

I bet they have but oil money, state owned clubs are a substantial jump for any generation. Turning fairly innocuous midtable-relegation battling clubs into global elites. Being pedantic about the role capitalism has had to play in the demise of football's reputation and perception to actual fans doesn't change the fact that we are living in a commercial golden era and it is now worse than it ever has been.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

I bet they have but oil money, state owned clubs are a substantial jump for any generation. Turning fairly innocuous midtable-relegation battling clubs into global elites. Being pedantic about the role capitalism has had to play in the demise of football's reputation and perception to actual fans doesn't change the fact that we are living in a commercial golden era and it is now worse than it ever has been.

It is only going to be worse; but the point is since that technology has evolved and Brian Clough paid for the first million dollar footballer; it's naive to think this wouldn't have happened regardless of oil or state clubs. Pick your poison, Manchester United dominating for eternity or oil disrupting the process. At the end of the day it is fucked, one is great because it had the luck to dominate at the start if the PL and the other is foreign money. Unless of course you can wait for the occasional Jack Walker but that is steel money...
Or is it different when Berlusconi and Morratti, do it?

Edited August 31, 2018 by Spike

[Danny]

13 minutes ago, Spike said:

It is only going to be worse; but the point is since that technology has evolved and Brian Clough paid for the first million dollar footballer; it's naive to think this wouldn't have happened regardless of oil or state clubs. Pick your poison, Manchester United dominating for eternity or oil disrupting the process. At the end of the day it is fucked, one is great because it had the luck to dominate at the start if the PL and the other is foreign money. Unless of course you can wait for the occasional Jack Walker but that is steel money...
Or is it different when Berlusconi and Morratti, do it?

I would rather see United, Arsenal and Liverpool fighting it out with the occasional push from the likes of Spurs, Chelsea etc than what we have now. There is no excitement in City or Chelsea winning the league, it is not earned nor a surprise.

[Spike]

18 minutes ago, Danny said:

I would rather see United, Arsenal and Liverpool fighting it out with the occasional push from the likes of Spurs, Chelsea etc than what we have now. There is no excitement in City or Chelsea winning the league, it is not earned nor a surprise.

Liverpool!? They never won and they have outside investment as well... United, Arsenal, Liverpool, all their success is based off money earned from the past success. It's a snowball running down a hill, it only gets larger. That is the problem with European sports once a team gets on top they rarely fall.  It would just be United with another 8 titles.

Winning begets winning. That is why Juve, Bayern, Real, Barcelona, United, Liverpool, Celtic, Rangers, etc are all the dominat trophies hauls of their respective nations, once a club starts winning they usually set themmselves up for a future of winning. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Spike

[Spike]

Why is it okay for Man United to buy and financially bully the league because of what people no longer at the club did 30 years ago when the club got big at the right time? They are still buying the league just like Chelsea do. How many times did they break the fee record?  Every time they did they just weakened their rivals so they couod keep winning, and everytime they won they could keep financially bullying other teams. The system has been broke from the start and has never been set up to give clubs a fair chance of winning, ever. Buying players is the wound of european football.

@Danny

At least if my hockey team goes bad it is from bad management, and if they win its from great manangment and I know their is always a chance they will come good. They don't get bullied by other teams and they have all the same chances of other teams.

[Danny]

30 minutes ago, Spike said:

Liverpool!? They never won and they have outside investment as well... United, Arsenal, Liverpool, all their success is based off money earned from the past success. It's a snowball running down a hill, it only gets larger. That is the problem with European sports once a team gets on top they rarely fall.  It would just be United with another 8 titles.

Winning begets winning. That is why Juve, Bayern, Real, Barcelona, United, Liverpool, Celtic, Rangers, etc are all the dominat trophies hauls of their respective nations, once a club starts winning they usually set themmselves up for a future of winning. 

Liverpool are also a massive club and their outside investment haven't massively bankrolled them to where they are, outside investment didn't bankroll them to a Champions League win in 2005 or allow Rafa to push for the title while he was there. Liverpool would be the closest competitors to United and Liverpool, alongside Spurs anyway.

