Sheva signs for ChelseaSheva signs for Chelsea

Views: 4482 Posts: 31
PB
wrote on 01-Jun-06 15:00

Who cares...he will become just another disgruntled player at that club when he has to sit on the bench every second week behind the likes of Drogba and Gudjohnsson. Look what else happens to players who chase money at that club, Wright-Phillips from England starter to not even in the WC squad...Duff, rarely plays anymore, Geremi, Glen Johnson (another former england player), Wayne Bridge (former england starter), all whose careers have gone downhill since going there. All it will take is for Abramovich to leave and they will have unsurmountable debts, they will have to sell and will end up just like Leeds!!! Will be a joyous day for football when that happens.

PB
wrote on 01-Jun-06 15:02

Duff more or less sits on the bench behind Robben now. Bridge is now plying his trade at that top club Fulham. SWP should have gone elsewhere, Both Arsenal and Liverpool bid for him until Chelsea offered him twice as much...naturally he chased the money, naturally he ended up on the bench. Had he gone elsewhere he would be in Germany now with England. Joe Cole plays mostly on the left or through the middle, SWP is right sided. Either way the club still has no history,still has no fans, still fails in europe and only dominates in England because Abramovich chose them and not Portsmouth. When it comes crashing down, it will hit hard!!!

David Beckham
wrote on 01-Jun-06 15:04

Becks has agreed to transfer terms to the YMCA after learning 'You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal and you can hang out with all the boys'

Sheva signs for Chelsea
wrote on 01-Jun-06 15:07

Sheva signs for Chelsea Andriy Shevchenko sealed his £30million transfer to Chelsea on Tuesday night after flying into London to agree personal terms on the move from AC Milan. Meanwhile, Hernan Crespo could be set to go in the opposite direction after admitting he would welcome a move back to the San Siro from Stamford Bridge.

RG
wrote on 01-Jun-06 15:07

I have to disagree, Sheva wont be on the bench, he'll play along with ballack and lampard. wayne bridge broke his leg thats why he didnt play last season, SWP has shown inexpirience and thas he isnt a big time player yet, look at JOe Cole to see what competition for spots does to players who work hard. eve if SWP wa playing for for Man C Joe cle would be picked ahead of him. DUff is still playing, i'm not sure what you mean by that comment. Of all the people that chelsea has benefited the most it is egland who should be happiest, they have stableised Lamps, Terry and cole as world class players.

DAMIEN
wrote on 01-Jun-06 16:02

Follow the A-League...

RG
wrote on 01-Jun-06 16:02

i'm sorry mate but no history? they celebrated their 100th year last year and did it by winning their second premiership (first was in 1955 i believe), having been to london i can assure you that they DO have fans and if you call 2 CL semifinals and twice losing to the evetual winners the following years a failure then you are hard to please. i know of alot of clubs who would also want to "fail" that way in europe. There is alot of negatism towards chelsea, may it be other teams fans being jealous or spiteful because of Roman's money or just bandwagon haters. they play some amazing football, chelsea arent the first team with money to but players, all top teams buy big players, Real madrid, Man U, AC Milan. over the past 10 years all those clubs have spent more money on players than chelsea, Chelsea just did in in a shorter period of time, whatever works for them i guess.

Kiriakoz
wrote on 01-Jun-06 18:05

They did fail... if you look at the money spent... just winning the title isn't good enough! They do have a history... but most of their fans wouldn't have a clue who played for Chelski before Zola arrived there.

wrote on 01-Jun-06 21:01

does sydney FC have history?

PB
wrote on 01-Jun-06 21:01

Losing to the eventual winners is no big deal in the CL. How many other teams can lay claim to that? Barcelona beat Benfica and Milan after they beat Chelsea...so what? Barcelona beat 3 other teams in the group stage!!! So in effect 5 or 6 teams can say they lost to the eventual CL winners...Chelsea still failed to win the 1 trophy the Russian Mafia wants to get their hands on. Wow they celebrated their 100th year last year and won their 2nd championship...2 championships in 100 yrs!!! Solid history that...as Kiriakoz said no Chelsea fan would know who played for them until after Zola arrived. Stamford Bridge used to host 9000 people back in the 90's, all of a sudden they are propped up by a billionaire, all the "supporters" come out of the closet. Where were they when they were poo? Look at any other team, when they were not going well, the supporters were still there in force. Man Utd did not win a title for 26 yrs, yet they still averaged 45,000 to every game (before they won everything, now ave 70,000), Liverpool have not won the title for 16 yrs yet they still average 45,000, Newcastle have not won a title for god know's how long, yet they are the 2nd biggest crowd pullers in the PL and have been for years upon years. As for playing "amazing football", do you watch the PL? Man Utd, Arsenal they play better football. Chelsea do enough each week to win, hardly by playing "amazing football". A solid back 5, and I say 5 because Makalele is a 5th defender, then hoof it long to Drogba to play in Lampard et al...never once have I seen them play teams off the park with "amazing football". Man U, Real Madrid and AC Milan spending as much money, the difference is they have copious amounts of trophies to their name to show for it...Chelsea do not, and never will. If Roman Abromovich went to Portsmouth they would be today's Chelsea, backed by billions with no history and nothing to show for it.

