Who will win the EPL?

[macca_tirana]

maybe you can give him some pointers. i'd like to know how to buy some store bought hooters for my girlfriend only to have her dump me. i'd like to know what it feels like to know that someone else is playing with boobs that i bought :wink:

It would seem that some ppl. are not only insulting but also have a terrible time keeping on topic on this message board. What a pity!

Good point.

Who was it who 1st went off thread.

Some arse talking about Real Madrid i believe.

[MichaelGray]

^ close but no cigar.

[zeusbheld]

hmmmm dear ciaran,

in your admonition to READ noticed you meticulously avoided POSTING the whole article... maybe there are parts you didnt' like?

Although Olsson singled out Chelsea, his comments are unlikely to find favour among Europe's other elite clubs.

AC Milan and Real Madrid are thought to have matched Chelsea's spending in previous years in their pursuit of European football's top club prize.

BBC Sport understands clubs are largely dismissive of Olsson's remarks, seeing them as the opening shots in the pre-election campaigning.

hmmmm dear zeus

the careless observer will note michaelgray has already highlighted the fact that said article claims AC Malin and Real Madrid have previously spent similar sums as Chelski.

i was querying the lack of intelligence in using an article about a rule change aimed specifically at Chelski in defence of their spending habits !!! therefore i quoted the part of the article which dealt with this.

also i do believe i advised michaelgray (and therefore any other careful and/or careless observers) to read the full article.

K ??

having read the full article i was pointing out that, in the context of the article, the mention of real and milan supports his point.

maybe you read a different article--the one i read said clubs like real and milan wouldn't support it because they have at times (including recent ones, to sometimes disastrous effect in spite of hiring brand-name managers, like real) spent like that, implied that they would veto the measure in order to reserve the right to do so again.

it also went on to say that it was election-time posturing on the part of olsson, implying that maybe, just maybe, he was pandering to evryone who isn't chelski at the moment--a pretty large constituency.

perhaps i was missed something in mr. gray's posts, but wasn't he claiming that clubs have spent similar amounts of cash with different degrees of success (madrid, recently, case in point). all yeahbuts about how they bought becks coz he's marketable aside, why do you think they went through a string of managers? should be easy to answer--they weren't getting results. if next year the 'special one' loses the plot the way pardew did this year, think he's guaranteed a job?

[zeusbheld]

hmmmm dear ciaran,

in your admonition to READ noticed you meticulously avoided POSTING the whole article... maybe there are parts you didnt' like?

Although Olsson singled out Chelsea, his comments are unlikely to find favour among Europe's other elite clubs.

AC Milan and Real Madrid are thought to have matched Chelsea's spending in previous years in their pursuit of European football's top club prize.

BBC Sport understands clubs are largely dismissive of Olsson's remarks, seeing them as the opening shots in the pre-election campaigning.

hmmmm dear zeus

the careless observer will note michaelgray has already highlighted the fact that said article claims AC Malin and Real Madrid have previously spent similar sums as Chelski.

i was querying the lack of intelligence in using an article about a rule change aimed specifically at Chelski in defence of their spending habits !!! therefore i quoted the part of the article which dealt with this.

also i do believe i advised michaelgray (and therefore any other careful and/or careless observers) to read the full article.

K ??

this hump picks and chooses what he wants to. he's not worth the time nor the effort to debate. a real jag :shock:

"picks and chooses what he wants to." hmmmmm imagine that. i only debate points i have some interest in and/or information on. if i'm interested in a topic, and i don't agree with a post, i pick at the weaknesses of the argument, if i think they will bring the whole argument crashing down in a heap. ******* criminal isn't it.

yeah, you're right i shoudl limit myself to jumping in with the rest of the the TF Welcome Committee and wail on whatever newbie semi-retarded tosspot shows up on the forum trolling for hookers, just for the sake of unity and wailing on tosspots, instead of reacting to what's on the page on a case-by-case basis

you, of course, don't pick and choose. yeah right.

well done, nice technique for the lazy person who hasn't bothered to do his homework and still wants to be a prick, thanks for the demo.

oh and feel free to explain what this little tantrum of yours has to do with the english premiere league, or did you feel this thread doesn't have enough trolls already?

[CiaranM]

hmmmm dear zeus

the careless observer will note michaelgray has already highlighted the fact that said article claims AC Milan and Real Madrid have previously spent similar sums as Chelski.

i was querying the lack of intelligence in using an article about a rule change aimed specifically at Chelski in defence of their spending habits !!! therefore i quoted the part of the article which dealt with this.

also i do believe i advised michaelgray (and therefore any other careful and/or careless observers) to read the full article.

