Football / Soccer topic

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

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

Originally posted by yuri31:Manchester United could've ended up the same way as Leeds did if Glazer hadn't bought them.

Originally posted by WojBhoy:[..]
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...