BLU
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by U2sBiggestFan:
    UEFA site said: It will be one-all

    CHELSEA fans blasted UEFA after discovering the final score of 1-1 was posted on its website HOURS before kick-off.

    Blues supporters were stunned that the governing body of European football correctly predicted the outcome of the explosive Champions League semi-final with Barcelona.

    A dummy match report on UEFA’s website even stated the Spanish giants would get a late equaliser.

    It also rightly predicted three of the four Chelsea players who got booked — Didier Drogba, Michael Ballack and Alex.

    One Chelsea fan who rang The Sun said: “This ‘test’ is remarkably similar to the actual result.”

    UEFA was unavailable for comment last night.

    'FINAL SCORE' ... site test
    [image]


    !!!!!!!!!!!!
  2. that ref in champions league was a joke, but still, he wasnt the one who kicked the equaliser. i hope barca get killed eventhough i hate utd.
  3. Originally posted by MWSAH:Arsenal never achieved anything outside England. Wenger builds a team for some years and starts all over again afterwards with no succes. Not surprising to see Manutd win...


    Well well well. We (Arsenal) were 13 minutes from the CL Trophy in 2006. A swedish substitute called Henrik Larsson destroyed the party though...

    The trophies will come, the team is very young. And Arshavin is a big step in the right direction. But Arsenal needs 2-3 more world class players for the next season.



  4. Originally posted by zooTV4all:[..]

    Well well well. We (Arsenal) were 13 minutes from the CL Trophy in 2006. A swedish substitute called Henrik Larsson destroyed the party though...

    The trophies will come, the team is very young. And Arshavin is a big step in the right direction. But Arsenal needs 2-3 more world class players for the next season.






    Yep, that's true..but they've had world class players before: Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Anelka, Ian Wright, Davor Suker, Petit, Soll Campbell, Kanu etc. They're like Chelsea in its old days..before Abramovich came, they never achieved anything either. And Wenger did a good job with making Arsenal a top team, but he should be able to another step forward.

  5. Originally posted by MWSAH:[..]

    Yep, that's true..but they've had world class players before: Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Anelka, Ian Wright, Davor Suker, Petit, Soll Campbell, Kanu etc. They're like Chelsea in its old days..before Abramovich came, they never achieved anything either. And Wenger did a good job with making Arsenal a top team, but he should be able to another step forward.




    2000 FA CUP
    Chelsea 1 - 0 Aston Villa

    1997 FA CUP
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Middlesbrough

    1998 CUP WINNERS CUP
    Chelsea 1-0 Stuttgart

    1998 SUPER CUP
    Chelsea 1 - 0 Real Madrid

    1998 LEAGUE CUP
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Middlesbrough

    2000 CHARITY SHIELD
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Man Utd

    No trophies in the years right before Abramovich? Chelsea have been one of the top PL teams since 1997.
  6. Originally posted by yuri31:2000 FA CUP
    Chelsea 1 - 0 Aston Villa

    1997 FA CUP
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Middlesbrough

    1998 CUP WINNERS CUP
    Chelsea 1-0 Stuttgart

    1998 SUPER CUP
    Chelsea 1 - 0 Real Madrid

    1998 LEAGUE CUP
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Middlesbrough

    2000 CHARITY SHIELD
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Man Utd

    No trophies in the years right before Abramovich? Chelsea have been one of the top PL teams since 1997.