And yes I understand how money effects football, but having Chelsea and City in the league doesn't make it more exciting. If Liverpool, United or Arsenal win the league you think it was deserved at the very least. If City or Chelsea do it it's just a hollow win that only there fans will appreciate.

[Danny]

10 minutes ago, Spike said:

Why is it okay for Man United to buy and financially bully the league because of what people no longer at the club did 30 years ago when the club got big at the right time? They are still buying the league just like Chelsea do. How many times did they break the fee record?  Every time they did they just weakened their rivals so they couod keep winning, and everytime they won they could keep financially bullying other teams. The system has been broke from the start and has never been set up to give clubs a fair chance of winning, ever. Buying players is the wound of european football.

@Danny

At least if my hockey team goes bad it is from bad management, and if they win its from great manangment and I know their is always a chance they will come good. They don't get bullied by other teams and they have all the same chances of other teams.

Man Utd were great because of Ferguson, their money hasn't really helped them in recent years.

[Spike]

5 minutes ago, Danny said:

Man Utd were great because of Ferguson, their money hasn't really helped them in recent years.

They'd wouldn't be anything currently without the money. Fergie also had quite a pretty penny to spend, one of the best of all time but he could dish out a hefty fee when he wanted. Prying away players from direct rivals like Cantona. And because of Fergie's success United can bully other teams. Living off the past. 

 

8 minutes ago, Danny said:

Liverpool are also a massive club and their outside investment haven't massively bankrolled them to where they are, outside investment didn't bankroll them to a Champions League win in 2005 or allow Rafa to push for the title while he was there. Liverpool would be the closest competitors to United and Liverpool, alongside Spurs anyway.

And yes I understand how money effects football, but having Chelsea and City in the league doesn't make it more exciting. If Liverpool, United or Arsenal win the league you think it was deserved at the very least. If City or Chelsea do it it's just a hollow win that only there fans will appreciate.

Of course money got Liverpool that modern success! Xabi Alonso, Fernando Torres, Javier Mascherano, Morientes, etc didn't grow up playing street football on Merseyside. I can concede all the pre-Premier League success but even then winning gets you money, money gets you better scouts, better staff, better facilities, better players, and all that get you winning, and winning get you money, and money  gets you better scouts, better staff, better facilities, better players, and all that get you winning, and winning get you money, and money ad nuaseum. 

The players still have to play, the manager still has to manager, any win is a deserved win. Don't act like any modern team is made up of grassroots locals that have been with the club their entire lives and through blood, sweat, and tears win it all. It's the ultimate hypocrisy. If Liverpool had won the league with a bunch of local lads the Club had nurtured from youth into winners, then I'd say it was deserved in the manner you are describing.

[Danny]

I can't be arsed having multiple paragraph arguments over this, you know I'm not saying money didn't get those players there, it's a professional game.

[Spike]

7 minutes ago, Danny said:

I can't be arsed having multiple paragraph arguments over this, you know I'm not saying money didn't get those players there, it's a professional game.

Then what are you saying? It is wholesome and okay to financially buy success as long as their was prior success? 

[LFCMadLad]

7 minutes ago, Spike said:

Then what are you saying? It is wholesome and okay to financially buy success as long as their was prior success? 

Maybe building yourself up through being successful and self sufficient is preferred to having someone plow millions upon millions into clubs that have done nothing to earn it?

Anyway .....

[Spike]

9 minutes ago, LFCMadLad said:

Maybe building yourself up through being successful and self sufficient is preferred to having someone plow millions upon millions into clubs that have done nothing to earn it?

Anyway .....

