EPT
If you on about Real Madrid Mourinho then that also was the last time they won the league, im sure they didn't mind that either?
2016 - 2017 Football Thread - Page 282
| Forum Index > Sports |
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
If you on about Real Madrid Mourinho then that also was the last time they won the league, im sure they didn't mind that either? | ||
|
Faruko
Chile34171 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
 | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
On June 01 2017 03:20 Pandemona wrote: If that is the case why do we have more trophies than Man City who have spent more than us A ten year head start, less competition with the same money and a less competitive league? | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
We since 2012 have net spent £192 million for 2 leagues titles, 1 champions league, 1 europa league, 1 fa cup and a capital one cup xD City since 2012 have 1 league title 1 capital one cup and spent £402 million xd + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/sport-net-spend.jpg?strip=all&w=960) | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
- you started 10 years earlier and already had top squad while City where just starting to break into the top 4 - there's now 20 teams in PL alone that could spend £100m in a transfer window, back when you started it was about four in the world == massive inflation - there was a two team competition for the title with an occasional 3rd contender when you started, when City started it was 4-6 | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
On June 01 2017 02:39 Pandemona wrote: Won the league 2 out of 3 seasons with that crap happening, i'll take that over one completely awful season. Pretty sure Arsenal fans would too If you on about Real Madrid Mourinho then that also was the last time they won the league, im sure they didn't mind that either? No, was talking about Chelski's 2015/16 season. Instead of having a normal situation, management was completely out of whack. So much so that the players basically rebelled (whether it was conscious or just very low morale, I don't know) and Mou got fired. Conte's hire was fine, but pointing to the current title and the one in the season before and acting as if the results show that management was good, is absurd. Management was terrible. Whether having a management crisis and a completely awful season, where you have to fly in Hiddink to come and save you from relegation (slight exaggeration), but 2 great seasons is better (long-term) than a long continuous list of mediocre (but not bad) seasons, I don't really care. You can't point to Chelsea as a shining beacon of good management. Good scouting? Sure. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6215 Posts
On June 01 2017 02:19 Pandemona wrote: See Chelsea kinda paved a way for the changing of the manager as it has gotten us alot of great results. Not saying it is the right way, but the way we do it at our club is working for us so far. Can argue Real Madrid has a similar ruthless approach and are back to being a force on all fronts. However Wenger is a good manager and again you can only give "maybe" answers to if someone else could have done a better job than him or not. Next season is so big for him though, he has to get back into the top 4 and he has to compete for longer in the title race thats for sure. If he fails on both accounts surely they have to move him on? Can't have 2 seasons without Champions league football. Chelsea didn't pave any ways. Frequently changing managers happens at almost any club. Clubs with managers for 5+ years are an exception not the rule. I'd say Chelsea's management is good though. They haven't relied on Abramovich for a while now and are a very stable top team. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3978 Posts
On June 01 2017 03:45 Pandemona wrote: They have spent around 600million more than we have in "less time" with less success :D We since 2012 have net spent £192 million for 2 leagues titles, 1 champions league, 1 europa league, 1 fa cup and a capital one cup xD City since 2012 have 1 league title 1 capital one cup and spent £402 million xd + Show Spoiler + That £192m could be achieved by selling players they contracted before that period, it's by no means a fair comparison. A friend of mine is a life-long Chelsea fan, and around 2000, he would always go about other teams having an unfair monetary advantage, Chelsea still being a 'true' club, etc. Then, when they first won the league (was it '05?), he would say 'it was only fair that they were allowed to spend money too', blabla. I think every fan will just try to show their club in a positive light. If you read this page, it would seem that the later an investor has turned up, the more money you need to throw around in order to arrive at that top level. So it's no wonder City needed to spend that much (and yes, have done a marginally worse job imo). | ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
