• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hanuma

  1. Michael Essien

    quote:Originally posted by Bazzabluequote:Originally posted by hanumaClearly the "first preseason game" message is never going to get through your intensely thick skull. id="quote"> id="quote">Just why is it that It's OK for me to be insulted in this way, but any reply in kind is not allowed? I wish to formally complain about unfair and biased moderation. id="quote"> id="quote">It wasn't actually intended as an insult. Just a metaphor for your complete lack of any flexibility whatsoever.
  2. Michael Essien

    quote:Originally posted by BazzablueWhatever else he may be, holding midfielder he isn't. He simply won't sit in the Maka position and likes to charge forward at every opportunity. id="quote"> id="quote">Which is patently utter bollocks. Another instance of bizzare opinion that can only really be argued against by sitting down with you and watching a match.quote:If anyone is going to take over from Maka, it's more likely to be Diarra.id="quote"> id="quote">Hopefully.quote:Maybe Essien will replace Ballack, who looked like a piece of wood.id="quote"> id="quote">...in his first preseason match, well behind on training. Yet still ending up on the right wing and left back and sliding through easily the best pass of the match. What marvellous wood...can we have 9 more of those planks please.quote:As for SWP, it's bit rich calling him a flop. The guy has had no real chance ubder Jose. Has he ever played more than 45 minutes in a game? How many games has he played in at all?id="quote"> id="quote">Over 30. He has had a bunch of chances and rarely taken any. Not a flop, but only another season of wasted oppertunities away.quote:Finally, Lamps seemed to start as he finsihed last season - anonymous for the most part. Either it's down to the way Jose is using him, or he's simply done an Eidur and burnt out.id="quote"> id="quote"> Clearly the "first preseason game" message is never going to get through your intensely thick skull.
  3. Michael Essien

    quote:Originally posted by basoleHahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was waiting for this response. Let's see if he can keep up with such a start. Even last season he started well and people on here started talking of him being a legend. After the Hamman tackle he lost it and people on here called hima 24M flop. So lets wait. Whereas for SWP, its time to pass judgement. He can't play football at the highest level. id="quote"> id="quote">If he plays all preseason as well (and better) as the MLS game then he should be ahead of Makelele for the start of the season. I think I saw him visibly learn an awful lot from Maka last season. He even does exactly the same movements when he gets the ball from the defence. He's very comfortable taking the ball in traffic and getting into space, just like Maka. In the World Cup you could see it too.
  4. Ashley Cole

    MT; > he wanted to go to Barca To use your argument - you can't possibly know this.<<< I can't imagine he'd leave Juve for Barca without wanting to. >>You're doubting the bargaining skills of people clearly far more experienced/knowledgable than you at it. I wouldn't be the first, and I doubt I'll be the last. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then there'd be no debate/opinions expressed about any aspect of the club because everyone at the club is more experienced/knowledgeable than we are. Should be a very quiet forum if we take that approach< Not true. We can still debate what we think is a sensible price, who is the better player in our opinions. But take our opinions out of the context of us knowing what's best for the club. There is a reason we are talking on an internet forum and not as representatives of the clubs. >We didn't 'manage' to do anything of the sort. The 'trigger' in his contract was 21 mill - we just agreed to pay it. Could 'they' have done better? No. And I didn't need to be at the meetings to know that. It was well documented and confirmed by both clubs. That's not negotiating, it's the same as buying anything over the counter. No genius, skill or experience required - just the desire to own the player.< I don't remember there being a clause in his contract. >Where do you draw the line, by the way?< Under 20 million. Preferably not atall, I like Bridge. I would prefer to know what the manager thought though, because he actually has a much better idea of which player is better. >IMO, 16 mill is absolutely top dollar, and anything over and above that equates to us being screwed (again). Just my opinion, but given what we paid for Bridge, and what Zambrotta has just been sold for, I'd suggest that's a fairly legitimate view. If it's different to yours, well then so be it.< "Screwed" is the wrong word imo. Screwed suggests we've been done out of having something we want. Shrewd bargaining isn't necissarily anywhere near as important as getting the players we want in our luxury position. I believe that is an OK policy.
  5. Ashley Cole

