- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/30/14 at 1:45 pm to Jake88
They sell all their good players to other English sides.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 1:48 pm to RandySavage
I saw that. What do they do with the money?
Much to the consternation of some posters…are they like the Marlins?
Much to the consternation of some posters…are they like the Marlins?
Posted on 8/30/14 at 1:49 pm to Jake88
Pay their bills and then buy other young players and hope they turn out so they can in turn sell them for a profit in a couple of years so they can pay their bills again.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 1:49 pm to dallastiger55
quote:
don't want the trendy pick, not the type to pick the Yankees, lakers, etc
Well Everton this year is former and Chelsea the later sooooo
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:02 pm to dallastiger55
Everton.
Chelsea is the team that people pick when they don't want to support United or Arsenal, but they still want a team who is elite so they don't get #bantz'ed constantly.
After years of being a bandwagon United fan, I started slowly converting my friends and family to enjoying the sport. Every one of those frickers became diehard Chelsea FC supporters and gave me shite for being a "Yankees fan" for supporting United. I'm still bitter as shite, which is why I hate Chelsea far more than I do City or Liverpool or any other club on Earth.
Honestly, though, pick the team you enjoyed rooting for. I root for Everton when I'm a neutral for the match because they're still fighting for respect and play great football. Chelsea also has tons of great players like Eden Hazard, who I forgive for playing for Chelsea. People pick clubs for strange reasons.
Mine? Got this bad boy for my 64 and latched onto the club since it was the only European club I knew because of the the front cover.
Just have fun with it, bro. Don't let any of these dipshits, including myself, influence who you get enjoyment out of supporting.
Chelsea is the team that people pick when they don't want to support United or Arsenal, but they still want a team who is elite so they don't get #bantz'ed constantly.
After years of being a bandwagon United fan, I started slowly converting my friends and family to enjoying the sport. Every one of those frickers became diehard Chelsea FC supporters and gave me shite for being a "Yankees fan" for supporting United. I'm still bitter as shite, which is why I hate Chelsea far more than I do City or Liverpool or any other club on Earth.
Honestly, though, pick the team you enjoyed rooting for. I root for Everton when I'm a neutral for the match because they're still fighting for respect and play great football. Chelsea also has tons of great players like Eden Hazard, who I forgive for playing for Chelsea. People pick clubs for strange reasons.
Mine? Got this bad boy for my 64 and latched onto the club since it was the only European club I knew because of the the front cover.
Just have fun with it, bro. Don't let any of these dipshits, including myself, influence who you get enjoyment out of supporting.
This post was edited on 8/30/14 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:04 pm to St Augustine
Chelsea's captain is also a racist. So if racism, chauvinism, the KGB, and terrorism is your thing, Chelsea is actually a pretty solid choice.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:04 pm to St Augustine
quote:
Just have fun with it, bro. Don't let any of these dipshits, including myself, influence who you get enjoyment out of supporting.
This is money, to be honest. I got my team because I loved the French players from the 2006 WC team, and a lot of them played for Arsenal at the time. Plus they have a French coach. You'll eventually find one that fits your personality.
And at the end of the day, that's really what it is. Finding a soccer team is a lot like taking a personality quiz.
This post was edited on 8/30/14 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:05 pm to Dijkstra
quote:
Chelsea is the team that people pick when they don't want to support United or Arsenal, because they want a team who is elite
FIFY
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:18 pm to RandySavage
quote:
quote:
Chelsea is the team that people pick when they don't want to support United or Arsenal, because they want a team who is elite
FIFY
Swift move there cutting out the part about #bantz as a method of dishing out #bantz. Class.
This post was edited on 8/30/14 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:26 pm to jackwoods4
quote:
jackwoods4
Arguing that Chelsea wasn't a middling club is hilarious and much more idiotic than the OP's first question.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:40 pm to TN Bhoy
Nobody will argue Chelsea was elite but they had been winning some trophies and competing in the CL before RA bought the club.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:42 pm to RandySavage
quote:
Nobody will argue Chelsea was elite but they had been winning some trophies and competing in the CL before RA bought the club.
Did I say anything different?