You miss the point again. I'm arguing against all spending to win in sports. It is like you have an idea of what you think I'm trying to say and then argue against it. Maybe it is a European thing. I'm not saying one of the other is better I'm saying both are unethical and it is hypocritical to allow one and condemn the other.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Spike

[SirBalon]

39 minutes ago, Spike said:

Don't act like any modern team is made up of grassroots locals

The crest on your profile is practically that club mate.

as for this debate, it's an ongoing one we've all had plenty of times.  We all know commercialism fuelled by marketing is what changed the face of football because no club with a relatively decent status that isn't one of the elite (elite because it also comes into the what's a "big club" depiction) can hold onto any young talent that's starting to make recognised progress.  Media coverage and a more professional and detailed football dedicated journalism (professional in their field) doesn't let any club hide anything so as to build what was once known as a golden era.

Clubs used to be measured by history.  Not only on what they won but because football association clubs anywhere in Europe had a massive local identity, well history was also marked by great deeds believe it or not.  You mentioned not too long ago a simple recognition Internazionale in Italy made back in the day that marked them as different and progressive which is something historically recordable while for example Arsenal Football Club's deeds in WWII.  Many clubs have stories to tell and although I'm not up on Chelsea's history, I'm sure they have too!  None of many clubs are a Paris Saint-Germain who for me are a genuine Mickey Mouse football club.  They have absolutely no association other than their crest and positioning to the this torn of their local demographic.  Obviously going onto win trophies and marking footballing eras adds to all of this which can be then looked upon to be nostalgia mixed in with glory and historical pride.

Clubs all over Europe have a kind of mythical status like in Spain where for example Recreativo de Huelva is known as "El Decano" because they're the oldest official Spanish football club started by English steel workers (as were most clubs in Spain especially in the north of the country).  Athletic Bilbao are recognised as a big club in Spain and yet they haven't won a major trophy (let's ignore the Supercopa de España they won a few years back against Barça) in decades... But you won't find anyone anywhere in Spain trying to refute in an argument that they aren't a massive club... Add all their history attached to their identity and local pride (as I mentioned in the previous paragraph) to that status, but it isn't just that.

Here in England people are very proud of the history attached to the game with the clubs.  It's as if everything has a meaning, everything has an important story to tell with characters that in many cases made a mark not only for the associative local club but to the local demographic.  It's for this reason, the knowledge behind all of this that you have such a defensive stance when getting into these types of debates.  It's as if when someone from outside the walls of the league shows a passion for one of their clubs that those that are within the walls also want some respect for the past and also the global significance behind the national game and how it came to be and grow.  It's as if someone is telling you "you can't just support my club without knowing its history and learning to love and understand that history" but that they then set you some more homework once you've done that and ask you "please learn more about our game and how things came to be which is why all of these small details from rivalries to the characters that moved somewhere else to then feed their melancholy".  

It's all very detailed and extremely complicated.  When you are brought up in a country with a rich football culture and you in turn are interested and want to join the fold... You automatically lap up every small detail that in most cases ends up taking you on a travel around the nation's football and it's history.

I have to say that you being someone from overseas, you always make an effort to learn and understand what all of this is about.  All of what I've just said... You join the dots!  I've noticed this and that creates a big modem of respect amongst football fans.  It's an unsaid thing that this is a requirement if you get my meaning.

Football is old and it has a hell of a lot of meaning behind it.  It's the reason it's so important to football fans and so different to any other sport.  It's like a never ending novel but unfortunately that novel has now been turned into a blockbuster popcorn movie without anyone having ever asked those that cherish it's meaning if they wanted this.

Let me just finish with this...

We all get possessive about many things in life.  Humans are like that even in matrimony with their spouse unfortunately.  We think we own things but most of the time this isn't actually true.  It's worse for men too!

[Spike]

7 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

The crest on your profile is practically that club mate.

as for this debate, it's an ongoing one we've all had plenty of times.  We all know commercialism fuelled by marketing is what changed the face of football because no club with a relatively decent status that isn't one of the elite (elite because it also comes into the what's a "big club" depiction) can hold onto any young talent thacts starting to make recognised progress.  Media coverage and a more professional and detailed football dedicated journalism (professional in their field) doesn't let any club hide anything so as to build what was once known as a golden era.