    >>>Clearly you're very selective in what you choose to read. The prices are coming out of Arsenal, that much is obvious. I'm sorry, you must be more clued up here than me. When did Arsena; legitimately state A.Cole would only go for 25 million? >>>If Zambrotta was available, wanted to come to Chelsea and the management rated him, he would have been in blue next season. That simple, eh? <<<< Yes. Just as it was simple for Barca. He was available, he wanted to go to Barca and the management rated him. >>>Zambrotta WAS available. He could only have 'wanted' to come to Chelsea had we shown an interest in him. We didn't, apparently. You can't possibly know this. >>>Is it? Why? He's gone, so what's the point in debating why he didn't land at SB? Because you seem to think he's a better player than one we are supposedly more interested in. Clearly that is an issue. >>>Why not exactly the same squad, that simply cost less? Not a possibility? At all? Barca and Real seemed to have strengthened this summer, at a fraction of what we've paid. So, why not Chelsea? You're doubting the bargaining skills of people clearly far more experienced/knowledgable than you at it. We managed to get SWP from never going to 21 million. I don't think, unless you were present at all the meetings/discussions, that you could say whether they could have done better. >>>Indeed. But if you see nothing absurd about us being expected to pay 25/30 mill for Cole, when Arsenal are making it clear that they'd sell him elsewhere for 16 mill, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you're happy with clubs taking the p*ss out of us, so be it. It's just that I'm not. Won't change anything either way. Arsenal haven't made anything clear. This is all paper talk. I do think it's silly money for him. But it's not real money yet and I couldn't possibly know either how much Jose wants him or the potential for bargaining there is. In all of this we are blind. We have to assume that the club is doing the best it can to bargain because there is no legitimate evidence to the contrary.
  6. Ashley Cole

    quote:As I said earlier, Gallas will go if played full back to oftenid="quote"> id="quote">1. If a player leaves for such TRIVIAL reasons. Goodbye, don't come back.2. If he doesn't play fullback, his chances of playing are almost slashed in half. He will rotate with Carvalho and play less. MT...for someone that spends seemingly most of their time posting about how stupid it is to comment on media-chatter, aren't you getting a little bit silly talking about media-quoted prices. If Zambrotta was available, wanted to come to Chelsea and the management rated him, he would have been in blue next season. For all we know he only had eyes for Barca and Mourinho doesn't think he could do a job in the Premiership. Surely that is more worthy of debate than whether we MIGHT be paying 10 million more for an inferior player. If Chelsea didn't overpay for the players they wanted, what would they end up with? A squad that isn't quite what the manger ordered. In most cases that might be fine. But why suffer that for the sake of a few extra million? Equally lets say we told Man City we'd pay them no more than 15 million for WrightPhillips. They say no, and instead of giving them the 21 we eventually did we go to Benfica and ask about Simao. What do they say they want for Simao? 21 million. I can't see us winning very often in this transfer market and that's not to say we shouldn't try, but getting good deals should be secondary to getting the best players in our unique position.
  7. Ashley Cole

    quote:Originally posted by basoleI see a situation where A.Cole comes in (with his unending injuries) and Bridge asks for a transfer, and we are back to square one. Looking for another left back. I hate too say this but Jose will infuriate me like when he sold Tiago. Bridge and Cole are among the very few English players I like. id="quote"> id="quote">You are looking at this as though what you're thinking is exactly what Jose is seeing. Please, give him and others at the club credit enough that they might actually have a plan and that us 'genius' folk on CFCnet MIGHT not actually know about something.
  8. Ashley Cole

    Shouldn't we have this discussion after (if) there is an amount agreed for A.Cole? Right now it is rendered useless because of the fact that you could say we were giving Arsenal 50million. Nevertheless what would Arsenal spend their money on to get significantly better than us? I can't think of a single player. If there was a player it would most likely be someone we've never heard of and one that Arsenal could have afforded before we gave them any money.
  9. Ashley Cole

    quote:Originally posted by James PrescottAshley Cole seems to be having a decent WC and seems pretty content and happy with his football. Doesn't look like a player who doesn't know where his future lies...... id="quote"> id="quote">Ashley Cole was awful in all 3 group games defensively. Better offensively against Sweden, had his first good all round game against Ecuador.
  10. Didier Drogba

    A total facile conspiracy here...but what the heck. Any chance we engineered a 'hands off' with Barca and Milan for Gallas?
  11. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by DonkeysEarsBut I note you refer to the squad which won the League Cup. Checking the team which player the first XI which played against Wigan cost: Van de Sar - 3.5 Neville - 0 Brown - 0 Ferdinand - 30 Silvestre - 4 Ronaldo - 12 O'Shea - 0 Giggs - 0 Park - 4 Rooney - 27 A total of 77m - only just over half the cost of your first XI. id="quote"> id="quote">Your first rate youth academy cost nothing of course...
  12. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by RikClubs like Middlesbrough don’t have the money to do what Chelsea has done. I don’t know how you can compare the two. Middlesbrough can only afford to buy a couple of past it players each summer. You’re all acting as if Chelsea’s spending in normal. id="quote"> id="quote"> Boro spend well beyond their means - Chelsea's spending isn't normal, noone is arguing that it is.quote:How could it ever end under Roman, he will just keep spending far more than anyone else can, especially if things do start to take a turn for the worse? Chelsea has the potential to keep going (because of the money) in their domination, unlike other’s club’s dynasties which naturally crumble due to not being able to replace quality with quality (due to lack of money).id="quote"> id="quote">He could hire a bad manager, there could be player disputes...things find a way to go tits up...that aside, your right, his money means Chelsea will always be in and around the top, with no ramifications...like Juve, Inter or AC Milan, all owned by billionaires - they have and are in hundreds of millions of pounds of debt, but they have the money to bail themselves out. The point being (and maybe I will brick it through your iron skull) this is a FOOTBALL problem, not a CHELSEA problem.quote:I hope Chelsea won’t be extremely hypocritical by trying to apply to enter the G18 again. id="quote"> id="quote">As do I, I would be very unhappy.
  13. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by RikI can’t understand why you’re highlighting those clubs just because they have owners who have put a bit of money into them. If Abramovich had just wiped your huge debts and paid for the odd player then that wouldn’t have really been a big issue. It’s just an issue because of how much he’s spent on such a regular basis. It’s not because he’s challenging for the title at all, it’s because he’s completely destroying competition for the title. What effect has the Wigans and Middlesbroughs and Portsmouths of this league had on anything? They’re not being excessive, they’re being realistic with their spending. This is totally different to Chelsea and Abramovich. id="quote"> id="quote">What utter nonsense. You have no principles man. I actually credited you with caring about "the game", your just a self serving twazzock.As if there was equality before Chelsea came along, what an absolute joke.
  14. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by Blind JakYou’re footballing snobs which quite a thing in the working mans game. id="quote"> id="quote">Which is the point I made half way through this thread.We've gone round in a circle two or three times. This thread isn't going to go anywhere - Rik is now one of the only people left, stuck in a rut of quibble and squabble. Rik, if you want to continue this thread it might be a good idea to actually have something to say other than 'I don't like how Chelsea have stopped Arsenal from being as succesful as I would like them to be...' Perhaps we can have a sensible discussion in how we can find routes towards general equality, this forum might benefit from a fan of another clubs input with that sort of discussion.
  15. Didier Drogba