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:45 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:
2 FA Cups, A League Cup, A Cup Winners' Cup, and a Super Cup between 1995-2000. Can't win anything without Roman's Oil Money though.
I hadn't even seen that until just now. That's incredibly funny. Having a decent spell from '96 to '98 doesn't cover up the years of mediocrity otherwise. In fact, comparing the success of Chelsea before to what they've accomplished since Roman made it rain basically proves that Chelsea weren't shite until he took over. Chelsea's basically doubled their trophy count in the years since the takeover. But no, they were decent for 2 seasons in the 90s so that means they've always been winners.
quote:
Nobody will argue Chelsea was elite but they had been winning some trophies and competing in the CL before RA bought the club.
It depends on what you mean by winning trophies and competing. They had done it before, but that doesn't mean they were winners before the takeover. Tons of shite clubs have competed and won trophies during a dream season or two, but I don't think that makes them "winners".
This post was edited on 8/30/14 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 8/30/14 at 2:56 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:
Did I say anything different
The word "crap" came into play. I'm not arguing CFC was an elite club. But the club wasn't worthless when Roman bought it as you seemed to imply.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 3:02 pm to jackwoods4
quote:
The word "crap" came into play
Chelsea were almost in the third division in the 80s a number of times.
I put in a range: middling-crap. That's a pretty good description of Chelsea from the 60s until RA.
This post was edited on 8/30/14 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 8/30/14 at 3:41 pm to jackwoods4
United is shite and sitting at 14th in the league table so I'm going to go on a ridiculous and biased tangent here.
It's valid to say they weren't worthless. They were an average to decent club. The takeover dramatically raised the status and brand of the club to ensure long-term success instead of having a few good years with a good squad and going back down to mid-table. In fact, United's lack of planning and spending for stockpiling caused by the success Ferguson got out of overachieving with the same core set of players for years is why we're absolutely fricked right now. Because of the nature of the market due to the big spending clubs, we're forced to overspend just to attempt to get the squad back in decent shape.
It may not be an exact comparison to the situation at City where they literally just stepped in and made "make it rain" their financial strategy. That influx of Russian oil money added to a decent club and the success that quickly followed in bulk opened the door to the concept that these rich dudes could come in and buy success. Chelsea weren't the worst offender, but they paved the way for things like the City takeover.
So, yes, Chelsea were on the rise when he stepped in, but him becoming involved ensured that they could maintain and build on that decent foundation by outspending and throwing money out for transfers. In the 03/04 season, they had an astronomical share of spending in the league at over 40%, and the next season it dropped a bit to a (still gaudy) share of around 30%. Suddenly, Chelsea's winning the league in back to back seasons? What keeps it from being complete sugar daddy success is the fact that Chelsea did have some quality in the squad. So, unlike City who had little to nothing in quality players, Chelsea had players to sell and didn't have to build quality in the squad from scratch. Once the plan actually worked, these billionaires all wanted to take a club and have it become a powerhouse. Now, we see shite like FFP implemented to try to stop this sudden money game, but these big money clubs like Chelsea, City, and PSG have already jumped up the ladder and stocked up. They've made it, and now, they can move forward with the power of global brands and prestige.
Now, Chelsea is so far along that they're a global brand with prestige and that elite status. They played the game so well that they're actually avoiding and profiting from the fall out of what they helped to cause by selling their semi-decent players for outrageous amounts. Big spending has always been a part of football but never at the level as it was those first few post-takeover years of Chelsea. Blackpool has been a "big spender", but they were still at less than 20% of spending. Chelsea is the real OG when it comes to the spending game, even if they weren't the worst offenders. They showed that the model worked, and in turn, someone years later was okay with dropping £50m on god damned David Luiz.
I guess what I'm trying to say in all of this is that Chelsea ruined football, and you frickers should be ashamed of your new winning tradition. You bought success, drove up prices for everyone, including fans, and ruined friendships (mostly mine). All of this being said, to quote the article where I got a lot of the stats for this wall of text ( LINK):
TL;DR: Chelsea ruined football forever, and it's lame arse club... Except for Eden Hazard.
