Wow. Once again its his first season, he started in september with no time to get ready and all "mourihno" players
So lets fire Cech as well, it was his fault for the Carling cup final too.

His tactics against Arsenal were not good? He's beaten Arsenal Liverpool and Man United, while still trying to get a hold on the team.

Man United have been the best team in the premiership, and they have had slip ups and draws and losses.

Liverpool were the black beast of Chelsea the last 2 semi finals, he got the team over the hump.
Once again, if you look at the league since Grant started he would be 1st.

But the fact you think Chelsea got this far just through their players and nothing else makes argueing pretty pointless.

So, tomorrow's predictions:

Wigan 0-3 Man Utd

Chelsea 4-1 Bolton


Come on, everyone who's been posting in this thread this season... get your exact scores in for the title race, see who can get them spot on.


And relegation? Birmingham are the only team in the relegation battle playing at home tomorrow.. could they stay up?

Wigan 1-1 Man U(sorry had to be controversial)

Chelsea 2-0 Bolton

Portsmouth 1-1 Fulham .

I think Fulham might pip it, I would be sad to see Reading go down

WHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GIGGSY SCORES AND SENDS IT HOME FOR US

I'd like to have seen them stay up, but Coppell needed to buy a replacement for sidwell and he didn't and he kept on insisting on sticking with the players that won the championship two seasons ago. He needed to add some more substance to the club.

A club can surprise for one season, but look at what happened to Ipswich when they didn't add what they needed to add for that second season in the prem a few years back

if a club wants to stay up, they need to add more quality to their side to stay in the prem


edit: wow, and bolton equalize at the death

lol I got confused and thought you were a chelsea fan, thats one of the reasons I was annoyed at your statements.

Congrats to Man U. My dad is somewhere celebrating. Nice that Giggsy got the goal. Deserved Title.

And kdawg, you said there was no Reason to sack Mourihno, which I agree, but he finished second with a few games to go last season, and only made it to the semi finals of the champs league. And they struggled at the start of the seaon.
So Avram, finishing second on the same points and reaching the champs final, getting fired would be beyond ridiculous.

Great season

Edit: arrg Bolton 1:Chelsea 1

Goodbye Birmingham. Alex Mcleish, destroyer of decent teams, strikes again!

And James I think I should be let out of our bet. I'll update my sig to 0-3 but seeing as you predicted 3-0 but were unwilling to take a bet on it should allow me to squeak out.

LOOOOOOOL




Glory Glory Man United.

avram won't get fired, he's wayyyyy too in the pocket and buddy buddy with Roman. He'd step down if anything



man, this sucks, I can't properly celebrate as I now have to spend the next 6 hours with my family and they don't drink

Wrong way round. IMO.

BBFIDTS

While we are all celebrating United winning the league lets not forget to take a minute to laugh at City's horrific final day performance

LOL.. WHAT?? Our bet was very clear.


Congrats to us, best team won the league. So pleased to see Giggs seal it. 10 titles.. complete legend.

A win in Moscow now please

haha, yeah I couldn't believe that when I saw the scores.. what the hell happened? I'm gonna have to watch highlights of that shit.

Well done United, well deserved and a great touch to have Sir Bobby out there as Giggs lifted the trophy for his TENTH Premier League win, absolute legend.

And also would like to say to Chelsea... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you classless chwating scummy ****ers! And looks likew Terrys outta the final in Russie hahaha.

Congrats to Foolham for staying up too, truely the great escape.

As for the mighty Yids, we had a horrible start to the season with off the pitch trouble leaving us in the relegation zone as Jol was finally sacked. But Super Juande Ramos came in and led us to cup glory at Wemberleeeee and got us into Europe next season.

Should be an exciting offseason with Luka Modric already signed and talks ongoing with Etoo, will be a shame to see Berbatov go but I will hold no grudge as long as he goes overseas.

????????

Chelsea played much better this season than anyone was expecting with Grant at the helm. Keep in mind that we missed the transfer season when the manager position changed hands, so all things considered it's very impressive that we gave Man Utd a run for their money. The "classless" people in this situation are the football 'fans' who seem to care more about insulting other teams than supporting their own.

As a Chelsea fan I congratulate Man Utd on their achievement, and I hope we can regain some glory by taking down the Champions League. My mum is flying out to Moscow to watch the game, and it would be a shame if she travelled so far (and wasted so much money) in vain.

Fully appreciate any fan who congratulates the 'other team' when they lose... that's the way it should be, so thanks.

So, to return the favour, I'd also like to take this opportunity to pass on my sympathies to your mother for wasting her money.