Phantom2000
wrote on 02-Jun-06 08:03

PB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Losing to the eventual winners is no big deal in > the CL. How many other teams can lay claim to > that? Barcelona beat Benfica and Milan after they > beat Chelsea...so what? Barcelona beat 3 other > teams in the group stage!!! So in effect 5 or 6 > teams can say they lost to the eventual CL > winners...Chelsea still failed to win the 1 trophy > the Russian Mafia wants to get their hands on. > > Wow they celebrated their 100th year last year and > won their 2nd championship...2 championships in > 100 yrs!!! Solid history that...as Kiriakoz said > no Chelsea fan would know who played for them > until after Zola arrived. Stamford Bridge used to > host 9000 people back in the 90's, all of a sudden > they are propped up by a billionaire, all the > "supporters" come out of the closet. Where were > they when they were poo? Look at any other team, > when they were not going well, the supporters were > still there in force. Man Utd did not win a title > for 26 yrs, yet they still averaged 45,000 to > every game (before they won everything, now ave > 70,000), Liverpool have not won the title for 16 > yrs yet they still average 45,000, Newcastle have > not won a title for god know's how long, yet they > are the 2nd biggest crowd pullers in the PL and > have been for years upon years. > > As for playing "amazing football", do you watch > the PL? Man Utd, Arsenal they play better > football. Chelsea do enough each week to win, > hardly by playing "amazing football". A solid back > 5, and I say 5 because Makalele is a 5th defender, > then hoof it long to Drogba to play in Lampard et > al...never once have I seen them play teams off > the park with "amazing football". > > Man U, Real Madrid and AC Milan spending as much > money, the difference is they have copious amounts > of trophies to their name to show for it...Chelsea > do not, and never will. > > If Roman Abromovich went to Portsmouth they would > be today's Chelsea, backed by billions with no > history and nothing to show for it. > > > > Edited 1 times. Last edit at 06/01/06 09:03PM by > PB. Man U.. umm pretty sure they dont average 70,000 fans... Arsenals new stadium is set to hold the most fans with 60,000. So not sure where you get your stats from. Chelsea have history, but it is not grandeur thats all. Which team do you go for PB? Man U arsena or liverpool like 90% of people? And why do you go for them?

Phantom2000
wrote on 02-Jun-06 09:00

Words have been swallowed and im going back into my box. Goodnite

RG
wrote on 02-Jun-06 09:04

Chelsea play good football, i do watch the premier league and have wathced for far too many years to recall. Chelsea have their off games like all teams but they still manage to scrape a result. PB you mention that they hoof it long to drogba? thats called a long ball and thats been the tactic in the last 10 years of Premier league. HAVE YOU BEEN WATCHING? is the question. you seem to be another bandwagon hater, upset that chelsea went from a top 5 team to a top team due to ROman being able to afford better players. You expect a chelsea supporter to stop following them because ROman bought them? i dont think you would mind if he bought your team. Zola was there way before the Roman era, he brought fans to the games and stamford bridge was selling out, again, before the Roman Era, they won 2 FA Cups with Zola, again beore the roman era. .. THink with your brain and not with your spite, get the facts right.

Trafford
wrote on 02-Jun-06 09:05

this really adds nothing to the debate but just to be pedantic Old Trafford apparently holds just over 73,000 (Wikipedia is my source). question then whether it sells out every week. doubt it does but would go fairly/very close so PB is probably right. i share a lot of PB's sentiment about Chelsea but then I'm probably just bitter about their overnight success due to me being a toffees fan for the last 20 years.