It's valid to say they weren't worthless. They were an average to decent club. The takeover dramatically raised the status and brand of the club to ensure long-term success instead of having a few good years with a good squad and going back down to mid-table. In fact, United's lack of planning and spending for stockpiling caused by the success Ferguson got out of overachieving with the same core set of players for years is why we're absolutely fricked right now. Because of the nature of the market due to the big spending clubs, we're forced to overspend just to attempt to get the squad back in decent shape.
It may not be an exact comparison to the situation at City where they literally just stepped in and made "make it rain" their financial strategy. That influx of Russian oil money added to a decent club and the success that quickly followed in bulk opened the door to the concept that these rich dudes could come in and buy success. Chelsea weren't the worst offender, but they paved the way for things like the City takeover.
So, yes, Chelsea were on the rise when he stepped in, but him becoming involved ensured that they could maintain and build on that decent foundation by outspending and throwing money out for transfers. In the 03/04 season, they had an astronomical share of spending in the league at over 40%, and the next season it dropped a bit to a (still gaudy) share of around 30%. Suddenly, Chelsea's winning the league in back to back seasons? What keeps it from being complete sugar daddy success is the fact that Chelsea did have some quality in the squad. So, unlike City who had little to nothing in quality players, Chelsea had players to sell and didn't have to build quality in the squad from scratch. Once the plan actually worked, these billionaires all wanted to take a club and have it become a powerhouse. Now, we see shite like FFP implemented to try to stop this sudden money game, but these big money clubs like Chelsea, City, and PSG have already jumped up the ladder and stocked up. They've made it, and now, they can move forward with the power of global brands and prestige.
Now, Chelsea is so far along that they're a global brand with prestige and that elite status. They played the game so well that they're actually avoiding and profiting from the fall out of what they helped to cause by selling their semi-decent players for outrageous amounts. Big spending has always been a part of football but never at the level as it was those first few post-takeover years of Chelsea. Blackpool has been a "big spender", but they were still at less than 20% of spending. Chelsea is the real OG when it comes to the spending game, even if they weren't the worst offenders. They showed that the model worked, and in turn, someone years later was okay with dropping £50m on god damned David Luiz.
I guess what I'm trying to say in all of this is that Chelsea ruined football, and you frickers should be ashamed of your new winning tradition. You bought success, drove up prices for everyone, including fans, and ruined friendships (mostly mine). All of this being said, to quote the article where I got a lot of the stats for this wall of text ( LINK):
quote:
But as I said at the start, I wouldn’t be complaining if it was Liverpool that Abramovich had bought, because like all fans, I’m a short-sighted hypocrite who, first and foremost, wants what’s best for his team, rather than the greater good of the game. In that sense we’re probably all as dumb as each other.
TL;DR: Chelsea ruined football forever, and it's lame arse club... Except for Eden Hazard.
This post was edited on 8/30/14 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 8/30/14 at 3:44 pm to Dijkstra
quote:
I guess what I'm trying to say in all of this is that Chelsea ruined football,
I'd blame Sky more than Chelsea, at least as it concerns England.
Posted on 8/30/14 at 3:45 pm to Dijkstra
quote:
Dijkstra
Posted on 8/30/14 at 3:56 pm to TN Bhoy
quote:
I'd blame Sky more than Chelsea, at least as it concerns England.
Chelsea isn't really the problem. Their rise is just a part of the progression, albeit a major step in that progression, of what was set in place years before. Other clubs did the same thing. Chelsea just took it to the next level. It's all about the brand for everyone from Sky to Chelsea. It's a business. I just enjoy blaming all of my problems on Chelsea. It's not like I can give them top banter based on results at the moment.
To be honest, this transfer window from Chelsea was absurd. They're literally dishing out quality players for over £30m every two seconds cancelling out whatever purchases they want to make. It's like starting a massive drug trafficking operation while owning a ton of private prisons. Chelsea got innocent kids hooked on crack and put them out there dealing drugs, and when they get arrested, Chelsea gets paid to house them in their prisons. This is what Chelsea is all about. That's what I'll tell my children one day anyway.
This post was edited on 8/30/14 at 4:02 pm
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News