Clubs used to be measured by history.  Not only on what they won but because football association clubs anywhere in Europe had a massive local identity, well history was also marked by great deeds believe it or not.  You mentioned not too long ago a simple recognition Internazionale in Italy made back in the day that marked them as different and progressive which is something historically recordable while for example Arsenal Football Club's deeds in WWII.  Many clubs have stories to tell and although I'm not up on Chelsea's history, I'm sure they have too!  None of many clubs are a Paris Saint-Germain who for me are a genuine Mickey Mouse football club.  They have absolutely no association other than their crest and positioning to the this torn of their local demographic.  Obviously going onto win trophies and marking footballing eras adds to all of this which can be then looked upon to be nostalgia mixed in with glory and historical pride.

Clubs all over Europe have a kind of mythical status like in Spain where for example Recreativo de Huelva is known as "El Decano" because they're the oldest official Spanish football club started by English steel workers (as were most clubs in Spain especially in the north of the country).  Athletic Bilbao are recognised as a big club in Spain and yet they haven't won a major trophy (let's ignore the Supercopa de España they won a few years back against Barça) in decades... But you won't find anyone anywhere in Spain trying to refute in an argument that they aren't a massive club... Add all their history attached to their identity and local pride (as I mentioned in the previous paragraph) to that status, but it isn't just that.

Here in England people are very proud of the history attached to the game with the clubs.  It's as if everything has a meaning, everything has an important story to tell with characters that in many cases made a mark not only for the associative local club but to the local demographic.  It's for this reason, the knowledge behind all of this that you have such a defensive stance when getting into these types of debates.  It's as if when someone from outside the walls of the league shows a passion for one of their clubs that those that are within the walls also want some respect for the past and also the global significance behind the national game and how it came to be and grow.  It's as if someone is telling you "you can't just support my club without knowing its history and learning to love and understand that history" but that they then set you some more homework once you've done that and ask you "please learn more about our game and how things came to be which is why all of these small details from rivalries to the characters that moved somewhere else to then feed their melancholy".  

It's all very detailed and extremely complicated.  When you are brought up in a country with a rich football culture and you in turn are interested and want to join the fold... You automatically lap up every small detail that in most cases ends up taking you on a travel around the nation's football and it's history.

I have to say that you being someone from overseas, you always make an effort to learn and understand what all of this is about.  All of what I've just said... You join the dots!  I've noticed this and that creates a big modem of respect amongst football fans.  It's an unsaid thing that this is a requirement if you get my meaning.

Football is old and it has a hell of a lot of meaning behind it.  It's the reason it's so important to football fans and so different to any other sport.  It's like a never ending novel but unfortunately that novel has now been turned into a blockbuster popcorn movie without anyone having ever asked those that cherish it's meaning if they wanted this.

Let me just finish with this...

We all get possessive about many things in life.  Humans are like that even in matrimony with their spouse unfortunately.  We think we own things but most of the time this isn't actually true.  It's worse for men too!

Athletic are playing fast and loose by what is 'Basque' these days as well. To be consodered Basque all it takes it to play in the youth team of any Basque based club, Or in Laporte's case have Basque great grandparents. Your son could play for Athletic if he played for Alaves' youth team...('Ive been reading up)

Back to the other debate, you essentially back up what I said in the 'Mourinho' thread when I said to Madlad that 'to foreighers there is no difference to Liverpool, Chelsea, etc' because the context of what makes them special to you doesn't exist. I'm not saying the clubs are the same but the perception outside is usually so. 

People have an idyllic view of what their club is and they dont want it to be another marketing brand.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Spike

[Danny]

29 minutes ago, Spike said:

Then what are you saying? It is wholesome and okay to financially buy success as long as their was prior success? 

If you can't tell the difference between how United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc have done it and how Oil clubs have done it then there's not much I can say.

[Spike]

1 minute ago, Danny said:

If you can't tell the difference between how United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc have done it and how Oil clubs have done it then there's not much I can say.

I never said there wasn't a difference and I never said I didn't know the difference. I asked you a question; are you okay with Manchester United buying success in a post-Fergie world? I know you aren't okay with Chelsea doing it, and that is fine.