Stats
wrote on 02-Jun-06 09:07

Phantom2000 where do you get your stats?? Rank Team Total Average 1 Man Utd 1,306,528 68,764 2 Newcastle 988,609 52,032 3 Liverpool 840,491 44,236

LiamW
wrote on 02-Jun-06 10:00

As Roy Keane said most of those fans are the prawn sandwich brigade jumping on the bandwagon! Newcastle are probably the best supported team when you think of the lack of success they have had. I reckon 90% of their fans are Geordies as well. Old Trafford is usually full of cockneys,Highbury full of home counties toffs,same as Chelsea and as for Analfield thats full of Paddies and wooly backs( scouse term for people on from the outskirts of merseyside that talk funny) Not like Goodison Park which is usually full of blue scousers every week no matter who we are playing or where we are on the table 9 league titles I just hope Roman's money runs out before Chelsea can catch up! Don't get started on how we were robbed of competing in the European Cup in the eighties that being the main reason of Evertons demise as a premiership force!

Muz
wrote on 02-Jun-06 10:01

News Report see the link, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=a1toPZJb47U8&refer=europe "The acquisition (of Sheva) takes Chelsea's spending to more than 325 million pounds since Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich bought the club in 2003. Germany captain Michael Ballack and Ivory Coast striker Salomon Kalou have also been added to the squad since Chelsea retained the Premiership title in April." 325 million pounds should buy you a lot more than 2 EPL titles. Success in Europe is the only yardstick for the amount of money invested. I think the majority of football fans do not respect Chelsea's success (or lack of). It will be great to see them fail again next season in their desperation to justify the dollars spent.

wooly back
wrote on 02-Jun-06 10:02

If Chelski had was managed by Wenger, Benitez, Ferguson (maybe) or Jol they probably would have won a European title by now.... and they wouldnt have needed 325 million pounds to do it!

Trafford (but really goodison)
wrote on 02-Jun-06 10:02

it pains to me to agree with you wheels

Juice
wrote on 02-Jun-06 10:06

Ouch!

Gaz
wrote on 02-Jun-06 11:03

Back to back EPL's is a fair effort! And you can't say that they were close to being toppled in the last 2 years either. Even at the height of their powers in the 90's United only won 1 CL (in 1999 i think) whilst domestically they won just about everything (i think 7 out of 11 EPL's from 1993 to 2003 and throw in a few FA cups aswell). It just proves that CL is a far harder competition to win. Chelsea is still buiding and will eventually turn their domestic dominance into European success.

wooly back
wrote on 02-Jun-06 11:06

LiamW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It disgusts me the obscene amount of money Chelsea > can spend but money can't always guarantee > success. Think about Mourinho what you like but he > has managed to keep his large squad fairly happy. > He may have kept the squad happy but I have to wonder... if the money was better spent instead of just bying players for the hell of it (eg. Shawn Wright Phillips) then that would be one less thing for Maureen to worry about. I feel he could have done more with a smaller squad. I do think Ballak and Sheva were very smart buys however. With quality buys like that it is the perfect opertunity to cut down the buldging squad of superstars they have at the moment and concerntrate on a world beating team that will gel together very well. (although i hope they dont become that good) Thats just my opinion though. Fans often know about 5% of what really goes on (and thats why they watch from the couch instead of the managers box).

LiamW
wrote on 02-Jun-06 11:07

Money can't buy you the European Cup. It is a knockout competition and if you don't perform in one leg it can be very difficult to put it right in the return game. In Cup competitions you do need an element of luck on your side. Real Madrid have spent a sh*tload of money in the last few years and haven't won anything in the past three seasons. It disgusts me the obscene amount of money Chelsea can spend but money can't always guarantee success. Think about Mourinho what you like but he has managed to keep his large squad fairly happy.

wrote on 02-Jun-06 12:09

>>> as Kiriakoz said no Chelsea fan would know who played for them until after Zola arrived. <<< players will swarm like flies if you have the money. even Steve Gerrard will go if the price is right. you think they didn't up the ante on Henry's contract? don't gimme the bullsh1t about players staying because they love the club. it also cut both ways sometimes -- players showing loyalty but being shown the door.

BennyR
wrote on 02-Jun-06 15:07

i dont think "Wenger, Benitez, Ferguson (maybe) or Jol" could have won the CL with Potro, AS mourinho did. Its a shame the accomplishments of such personalities like lapms, Jose & terry get overshadowed by the money issue. people need to get over the money and watch the football. Are these same people complaining when Man U bought Rooney, Saha, Rio, Heinze, smith and van der sar (probably more) in the space of 3 years? thats half their starting XI. all teams need to buy players, admittendly chelsea have bough more and some havent been a success but i cant see how these people on this forum get on their high horse about a few transfer mistakes? like they havent made a mistake before? Every team has a few trades that shouldnt have happened but thats life and thats football. The premier league is becoming the most powerfull league in the world thanks to the lure of top teams such as CHelsea, Man U and arsenal.

wrote on 02-Jun-06 16:04

>>> Money makes professional sport. Without money there is no professionalism <<< not really. WPH and Normo still dress in black pants and behaves `professionally`.