On June 01 2017 08:30 aseq wrote: A friend of mine is a life-long Chelsea fan, and around 2000, he would always go about other teams having an unfair monetary advantage, Chelsea still being a 'true' club, etc. Weird that he would say that, because Ken Bates basically drove the club toward financial ruin via overspending, which is why Abramovich bought them in the first place. Zola, Gullit et. al. weren't there for Chelsea's rich history... | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
Bates helped save us though when he took us over though but then had to find a buyer and he did so or we would have probably have to go into liquidation. Chelsea money came in 2003, won league 2004-05. Spending since 1992 net of £800(ish) million. City since 1992 to present have spent £1billion(ish) and there money injection came in 2008. Man Utd the most successful premier league club have spent around £800 million also net on transfers. Liverpool £400 million Arsenal £400 million Sunderland £200 million Spurs £170 million West Brom - Crystal Palace - Middlesbrough - West Ham - Everton - Stoke all between £110-150million xD | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
 . | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
| ||
|
Faruko
Chile34171 Posts
On June 01 2017 16:39 Pandemona wrote: They where there because Chelsea is great place in London :D Bates helped save us though when he took us over though but then had to find a buyer and he did so or we would have probably have to go into liquidation. Chelsea money came in 2003, won league 2004-05. Spending since 1992 net of £800(ish) million. City since 1992 to present have spent £1billion(ish) and there money injection came in 2008. Man Utd the most successful premier league club have spent around £800 million also net on transfers. Liverpool £400 million Arsenal £400 million Sunderland £200 million Spurs £170 million West Brom - Crystal Palace - Middlesbrough - West Ham - Everton - Stoke all between £110-150million xD You should consider that a player like Pogba would not cost 100+ on 2003, players are more expensive nowadays so you could argue that Chelsea started with the advantage of having to pay less. In theory you should net every year and (somehow) generate a players price inflation factor to see how much, say Malouda, would cost nowadays. | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51489 Posts
Of course these aren't £100million but we still signed Costa for £30 million and Cesc for <£30 million 3 years ago which is crazy. I'll leave sneirac to come back with some maths behind the inflation side, i like the facts helping me out right now xD But i'd also like to know the physical numbers actually of how many players have been signed for each club out of the top 5 say maybe even include Spurs now i don't know if it is worth that though. But if you think that Chelsea have always seemed to have their spine around since 2005 and even City have had "most" of theres which was Kompany - Yaya - Aguero but Chelsea always seemed to generate a new squad without going crazy since around about 2008 onwards when City came in and went crazy. They have been "rebuilding" every season, Pep came in last season through lots of money at it and is going to do that again this summer. | ||
|
Skynx
Turkey7150 Posts
Cmon guys we all know that its just Kante defending his title and boys in blue getting a free ride. | ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
On June 01 2017 19:13 Pandemona wrote: We still paid more than what players were worth back then. £30 million for 30 year old shevchenko etc. Paid £50million for a broken Torres xD Of course these aren't £100million but we still signed Costa for £30 million and Cesc for <£30 million 3 years ago which is crazy. I'll leave sneirac to come back with some maths behind the inflation side, i like the facts helping me out right now xD But i'd also like to know the physical numbers actually of how many players have been signed for each club out of the top 5 say maybe even include Spurs now i don't know if it is worth that though. But if you think that Chelsea have always seemed to have their spine around since 2005 and even City have had "most" of theres which was Kompany - Yaya - Aguero but Chelsea always seemed to generate a new squad without going crazy since around about 2008 onwards when City came in and went crazy. They have been "rebuilding" every season, Pep came in last season through lots of money at it and is going to do that again this summer. Nothing really to discuss, if Ronaldo trade from 2009 happened last year fee would have been £250m plus instead of 80. Theres been huge inflation, everything before 2012 definitely needs to be multiplied by at least 3 and then Chelsea still is number one in oil money spent | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18004 Posts
Well. Whatever. Anybody want Onana for 40million? I'm sure Ajax will be open to a bid like that :D I like him. He's a good keeper. But for 40million... sheesh. | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
| ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
| ||
| ||
