[Merged] Football talk

[Roy MM]

£200m for a shiny piece of slverware, well done Chelski.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

are you sure its not a lifetime you need

Possibly is, but notice I said "2 years at least", it can happen after 2 years but not before.

Man City came straight back up, then went straight up to the Prem... but countless other sides are still down there.

I don't know what's going to happen, it depends on whether Megson's here and what happens to the spineless players. They need a fire-sale to get rid of all the crap but I dunno who'll have them.

[Roy MM]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

funny i was thinking the same , how many times have man u 'bought' the premiership or whatever trophy and it has been ok , like you said , sour grapes

now now Paul, i thought you was a better accountant than that, £20-30m cannot be compared to £200m, United have never bought success, the players have wanted to play for the club, think you are sucking the sour grapes m8.

[nffc]

Man U have bought things though.

Transfer expenses:
2004-5 20m (one player!)
2003-4 52.7m
2002-3 31.5m (2 players)
2001-2 22m (3 players)
1999-2000 10m
1998-99 4.4m
1997-98 15.75m (2 players)
1996-97 3.5m (1 player)

Taking into account that's likely to cover the bulk of the team that's a total of... 160m- not including players signed before 1996 (eg Keane 3.5m)

Chelsea have basically built their side over 2 seasons, spending just over 200m. That's not much more. And they don't have the advantage of a good academy, although they have invested in that as well. What they have done, is bought British and Irish though (Duff, Cole, Johnson, Parker, Lampard for example). They've also spent wisely unlike the extortionate sums Munich have spent on crap like Taibi, Silvestre etc etc.

All Chelsea have done is taken two seasons to build a side other teams have taken a bit longer to do. In fact, it's a miracle it's all gelled so quickly.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by nffc

Chelsea have basically built their side over 2 seasons, spending just over 200m. That's not much more.

But we spent not nearly that much over a period of 12 years, while Chelsea, 2.

Originally Posted by nffc

They've also spent wisely unlike the extortionate sums Munich have spent on crap like Taibi, Silvestre etc etc.

I'm sure that I've told you before, don't call us Munich What would you say if I started taking the p!ss out of Brian Clough dying eh? (Not that I am, just an example)

Back on topic...Before Abramovich, it's not like Chelsea hadn't spent unwisely was it?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nffc

They've also spent wisely unlike the extortionate sums Munich have spent on crap like Taibi, Silvestre etc etc.

That's the last time you refer to Manchester United as 'Munich' here, agreed?

[Roy MM]

Originally Posted by nffc

Transfer expenses:
2004-5 20m (one player!)
2003-4 52.7m
2002-3 31.5m (2 players)
2001-2 22m (3 players)
1999-2000 10m
1998-99 4.4m
1997-98 15.75m (2 players)
1996-97 3.5m (1 player)

A time span of a number of years not two seasons.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Roy MM

A time span of a number of years not two seasons.

Talk about being selective, that was my point.

Chelsea have spent in two seasons what Utd have spent in several. But, they've still built a side capable of winning the title.

All they've done, is built their side faster. In fact, it's a miracle they've gelled this quickly.
__________________

Originally Posted by Russ D

That's the last time you refer to Manchester United as 'Munich' here, agreed?

Touch a nerve there? If you say so...

[Mal]

Originally Posted by nffc

Talk about being selective, that was my point.

The way that you put it was that Utd have spent the same as utd, regardless of the time period, but we pointed out that utd was over a period of years, as opposed to Chelsea. If you meant otherwise, you should have been a bit more clearer in your first post.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nffc

Touch a nerve there?

Yes, you did. I've yet to hear you or anyone else refer to Liverpool as "Hillsborough".

Originally Posted by nffc

If you say so...

I do.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by nffc

Touch a nerve there? If you say so...

Like Russ, said, it's like someone calling Liverpool, Heysel or Hillsborough, or Bradford the name of the stand that burnt down, you muppet. Disrespectful to the dead.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Yes, you did. I've yet to hear you or anyone else refer to Liverpool as "Hillsborough".

I would have done... seeing as that cost us the FA cup I would have reason to. Still can't see how you Utd fans get so wound up about it though. Especially seeing how on the worst day of our history... I'm pretty entitled to be ****ed off.
__________________

Originally Posted by Mal

The way that you put it was that Utd have spent the same as utd, regardless of the time period, but we pointed out that utd was over a period of years, as opposed to Chelsea. If you meant otherwise, you should have been a bit more clearer in your first post.

If you had read my initial post properly you would have noticed I'd said:
"All Chelsea have done is taken two seasons to build a side other teams have taken a bit longer to do."

Which kinda implies what I had to follow up with...

[Mal]

Originally Posted by nffc

I would have done... seeing as that cost us the FA cup I would have reason to. Still can't see how you Utd fans get so wound up about it though. Especially seeing how on the worst day of our history... I'm pretty entitled to be ****ed off.

People died, but it's only a bad day to you as Forest didn't go through to the final eh?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nffc

I would have done...

No you wouldn't.

Originally Posted by nffc

seeing as that cost us the FA cup I would have reason to.

Your teaming getting knocked out of the FA Cup is justification for bringing up the tragic deaths of 96 people? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by nffc

Still can't see how you Utd fans get so wound up about it though.

Do you have ANY compassion at all?

Originally Posted by nffc

Especially seeing how on the worst day of our history... I'm pretty entitled to be ****ed off.

Fine, just don't drag us all down with you.

[Mal]

Originally Posted by nffc

If you had read my initial post properly you would have noticed I'd said:
"All Chelsea have done is taken two seasons to build a side other teams have taken a bit longer to do."

Which kinda implies what I had to follow up with...

Afraid I did read it right. You just need to be a bit more clearer with what you say.

Chelsea have basically built their side over 2 seasons, spending just over 200m. That's not much more. And they don't have the advantage of a good academy, although they have invested in that as well. What they have done, is bought British and Irish though (Duff, Cole, Johnson, Parker, Lampard for example). They've also spent wisely unlike the extortionate sums Munich have spent on crap like Taibi, Silvestre etc etc.