Nutta
wrote on 02-Jun-06 16:08

Money makes professional sport. Without money there is no professionalism. On the whole gone are the days of loyalty to where you learned your trade. Even in the NRL players play for clubs they have no tie to besides money. Yes Man U etc bought up, so have most European clubs with good money. My problem with Chelsea is they haven't bought players to fill spots. They have over stepped that mark. They have starved other clubs of those players. These fringe players such as SWP and Duff are hardly playing. Chelsea don't "need" them. It's hard to label what it is but it's almost "unfair" or "unsportsman" like to think of the closest term I can, to competition etc. Do you get my gist? A collapse at the club would be the best thing that could happen to football in Europe. As I said money is what makes players play somewhere on the whole but such a gross mass buying spree of top shelf players is too much. It might make clubs and players think about what matters more. After all there is a blance of what we need in life. For them it is money but also success. Success is measured by them as world cup appearances/success and club success/ winning competitions. When they are old and retired they will look back and remember these things over money. There comes a point when you have enough money and a few more million pound won't make you any happier. But a world cup shirt would be priceless.

Nutta
wrote on 02-Jun-06 17:02

As a Liverpool with a concioncse (excuse mispelling) it would feel a little hollow if we won things after buying a whole heap of top shelf players. Man U bought players along with many other European clubs although none have gone on such a huge venture to buy top shelf players like Chelsea. For players like Wayne Bridge & SWP etc I laugh at them for not making the World Cup. Their pockets are a little heavier but they are watching the world cup like we are, as spectators. If they'd taken less money they'd be playing more football week in week out and most likely be training with the English squad as we speak. However like most of the world greed got the better of them. It's like directors being paid $20 million a year. Are they much happier than if they got paid half or a quarter of that? No. Same for football players. I hope other players learn their lesson but I doubt they will. Money will rule their lives and they won't be any happier for it. If only they'd sacrificied some funny for some common sense.

DMilligan
wrote on 02-Jun-06 17:05

I agree with Nutta. Let's face it, when an NRL player leaves a club he has played with for more than 3 years, the public (club's fans) get upset. That's OK, in all my recent posts, I state loyalty. In reality, everyone on the forum would have to understand that the EPL is one of the most professional set ups in the world. If Chelsea decide to buy a Premiership, fair enough. I am a Man U fan and we have done it (as per Benny R's comments). It's true, and what we have to remember is that by Chelsea buying a lot of top shelf players, Mr Abromovich has little regard for the 'history' and 'politics' that go with the EPL, it's life, and the fact of the matter is that they (Chelsea) are probably quite happy with buying 'some' players that could possibly hurt them if they found another EPL club. They are eliminating the opposition and although none of us like it, Roman is strategising that way. If the oil industry ever starts to struggle, they will suffer, and not recover, for many years.

BennyR
wrote on 03-Jun-06 09:09

Its harsh to day that Roman knows nothing of the history of soccer when, from what i know in my time in london, he is very aware and determined to keep the history. i have to agree to an extent with nutta as far as having quality players on the bench where they could be at other teams, but i also feel thats what it coming down to these days with so many fixtures etc.. every top team has quality on the bench and whilst chelsea has more than most, Real madrid did the same in buying robinho and baptista whe they already had owen, ronaldo and raul. money can't buy success but chelsea have a a great manager who i believe will guide them to greater things only to be shunned by other teams fans who will use the money issue to put him down.

LiamW
wrote on 03-Jun-06 10:00

Mourinho and Ambramovich have both gone on record as saying they are trying to build a dynasty at Chelsea. They are working hand in hand in building their youth system up and developing their club from the grass roots. Saying that they have the money to get quality players in straight away. They are already targeting young players from other clubs for their youth teams and recently two Leeds youngsters signed deal withs Chelsea. Mourinho success at Chelsea will be measured once he has left the club and it will be interesting to see if his legacy will be carried on through another manager. Ranieri was there for a year with Ambramovichs money and didn't deliver the title. As much as it makes me sick saying it if Chelsea can get anywhere near what Liverpool did through the 70s and 80 constantly winning titles with different managers then they can be commended.

Author:
Subject: