Liverpool v Chelsea

[Harry Carry]

Who were Chelsea before nob head and all his money arrived? Remind me who they were about 20 years ago while your at it.
And bollocks to Tottenham!

Chelsea can only dream of the success Liverpool have had and continue to have in recent times.

Liverpool have a rich history, a vast wealth of trophies that Roman just can't buy! What do Chelsea have? A rich owner and vast wealth. (until he gets bored and leaves)

You can't buy history, and you aren't even buying the present.

Chelsea started winning trophies before Roman took over m8...

[Alivey]

Chelsea were a London-based Aston Villa before Abramovich turned up.

If they had any class or self-awareness, they'd realise that they have the innate gaucheness of the nouveau riche. Sadly, the club seems to be run by and for mongs so they don't.

If Reading are ever successful, I hope our fans keep their feet on the ground. Sadly, the Team board does not enthuse me.

So you think Madejski bought the stadium from our profits? Do you think we bought Lita from our profits? Only difference is Madejski isn't upsetting the norm.. How many of the big 4 spend within their means? None. They all have debts and they all have to rely on a sugar daddy for success.

[papereyes]

The odd cup - FA cup in 1997 and 1999, maybe a league cup around then.

Its nothing spectacular. About as impressive as Aston Villa or Leicester over a similar period.

As I said, a bit of class and self-awareness would go a long, long way.

[papereyes]

Chelsea were a London-based Aston Villa before Abramovich turned up.

If they had any class or self-awareness, they'd realise that they have the innate gaucheness of the nouveau riche. Sadly, the club seems to be run by and for mongs so they don't.

If Reading are ever successful, I hope our fans keep their feet on the ground. Sadly, the Team board does not enthuse me.

So you think Madejski bought the stadium from our profits? Do you think we bought Lita from our profits? Only difference is Madejski isn't upsetting the norm.. How many of the big 4 spend within their means? None. They all have debts and they all have to rely on a sugar daddy for success.

1) No, yes: I think we run within our means. The stadium was a one-off boost in infrastructure that has taken us from small, provincial club to one on the edge of the Premiership. It allowed us to support a better quality of squad and, hence, after building it, we have done better.

2) Before Glazer, United did. Arsenal have essentially done what we did - incurred a large debt in the form of a stadium and hope to ride the boost in income to greater success.

3) There is a difference between 'debts' and being bankrolled by a rich owner who runs the club in an unsustainable manner.

4) Your argument is a feast of irrelevence to the post of mine that you're quoting.

[Deathy]

Who were Chelsea before nob head and all his money arrived? Remind me who they were about 20 years ago while your at it.
And bollocks to Tottenham!

Chelsea can only dream of the success Liverpool have had and continue to have in recent times.

Liverpool have a rich history, a vast wealth of trophies that Roman just can't buy! What do Chelsea have? A rich owner and vast wealth. (until he gets bored and leaves)

You can't buy history, and you aren't even buying the present.

Chelsea started winning trophies before Roman took over m8...

Not many! Average Premiership club with a rich man backing them, and that wont last forever. Debt will cripple football one day, and when it gets hold of Chelsea, I will laugh my bollocks off.

[papereyes]

If our circumstances changed in as short a time as Chelsea's and we had hundreds of millions to spend, and did so, then christ, I'd happily celebrate the change in status.

I'd just remember where we were before it. Me being mascot in front of less than six thousand souls. Players of questionable quality and attitude (or both). The tragedy of 1995. The farce of 2002. The numbing boredom of 2009.

I

[Alivey]

I thought United were around 250million in debt before Glazer took over? Before Arsenal moved to Ashburton, I thought they were around 150million in debt.. IMO the amount of sugar daddying in the 90s created more of a problem for the competiton of the Premier League than Chelsea has done of recent years.

[papereyes]

I thought United were around 250million in debt before Glazer took over?

Really? I'd ask an United fan but I understood that they were an essentially solvent, well-run club before the Glazers.

Before Arsenal moved to Ashburton, I thought they were around 150million in debt..

I understood that Arsenal's pre-Ashburton debt was a series of long term bonds to ensure they could move. Bit churlish to include that, really.

MO the amount of sugar daddying in the 90s created more of a problem for the competiton of the Premier League than Chelsea has done of recent years.

You what? There wasn't much - Walker at Blackburn did it, but essentially briefly. ENIC failed at Spurs. You have Mandaric and Gaydamak at Portsmouth but their time there overlaps with Abramovich. Since Abramovich, you've seen more billionaires join the Premiership in Randy Lerner and the two Manchester City had had (and Mike Askley, maybe?), plus the takeovers of United and Liverpool.

You are barking up the wrong tree here. Even a bit of reading around - such as the Deloitte report released every year - would give you some decent background understanding of the topic.

http://www.orange.co.uk/sport/news/2767 ... icle=sport

is based on the Deloitte report that I can't get my hands on.

"Deloitte's annual review of football finance reveals the total debt among the 20 Premier League clubs hit £3.1 billion in 2007/8"
So that's an increase there.

"The reports states that Manchester United's debt stands at £649 million and Liverpool's at £299 million, with both those figures coming from loans taken out by the owners to finance takeovers."
the current debt, incurred by new owners to buy the club itself, far, far outweights any previous '90s sugar daddying'

"Arsenal's £318 million debt includes £250 million in long-term bonds taken out to finance their new stadium."
So pretty much what I said above then.

"Manchester United and Arsenal both paid out less than 50 per cent of income in wages, and Liverpool 55 per cent, but Chelsea's ratio was 81 per cent."
Now what was that about sustainability?

[rabidbee]

If Reading are ever successful, I hope our fans keep their feet on the ground. Sadly, the Team board does not enthuse me.

Fat oxf*rd chance!

[Alivey]

And where did these billionaires in the 00's get the idea from buying a club.. from what happened in the 90s. obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.. so stick to reading some stats from 2007/2008

[rabidbee]

Go on then, G, give some 90s examples.

As for Mr Mad, it was my understanding that he hasn't so much bankrolled the stadium complex as provided security for the bank loans, which is a very different thing.

[papereyes]

And where did these billionaires in the 00's get the idea from buying a club.. from what happened in the 90s. obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.. so stick to reading some stats from 2007/2008

So what did happen in the 90s?

Name and detail an example, compare and contrast it to the argument I've presented.

[Harry Carry]

The odd cup - FA cup in 1997 and 1999, maybe a league cup around then.

Its nothing spectacular. About as impressive as Aston Villa or Leicester over a similar period.

.

Did Villa win the FA Cup in the 90's or Leicester? I can't remember that. Chelsea have won it 5 times since Villa last won it.

But yes as impressive as Villa or Leicester over the same period.

[papereyes]

The odd cup - FA cup in 1997 and 1999, maybe a league cup around then.

Its nothing spectacular. About as impressive as Aston Villa or Leicester over a similar period.

.

Did Villa win the FA Cup in the 90's or Leicester? I can't remember that. Chelsea have won it 5 times since Villa last won it.

But yes as impressive as Villa or Leicester over the same period.

Two league cups for both.

Yes, so it is about as impressive.

[Harry Carry]

2 FA Cups for Chelsea though.

[papereyes]

2 FA Cups for Chelsea though.

Glad to see that you're in agreement and not deciding to argue the matter. Its reassuring to see a gentleman on these boards.

[Harry Carry]

also, a team that hasn't won the league since the back pass rule came in............can they be classed as a big club?

[Thaumagurist*]

also, a team that hasn't won the league since the back pass rule came in............can they be classed as a big club?

There must be a few who haven't won it since the back pass rule.

[Harry Carry]

What classes as a bigger club?

In the past 5 years i would say its Chelsea - in the past 50 years i would say Liverpool

At home Chelsea, in Europe Liverpool. Even recently and Liverpool historically.

But Chelsea have got further in CL than Liverpool in the last two seasons. I know, cos we knocked em out.