See, I would say 'classless' is: Buying success instead of earning it, cheating whenever possible, pressuring referees on the field and off, hiring a bunch of mercenary players who care nothing for your club, claiming you're a big club when even Spurs have a bigger history than you, having Cashley Cole play for you, not even being able to sell out the tickets for a Cup Final at Weberley to your own fans lol, playing boring boring football to grind out results entertainment be damned...

I wont go on im getting bored

Chelsea have earned their success. We won several FA Cups and the Charity Shield as well as many other trophies well before Abramovich came on the scene. It was under the leadership of Gullit and Vialli, and with an inexpensive team compared to the likes of Arsenal and Man Utd. The club has been around since 1905 with an extremely diverse history, and we've finished in the top 6 of the premiership every year for the last decade - how does that not constitute a 'big club'?

Nowadays several of our best players are homegrown talents including our captain Terry, hardly a bunch of "hired mercenary players". You can't complain about Chelsea buying Ashley Cole as a supported of Man Utd, who bought Rooney - a much more controversial purchase, and far from a loyal player ("Once a blue, always a blue", right?). And by the way, 2 of the 3 most expensive premier league transfers were for Man Utd, so if you want to accuse Chelsea of buying success, you're saying the same about them.

I'm not going to claim that our football has been particularly entertaining lately, but few players are entertaining these days. We've left the era of 'sexy football', it's just not in vogue right now. And in a game where the emphasis is on scoring goals rather than performing for the audience, I don't see what's wrong with doing what it takes to win even if that means less flicks and flourishes.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and are making these criticisms of Chelsea because that's what the media tells you to do. Why don't you face the facts and make an original, unbiased opinion on Chelsea rather than spouting the same old 'Chelski' jibes?

Tbh anyone who accuses of a team "buying success" is argueing such a weak point. Football is based on money, just like business. It would be like saying microsoft bought success.

seriously, we can't let this go unnoticed. 8-1 hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Ok, I see your point but seriously these are my own opinions. Noones given them to me but me.

And I dont get why you think im a Manchester United supporter because im not, ill give you a hint tho as to who i do support. Theres quite a large photo of the team right below this post.

THe point I made about Chelsea buying success is as opposed to the great Manchester United teams who make their own talent from their football academies such as Scholes, Giggs, G. Neville etc as opposed to Chelsea who just splash their owners cash on other clubs productions.

Which brings me to my second reason for stating Chelsea buy success. Their money for transfers and players wages does not come from the finances of the club, it comes out of their billionaire owners pocket. Setting aside the 100's of millions of dollars hes spent on transfer fees for your club, he supports the wage budget too out of his own pocket. ie You couldnt even pay your players wages if he didnt top up the finances peroidically out of his own pocket.

That is no way to run a football club, it is his (Abramovichs) personal fantasy team and when he loses interest/putin arrests him/kgb poison him/whatever how will the club survive with players like Ballack and Shevchenko on 120,000 pound a week wages!

Then as a opposing model, look at what youve probably figured out is my team by now, Tottenham Hotspur. We are known as the big spenders of 'the rest', the not Big Four teams, but every single penny of our transfer fees and player wages comes from cashflow generated by the club, and only by the club. We have a billionaire owner too (Joe Lewis) but he doesnt need to inject one cent into the club to sustain our spending or wages. Which is ofcourse helped by our youth system which has produced players for the first team such as King, Campbell, Ohara, and Pekhart.

ps. Im sorry for offending you with my earlier posts, I get a little emotional when watching football.

This post kind of bewilders me, because everything you say I have already refuted in my previous post

1. We do have homegrown talent, look at Joe Cole and John Terry for evidence.

2. Man Utd have bought in loads of expensive players, "other clubs productions" as you called them.

3. You're saying Spurs has a billionaire owner who doesn't invest any money in the club? That's ridiculous. Of course he puts his own money in, otherwise what would be the point in owning it? I doubt you have an indepth knowledge of where the money comes from and what its spent on in every league team, so stop talking out of your ass and pretending to know everything.

4. I wasn't saying you are a Man Utd fan, I was saying that you are supporting them to win against Chelsea (both in the league and Champions league), but the criticisms you make of Chelsea could all be said for Man Utd, so there's no reason why you should prefer them and insult us.

Enough said.

These are the only 2 points I'll mention as the other 2, how much money Lewis puts into Spurs and what team Jono supports don't interest me.

You cannot compare Manchester's homegrown talent to Chelsea's. If you look from the beginning of the Premiership Man U have consistently brought through youth with resulting trophies: Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Beckham, other Neville, Butt etc. Now Chelsea since they started to become a legit title contenders (pre-Abramovich) have brought through Terry. That's it. Joe Cole and Lampard would be products of West Ham.

