BLU
Active topics
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.....
  5. 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.

  6. No they're not


  7. 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...
  8. 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...


    I don't know, but some time ago I watched an episode of a football programme which was dedicated to ManU and it was said there that the club had big financial problems before Glazer took over and also that ManU almost ended up in auction or whatever you call it in English and Glazer was the one to save the club. But some fans apparently didn't like the guy and they started their very own club- FC United of Manchester.
  9. double
  10. Originally posted by yuri31:I don't know, but some time ago I watched an episode of a football programme which was dedicated to ManU and it was said there that the club had big financial problems before Glazer took over and also that ManU almost ended up in auction or whatever you call it in English and Glazer was the one to save the club. But some fans apparently didn't like the guy and they started their very own club- FC United of Manchester.

    Fair enough, but the fact is that Glazer put United into even more debt, so logic would suggest that they were better off before he turned up, which was behind the reason why FC United was formed - fans didn't want their club to be put further into the red, way beyond what they considered to be a manageable level (which is why I still want to know how clubs are allowed to run whilst in debt?). Man. Utd is one of the most successful franchises in Europe, if not the world, and from what I gather they will keep on going with or without Glazer. They were able to sign the likes of Ronaldo, Rooney etc. well before Glazer turned up, and will be able to after, if not with more freedom because Fergie wouldn't have to constrain himself to what is essentially the Glazers' own personal assets.



    And did you really need to post that twice?


  11. Holland never had many topteams. PSV one was, Feyenoord was once and Ajax once was. And now, AZ might become one..


  12. As my fellow dutchmen already said, no they're not. They're a top team in Holland, yes. But in Europe they're not even close to being a top team.
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.