My Blood Is Blue

Chelsea 2 Liverpool 2

Recommended Posts

Ham   
7 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Are you tipsy?

It was the arrival of RA which started the ball rolling with clubs having enormous amounts of money to spend which they did not earn.

City have taken that to higher levels to the point where the league is rapidly becoming uncompetitive. Newcastle will take it even higher.

 

 

You don't sound like you are a Chelsea fan at all.  Genuinely.

Do you really need to be educated about the Moores family bankrolling Liverpool's success or even further back Henry Norris at Arsenal, "The Bank of England club". 

Man United gained a worldwide fanbase on the back of plane crash and that gave them the financial muscle to batter everyone else during the SAF regime.  

Maybe you'd get more joy out of supporting another club. 

Edited by Ham
Autocorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Are you tipsy?

It was the arrival of RA which started the ball rolling with clubs having enormous amounts of money to spend which they did not earn.

City have taken that to higher levels to the point where the league is rapidly becoming uncompetitive. Newcastle will take it even higher.

 

 

It started long before Abramovich bought us.

Does my head in when the media talk about us and our money but neglect to ever mention Liverpool in the 80's, its even worse hearing it from our own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asvaberg   
29 minutes ago, Martin1905 said:

It started long before Abramovich bought us.

Apart from the big money in Manchester and Liverpool, it's worth mentioning Blackburn + Walker = BIG moneyspender in early 1990's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Martin1905 said:

It started long before Abramovich bought us.

Does my head in when the media talk about us and our money but neglect to ever mention Liverpool in the 80's, its even worse hearing it from our own.

Being honest about our part of what's happened with us, then City, PSG and now Newcastle. This is a different financial ballgame to everything that has gone before. I'm ok with what we did and very thankful for the money RA brought to the club, but I'm not going to deny it's started something that is now getting out of hand.

As for the other clubs you mention.

Man Utd's wealth and popularity grew organically over decades.

Liverpool in the 70's & 80's were not blowing away everyone in the transfer market. In Liverpool's  peak era of the 70's and 80's -  Forest. Spurs. Arsenal. Derby. Everton.West Brom. Man City. Wolves,  Utd, all paid record fees for players.  Liverpool didn't.

Back then, they just had two all-time great  mangers (Utd haven't been up to much without a Fergie or Busby) and backroom staff which ran like clockwork for two decades. 

There is an argument for pre-war Arsenal being propped up, but again, that was very smalltime compared to what's going on today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, asvaberg said:

Apart from the big money in Manchester and Liverpool, it's worth mentioning Blackburn + Walker = BIG moneyspender in early 1990's

Yes, Blackburn were indeed pumped with money by Jack Walker, but again, it was on a completely different scale. Blackburn didn't make the league uncompetitive.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chara   

Another circular argument....next we will start arguing that a successful club can will attract "better" players and that of course is unfair......"wealth" is relative to a time .....

Regardless of the outlay a squad still has to be moulded and produce.....is it easier with top players?...simple answer is yes but I think maybe the full answer..one of them anyway...it's easier with top players the coach brings in to fit a system..that's where the difference in financial strength comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m really concerned with all the media coverage the referee and VAR are getting from the Arsenal v City game, absolutely no way Taylor is letting another referee take all the attention this weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Being honest about our part of what's happened with us, then City, PSG and now Newcastle. This is a different financial ballgame to everything that has gone before. I'm ok with what we did and very thankful for the money RA brought to the club, but I'm not going to deny it's started something that is now getting out of hand.

Even if you take this position, you're divorcing the Abramovich takeover from the very important context it took place in. Who had won a PL before 2004? The dominance of Arsenal and Man Utd, two clubs instrumental to the PL breakaway instigated precisely because the then-elite clubs wanted to pull up the financial and sporting drawbridge, had been broken only by a club bankrolled from outside. Because that is the only way anyone outside of those in the elite in 1991 could do it. The idea that Abramovich's money was a death knell for competitiveness is so obviously a complete inversion of reality. Abramovich and Mansour are the direct result of that PL breakaway started by Arsenal, Utd and Liverpool. Who spends billions on winning a title if it doesn't take billions to do it? 

The idea that football is a "different financial ball game" to what it otherwise would have been because of Chelsea, City, Newcastle etc. is absolute nonsense. It's the exact same game, just with different players. It was always going to be the richest winning everything and doing their best to make sure no one else goy rich enough to challenger them. We've almost certainly had a greater breadth of title winners and challengers because of those owners than we would have seen without them.

It's rare, in my experience, that you hear particularly strong emotions on Chelsea's or City's money from supporters of clubs lower down the table. The supporters most upset by it are those who felt most entitled to see their team win. There's good reason for that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chara   
4 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

Even if you take this position, you're divorcing the Abramovich takeover from the very important context it took place in. Who had won a PL before 2004? The dominance of Arsenal and Man Utd, two clubs instrumental to the PL breakaway instigated precisely because the then-elite clubs wanted to pull up the financial and sporting drawbridge, had been broken only by a club bankrolled from outside. Because that is the only way anyone outside of those in the elite in 1991 could do it. The idea that Abramovich's money was a death knell for competitiveness is so obviously a complete inversion of reality. Abramovich and Mansour are the direct result of that PL breakaway started by Arsenal, Utd and Liverpool. Who spends billions on winning a title if it doesn't take billions to do it? 

The idea that football is a "different financial ball game" to what it otherwise would have been because of Chelsea, City, Newcastle etc. is absolute nonsense. It's the exact same game, just with different players. It was always going to be the richest winning everything and doing their best to make sure no one else goy rich enough to challenger them. We've almost certainly had a greater breadth of title winners and challengers because of those owners than we would have seen without them.

It's rare, in my experience, that you hear particularly strong emotions on Chelsea's or City's money from supporters of clubs lower down the table. The supporters most upset by it are those who felt most entitled to see their team win. There's good reason for that.

Yep......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Liverpool in the 70's & 80's were not blowing away everyone in the transfer market

Compared to City now - Liverpool and Man U were twice as far ahead as the rest.  Wages too.
Nowadays clubs like Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, can afford any player in the Man City team or squad.  They just can't afford 20 of them.
That wasn't true for Liverpool and Man U then.  In those days when a top player became available - say Dalgleish or Wilkins, everyone knew where they would go.  Like BM in Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now