While its obvious that the big teams can and will buy other teams prized assests it can't be argued that Chelsea have done far more of this than Man Utd. Look at their most recent signing £16m for Boswinga. A decent, nothing more, right back.

At times it does appear that Chelsea are just looking to throw money around to get what they want. Man Utd seem far more shrewd in the transfer market and youth development areas.

Chelsea bought Joe Cole from WestHam in 2003 for £6.6M. Hardly home grown.

What youth development does UTD have?, Giggs/Scholes/Neville etc are from 10 -15 years ago. Name 5 players that have come out of the youth squad since 2000 (who have played regular first team football)?

UTD have spent over £150M trying to buy the title just like Chelsea have.

Perhaps recently. But Man Utd dominated the league in the 90s with a core of players developed from youth.

As for players who have come through Utd's ranks, maybe not superstars or regulars but have all certainly done their part:

Brown, O'Shea, Fletcher.

I'm not a Man Utd fan, perhaps others can name some future talent. But the point is Chelsea have developed far less youth talent than Man Utd.

Pardon me, I was confused.

That is completely irrelevant seeing as we are talking about the current teams, but if you want to look at youth players from the 90s, look at Duberry, Myers, Newton, Morris, all started at Chelsea and were prominent first team players at a time when the club never dropped out of the top 6 in league finishes.

As I've already said, Man Utd have spent far more buying in players recently than Chelsea. Just look at Rooney, the most expensive league purchase in history. A lot of their best players were bought for more than £20 million in recent years, they are not homegrown or shrewd purchases.

Huh?

What's not to get? Man Utd paid more for Wayne Rooney than any other premiership league player has costed.



And on a related note, no one complains that Real Madrid bought success, yet they spent exorbitantly more on two of their top players:

1. Zinedine Zidane: Juventus to Real Madrid - 45.62 million GBP (2001)
2. Luis Figo: Barcelona to Real Madrid - 37 mil (2000)

That being said, let's give this argument a rest, I think everything has been said at this point and it's clear that no one is going to change their minds.

OK £20m or thereabouts for Rooney when he was what? 19/20? And quite clearly going to be a worldclass player and sound long-term investment or £30m for a 30 year old Andriy Shevchenko, who had he played at the level he is capable of would have only given Chelsea 2 or 3 good years, as it turns out he flopped.

Fact is Man Utd's big money signings have delivered for the most part, can you say the same about Chelsea, Drogba and Carvalho aside?

Kezman, Robben, Duff, SWP, Malouda, Boulahrouz, Maniche, Crespo, Shevchenko, Del Horno, Alex - none exactly stellar buys.

If someone could find figures for money spent by each side and profits on players when sold on I would think Man Utd would come out on top.

I was typing my post just before you got yours up LG. Sorry, heaven forbid someone chime in when you have clearly put the thread to rest. A thousand pardons.

I wasn't being rude, just drawing your attention to what I said so that you wouldn't think I was ignoring you. Consider yourself pardoned.

£23m for Rooney
£28m for Veron
£29m for Ferdinand
£31m for Shevchenko


???????

premiership spending 2002-03 - 2006-07 season

Chelsea £268.30m
Liverpool £58.07m
Tottenham £37.30m
Newcastle £35.65m
Man United £34.95m
Aston Villa £31.45m
Middlesboro £19.85m
Charlton £13.65m
Bolton £11.55m
Everton £9.95m
Arsenal £9.90m

(I assume those are net figures)

Not sure what they would look like fully updated, but Chelsea would still be way out in front.

I posted the figures from a credible source above, and made the footnote about Rooney bold. He costed as much as Shevchenko did.

Now please, stop arguing, we are going around in circles. There are no winners or losers in this discussion, so let's call it quits.

Sorry, missed the footnote.


Why do we have to stop? If you don't want to continue discussing it that's fine, but don't close it off for all of us.

I like talking about how Chelsea have bought success and how badly Mourinho failed in the transfer market.

Well like I said, everything has been said already so if you keep talking about you'll just be repeating yourself, so it will be boring and a waste of time.

I'm done talking about it, I have a lot of studying to do. Continue if you want, but without me responding it's kind of pointless because you're preaching to the choir.

Frazier Campbell should be getting looks in the first team very soon at striker and if the log jam ever breaks up, Craig Cathcart should get some good looks at central defense(though with him being left footed, a move to left back would make it easier for him).

I'm not sure where I'd put someone like Pique as we did nab him from barca, but he then did go into our youth system. Ben Foster is a bit of a conundrum too as we did buy him from stoke, but he never played for stoke and only played on loan.

Anyway

I'm biased, but I'll try to comment from a neutral point of view... United seem to have a better general infrastructure than Chelsea and do buy, and sell, better also.