    Before Abramovich came, Chelsea were perennial underachievers. Abramovich provided the funds to bring in some of the best players in the world, hence they won their first title in more than 50 years as I understand it just under a year after he arrived. That's what is more of an issue to people. Until Abramovich came along, Chelsea were not part of the major elite i.e. Arsenal and Man. Utd who had a stranglehold on the league every season. Liverpool were in between because they were always one of the main challengers who fell away near the end of the season, but Chelsea were mixing it with the likes of Spurs and Villa for the UEFA Cup places etc., and their greatest chance of silverware always used to be cup competitions. Now under Abramovich, they have become one of the main title contenders because they've got the financial muscle to mix it with the big sides. There's been little in the way of building the club up over a long time like Arsenal and United whose managers have been given decades to structure the clubs for long-term success, which is what many of Chelsea's critics have their main gripe over - granted, it was never a case of simply buying success, because you need to be able to put a team together to compete, but the money meant that top players could be brought in and a team could be built almost overnight.
  7. Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
    Before Abramovich came, Chelsea were perennial underachievers. Abramovich provided the funds to bring in some of the best players in the world, hence they won their first title in more than 50 years as I understand it just under a year after he arrived. That's what is more of an issue to people. Until Abramovich came along, Chelsea were not part of the major elite i.e. Arsenal and Man. Utd who had a stranglehold on the league every season. Liverpool were in between because they were always one of the main challengers who fell away near the end of the season, but Chelsea were mixing it with the likes of Spurs and Villa for the UEFA Cup places etc., and their greatest chance of silverware always used to be cup competitions. Now under Abramovich, they have become one of the main title contenders because they've got the financial muscle to mix it with the big sides. There's been little in the way of building the club up over a long time like Arsenal and United whose managers have been given decades to structure the clubs for long-term success, which is what many of Chelsea's critics have their main gripe over - granted, it was never a case of simply buying success, because you need to be able to put a team together to compete, but the money meant that top players could be brought in and a team could be built almost overnight.


    I meant "the top 6 teams" when I said Chelsea had been one of the top teams since 1997 . From my point of view, Everton and Aston Villa are there among the best teams in the league now.
  8. Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

    2000 FA CUP
    Chelsea 1 - 0 Aston Villa

    1997 FA CUP
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Middlesbrough

    1998 CUP WINNERS CUP
    Chelsea 1-0 Stuttgart

    1998 SUPER CUP
    Chelsea 1 - 0 Real Madrid

    1998 LEAGUE CUP
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Middlesbrough

    2000 CHARITY SHIELD
    Chelsea 2 - 0 Man Utd

    No trophies in the years right before Abramovich? Chelsea have been one of the top PL teams since 1997.


    With several cups in England, it isnt that difficult. Chelsea was sub-top before Abramovich came. They're not like Liverpool and ManUtd, that's a fact.
  9. Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

    I meant "the top 6 teams" when I said Chelsea had been one of the top teams since 1997 . From my point of view, Everton and Aston Villa are there among the best teams in the league now.


    Top 6? Could be me, but I think the #5 and #6 in the Premier League don't play CL at all...so I wouldn't see them as top teams then
    Chelsea were before Abramovich came, and I know since I actually were sort of a Chelsea fan back then, nothing more than the #4 in England, sometimes even lower. They were nice, but certainly couldn't compete with United, Arsenal and Liverpool. They were more looking down, to teams like Newcastle United, Middlesbrough and, a long time ago, Leeds United...
    With Abramovic they got more money, and were able to keep up with the top 3.
    And now they're certainly in England's top 2.....
  10. Originally posted by markp91:[..]

    Top 6? Could be me, but I think the #5 and #6 in the Premier League don't play CL at all...so I wouldn't see them as top teams then



    Ajax Amsterdam haven't playd the Champions League for a long time. Are they not a top team?

    Originally posted by markp91:[..]

    They were nice, but certainly couldn't compete with United, Arsenal and Liverpool. They were more looking down, to teams like Newcastle United, Middlesbrough and, a long time ago, Leeds United...



    Manchester United could've ended up the same way as Leeds did if Glazer hadn't bought them.

  11. No they're not


  12. Sorry Yuri mate, but that's crap lol - Man. Utd have more debt now than they ever had before the Glazers took over simply because when they took over, they used United's assets to clear their own personal debt and heap it all (c. £750m worth) onto United - I don't understand the ins and outs of it because I'm not an economist, especially when I wonder how it is that they're still allowed to keep running with so much debt when you look at the likes of Stockport County and Darlington in the lower leagues of English football whose debt is roughly about as much, if not less, than what United make every weekend at a home fixture. Talk about cock-eyed...
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.