    He has achieved an incredible amount in the 4 and a half seasons since he started taking football seriously.
  16. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by RikNilesh Desai, it may be ignorant of me but my knowledge of early 20th century Arsenal under the reign of Sir Henry Norris interests me (although I can only remember brief details of what I’ve read), but I don’t particularly care much about it. I only have an issue with Chelsea under Abramovich’s spending as it directly affects my club. If Chelsea were an Italian club, it really wouldn’t bother me. It’s the same with the other examples you mention regarding Middlesbrough, Fulham, Wigan and Portsmouth – they have done absolutely nothing to affect my club. id="quote"> id="quote">You are essentially admitting here that you have no principles reguarding this issue...which means this is a case of 'hard cheese', not a genuine concern for the rest of football.quote:Chelsea will overspend to get what they want because they can. id="quote"> id="quote">Spot on - now either get over it, or get some sort of principles about gaining equality for all; not just endlessly moan about Chelsea this and Chelsea that.
  17. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by RikEven when United were the financial power of world football they never had ‘outside money’ coming in whenever they wanted it like Chelsea have now. Their income was generated through gates, price money, TV money, global branding, etc… the sort of income that is ‘available’ to everyone. id="quote"> id="quote">It wasn't 'available' to everyone...that is a handy myth - Utd made damn sure it wasn't with their saturation of the market and pact with G14.
  18. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by Rikquote:> What is ‘natural’ about the way Chelsea have achieved their success? Quite simply the fact that the more money you have the better chance of succes you have...it really is that simple and it always has been in football. You will never find paupers at the top of the league. id="quote"> id="quote"> You make a good point, but you’re acting as if Chelsea’s financial resources are relatively similar to your nearest rivals, when in truth it’s many times bigger and potentially even more so. When such a difference exists between first a second, competition for the Championship is lost. This can’t be compared to Arsenal and United’s domination. id="quote"> id="quote">It really can and it really should. As I said, Chelsea's domination is different only in scale, not priciple.quote:I though this was an intelligent forum. If you don’t want to participate in this debate, then avoid this particular topic. id="quote"> id="quote">I do want to participate, just not with someone who intends to moan, bleat and write lengthy, dull posts....like yours here. Unfortunately your one of the only people debating, so I am forced to respond to you.quote:What has Chelsea falling into oblivion got anything to do with it? If that had happened then I’d imagine that you’d be even bitterer towards them! I apologise for using the word ‘smaller’, I didn’t mean that towards Chelsea as I’ve never though of the club as small; it’s just a common argument used by Blues to suggest that Abramovich’s millions are a good thing for football.id="quote"> id="quote">If bitterer was a real word then I might just be that - you've missed my point though; that point being, Chelsea probably wouldn't be in the same league as Spurs and would be worrying about staying alive...Roman's indirect billions would have been welcomed unquestioningly.quote:I didn’t enjoy United’s financial domination, no, but theirs is practically incomparable to Chelsea’s (Roman’s).id="quote"> id="quote">I point you back to my main premise; different in scale, not in principle. The reality is that Utd could have gone out and endlessly bought players worth 10 million without ramification, to a club like Charlton for instance, that is still beyond any possible realisation ever.quote:I’d also like to make the point that Arsenal have never really had a financial superiority like United did, we have been battling above our bank balance for years/.../Arsenal have fought their way up : Chelsea have bought their way up!id="quote"> id="quote">Whilst I wouldn't attempt to deny Arsenal have done things shrewdly, I would suggest that any purchase is done with the intetion of gaining success and thusly it is absurd to say that there is any distinction between who buys success or not...everyone does, unless by some magic wish somebody can run a club for nothing. It costs money to get the best facilities and the best youth academies with the best chance of producing the best youngsters. At this point the only difference is 'Chelsea not doing it within their means', to which I will again refer you back to my first point about the innate snobbery of most fans in the supposed 'working class' game.quote:But, having said that, none of it matters to Chelsea as they can just go out and get someone else equally as good in a couple of years (perhaps even sooner). And that is the problem!id="quote"> id="quote">Whilst I can accept this point of view - it's a fact after all - I would point out 2 things.1. We haven't done anything of the wreckless nature you suggest thus far. 2. Chelsea are only highlighting a problem with the game as a whole. Because Roman Abramovich is doing it for/with Chelsea is largely irrelevant...it is the fact that it can be done atall. Your beef should not be with Chelsea, but with the game's rules, regulations and the fact that throughout it's entire history it has been open to such fiscal dominance. quote:You’re second point is blinded. If a club is ‘blackmailing’ Chelsea by demanding exaggerated money then it’s up to Chelsea to say ‘f***-off’ to teach these clubs that they can’t demand these obscene amounts just because they have it.id="quote"> id="quote"> So then we don't get the players we want and watch another team win the league...quote:I think that Chelsea are handling their finances immorally. The club shouldn’t be receiving so many free gifts from the owner.id="quote"> id="quote"> Thats an absurd point considering Chelsea IS Roman Abramovich now. This is another example of where you don't seem to have a "principle" as such, because otherwise you would have a problem with half of the top Italian sides, Madrid, Spurs, Fulham and a bunch of other clubs around the globe that have their owners money as an intrinsic part of their own finance.quote:You shouldn’t have to be aiming for self sufficiency… you should be already there having never fallen off the boat!id="quote"> id="quote">By sitting in mid table doing sod all with average players we could never have either kept Roman or attracted the business necessary in order to pay back what Roman has given us.quote:So essentially, Abramovich has bought the league.id="quote"> id="quote">Like when Henry, Bergkamp, Vieira and Wenger were bought...and in turn Arsenal bought the league...if you truly believe THE PRINCIPLE of what you say then this is the case.
  19. Chelsea Finances Thread

    Why have you ignored everyone elses response to your post?
  20. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by DonkeysEarsThis has nothing to do with main issue in this thread but lets not pretend that these moves take you any closer to self-sufficiency. I'm not making any judgements on that overall point but the reasoning in that post was just ludicrous. id="quote"> id="quote">You couldn't actually have any confidence in your predictions beyond a lust for our destruction. Some things you might not have considered, mainly because noone can predict the future;Potential increase in turn over. Expansion of the brand. The club actually keeping it's promise and keeping much closer to the wage structure than any cock and bull newspaper would have you know. Massive increased shirt sales with new names and new kits. If anything it would be logical, from what tiny evidence we have, to conclude that there is limited chance of our debt increasing by more than it did last year and a much better chance of it decreasing.
  21. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by RikWhat is ‘natural’ about the way Chelsea have achieved their success? id="quote"> id="quote">Quite simply the fact that the more money you have the better chance of succes you have...it really is that simple and it always has been in football. You will never find paupers at the top of the league.quote:I’m Arsenal, so naturally I’m more likely to ....id="quote"> id="quote">Moan, bleat and make lengthy, dull posts on Chelsea fans forums about it.quote:Just imagine, if Roman had bought Tottenham instead, which could’ve actually happened, then I’d find it hard to believe that you lot would be saying ‘fair play’ to them! And would you be thanking Spurs when Jose Mourinho had signed JT and Frank Lampard because they’re ‘spreading the wealth, and indirectly helping the smaller clubs’?! Please answer.id="quote"> id="quote">No, I wouldn't be sunshine and bunnies, but you easily forget that Chelsea probably wouldn't be anywhere near Spurs, considering we were on the edge of oblivion when Roman came. I don't remember you being so sanguine about every other "smaller" club that yours and Utd's finance and relationship with G14 strangled when you were the dominant finantial entity. No doubt there was a difference, but it was in scale, not principle.quote:As an Arsenal fan, I like how we do things in a careful well planned manner.id="quote"> id="quote">But inevitably you would prefer to buy Shevchenko for 30, be virtual guarantees for a top 2 finish every season and have a much greater chance of winning the Champions League. If you don't I admire your "village" mentality.quote:That is what I call a level playing field.id="quote"> id="quote"> Your absolutely having a tin bath if you think that the TV deal was fair, or that things were fair before Chelsea.
  22. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by Paul RichardsExcellent post Hanuma, or is Lord Hanuma (on CTV last night?) one that I completely agree with and succinctly put, which I thank you for. id="quote"> id="quote">Lol...yes, that was me on Chelsea TV last night...I have a knack of getting on...a 9/10 record thus far. Rik; You are entirely wrong about the parade...there was supposedly a further 50,000 at this years parade than there were last season.
  23. Chelsea Finances Thread

    It seems the main beef is the wealth beyond your station - classic snobbery. The "lack of history" and "lack of class" as some supporters of larger clubs would put it is very much like aristocratic disgust with the nouvea riche. The 'peoples game' is utterly riddled with snobbery, a game that is supposedly working class is supported by fans that now embody the 'prawn munching' persona of those they supposedly hate - the human capacity to look down on people has never been so rapidly exposed as in the case of Chelsea's meteoric rise. Having obscene amounts of cash is a leg-up...just as G14's unhealthy strangle hold on European Football was like a giant hand holding every other clubs head below the water. Roman Abramovich has allowed Chelsea to break through that hand without the potential for distruction that Bates' Chelsea and Leeds suffered....his dominance is certainly not as morally wrong as G14's because it is not deliberate, mainly a bi-product of ambition. Nevertheless, the inequities in the game have been broadcast loud and clear as a result of his finances - if anything Chelsea's wealth, Roman's wealth, could quite easily bring a new dawn of equality into football.
  24. Chelsea Finances Thread

    quote:Originally posted by PeeblesIs winning the Premiership not something of a hollow victory when there is such a disparity financially with other clubs? id="quote"> id="quote">I know what your getting at; "Hollow" is entirely wrong though - but I would maintain that no-one outside of G14 can win a national Championship without this level of major investment.
  25. Salomon Kalou

    Really exciting prospect - to hear Gullit compair his one on one skills to Ronaldinho is encouraging to say the least. I liked his interview an awful lot and I am pleased to hear that this was definitely a Jose signing, not an Arnesen or Roman glamour pick. From what I have seen of him (and have said on here before) he has the potential to be one of the worlds best.