We're a bigger club (top 3 in the world, with Barca and Madrid), for a start, which helps in the transfer market. We've got great ties with lower league clubs, and also foreign clubs (Sporting Lisbon, Antwerp, some other one in Europe, and a couple in Asia too for the future). Having the connection with Lisbon wasn't the ONLY reason we got Ronaldo and Nani, but it most definitely helped. We have a better youth system, that's just a fact and doesn't even need to be argued here.

Over the last say, 5-6 seasons, both clubs have spent ridiculous amounts of money on players, but I think it's very obvious that United have spent their money more wisely. Chelsea seem to just fire off 30 Mil for a 30 year old here, a 29 year old there... I mean seriously, Chelsea need to buy younger players. I know Abramovich can afford it, but there doesn't seem to be as much thought about 'team spirit' and longevity etc, as there is at United. There's also no managerial stability, and I honestly don't think there ever will be whilst RA is owner... he won't let any manager dominate the club, and make every single decision ala Fergie. And comparing the purchase of Rooney with Shevchenko purely in terms of money is silly. Even if they'd both flopped, Rooney was still by far the better buy.

I also still see Liverpool as a way bigger club than Chelsea. Not just talking about current success, but looking at the complete package, including history, trophy cabinet, fan base etc. Not even close, imo. Arsenal are a bigger club too, easily. Maybe even Man City, Villa and Spurs. That may sound silly, looking at the Chelsea team now, but really all Chelsea has is Abramovich. If he leaves tomorrow... what happens then? I'd give it 3 seasons before Chelsea drop out of the top 4, then a couple more seasons before they're 6-8th again.

Another thing which holds Chelsea back from completely breaking into the super-elite is the stadium. It's not big enough, and there's no room for expansion unless they move somewhere else.

That said, Chelsea are a super solid team at the moment, and will keep attracting players so long as Abramovich keeps waving his cheque-book around to pay the biggest wages in Europe. Attracting a different type of player to that of a United player, imo, but still great players.

It's also a little unlucky for Chelsea that the best team in Europe happens to play in the same league as them. But it's still a great achievement to be in the Champions League final... there's nothing wrong with being losers runners-up.

I think that complaining about how much Chelsea spends to field a team is mind bogglingly silly.


Critiquing how they spend that money is one thing, but the amount? That's just daft. Competitive balance has never been a mark of the Premiership.


Personally, I think Europe would be much better off with a super league, where the 20 biggest clubs compete. Having a Squad like Chelsea and Man U in the same league as Stoke City or Fulham just doesn't make any sense at all. If you had a super league, you could instate a salary cap or a transfer cap, and keep one or two teams from spending money like sailors on shore leave in Amsterdam.


I know this super league is extremely unlikely to ever happen, but a guy can dream. I think regulating Premiership spending, as the way things are now, would put English clubs at a competitive disadvantage in Europe, so any sort of caps would have to be Europe-wide, and good luck herding those cats.

I wont comment on your other points as others seem to have already said what i was going to.



Not really, he owns the club why would he keep putting money into a business that is already turning a profit. He bought it, thats his investment, now the investment makes a profit for him, is that so hard to understand.

I think you are blinded by the Chelsea model of investment in football clubs where the owner buys it then pumps millions upon millions into it to try and make it into his personal hobby fantasy football team.



To make a profit out of it, not a loss by pumping 100s of millions in every year



No not every team, but I do have that knowledge of mine as I make it my business. And I know for a fact that every penny of what we spend on transfers and wages comes out of club cashflow and isnt funded by outside sources such as the owners private bank accounts. Why is that a ridiculous statement? Do you have no idea of the nature of investment etc?

Don't you boys have the best sponsorship deal in the league with Mansion? I know it was when it was first agreed, is that still the case?

honestly, why would europe be better off with a 20 club only super league. It would kill all of the domestic leagues, its the same reason that Rangers and Celtic most likely will never play in england. THe money that the smaller clubs get from playing the bigger clubs and being in the top division is massive for them and it also provides those fans with fun memories. Imagine if you are a Bradford City fan, while your club may now be in the crapper like it normally is, you still have those great memories of those two seasons in the top flight that hadn't happened in something like 80 years.

You can say that any top flight league in europe is a joke because x clubs are in it. SerieA has had clubs recently that have a long history of being in SerieC1 and SerieB same with LaLiga.

Can you logically come up with a model that would make it work so that the smaller clubs can benefit from such a super league, because they won't

It's a nice idea, in a 'fantasy league' type way, and I can see why some would like it. However, in reality it'd be the worst thing ever to happen to European football.

Anyway, we don't need it... the Premiership is the most exciting league in the world and we now have 4 teams playing in Europe's top competition each year. That's quite enough, imo.