K ??

having read the full article i was pointing out that, in the context of the article, the mention of real and milan supports his point.

maybe you read a different article--the one i read said clubs like real and milan wouldn't support it because they have at times (including recent ones, to sometimes disastrous effect in spite of hiring brand-name managers, like real) spent like that, implied that they would veto the measure in order to reserve the right to do so again.

it also went on to say that it was election-time posturing on the part of olsson, implying that maybe, just maybe, he was pandering to evryone who isn't chelski at the moment--a pretty large constituency.

perhaps i was missed something in mr. gray's posts, but wasn't he claiming that clubs have spent similar amounts of cash with different degrees of success (madrid, recently, case in point). all yeahbuts about how they bought becks coz he's marketable aside, why do you think they went through a string of managers? should be easy to answer--they weren't getting results. if next year the 'special one' loses the plot the way pardew did this year, think he's guaranteed a job?

did u read my post ... michaelgray has already highlighted that part of the article ... in fact he posted it twice !!!!

my point was he quoted an article about a law being proposed specifically to curb the spending power of clubs like Chelski ... not the brightest idea i wouldn't have thought.

[zeusbheld]

chelsk detractors like to piss and moan about how anyone couild win with that much talent on the field. NOT true. the quality and even versatility are there, but without grit and the will to win you end up looking like.... real madrid a few years ago. as managers go i gots heaps o' respek for 'the special one.' they sold half their team and STILL have amazing depth

any GOOD manager with the money Chelski have available could win !! the money they can spend now is crazy .... just look at their losses over the last few seasons, no other side could sustain that without a bottomless piggy bank.

back to this original comment--and i agree with it in principle, yes any GOOD manager with that kind of money could win. i think there just aren't that many good managers. and at least in champions' league terms, there's always a club out there with that kind of money. the big $$$ teams don't always win (ajax beat milan in '95!) but odds are they will, IF they have a good manager. that's a big IF though.

i think the example of real madrid is quite relevant. i dont see the point of looking at "ten years" but it does have an interesting storyline in terms of "good manager with money": real spent money and won great success, and then spent even more money, and won... nothing, since 2003. whereas chelski spent nothing and won nothing until the owner of russia needed a toy. this toy could have easily gone sour the way real did, if he micromanaged, but mr abramovich at least had the sense to bet on a good horse in 'the special one.' winning the CL with porto was a good tip, but hardly a lock. that was an astute (and lucky) pick IMO.

in 2003, real fired their manager, splashed cash on becks etc. sure they were eyeing becoming a global brand. they managed to emulate man u's marketing prowess while conveniently overlooking that it was driven by sucess on the pitch.

they spent MORE money and got WORSE in 2003. they DIDN'T win the league. hmmmm maybe they should've spent some dough hiring rijkaard?

back to this year's EPL. i'd agree that no team has much of a chance against that kind of money, but man u are a couple signings away from having such a chance. another good striker and owen hargreaves, IMO, would give them enough depth to challenge.

that said, im betting man u cannot get hargreaves and chelski win again.

speaking of money, look at 1-4 in the premiership this week. predictable? yep. any sort of evening out of money should do more than just look at chelski. then maybe some day there'd be more than four teams in the premiership.

[zeusbheld]

hmmmm dear zeus

the careless observer will note michaelgray has already highlighted the fact that said article claims AC Milan and Real Madrid have previously spent similar sums as Chelski.

i was querying the lack of intelligence in using an article about a rule change aimed specifically at Chelski in defence of their spending habits !!! therefore i quoted the part of the article which dealt with this.

also i do believe i advised michaelgray (and therefore any other careful and/or careless observers) to read the full article.

K ??

having read the full article i was pointing out that, in the context of the article, the mention of real and milan supports his point.

maybe you read a different article--the one i read said clubs like real and milan wouldn't support it because they have at times (including recent ones, to sometimes disastrous effect in spite of hiring brand-name managers, like real) spent like that, implied that they would veto the measure in order to reserve the right to do so again.

it also went on to say that it was election-time posturing on the part of olsson, implying that maybe, just maybe, he was pandering to evryone who isn't chelski at the moment--a pretty large constituency.

perhaps i was missed something in mr. gray's posts, but wasn't he claiming that clubs have spent similar amounts of cash with different degrees of success (madrid, recently, case in point). all yeahbuts about how they bought becks coz he's marketable aside, why do you think they went through a string of managers? should be easy to answer--they weren't getting results. if next year the 'special one' loses the plot the way pardew did this year, think he's guaranteed a job?

did u read my post ... michaelgray has already highlighted that part of the article ... in fact he posted it twice !!!!

my point was he quoted an article about a law being proposed specifically to curb the spending power of clubs like Chelski ... not the brightest idea i wouldn't have thought.

i got the impression that he posted it to support his example of real in claiming that spraying that kind of cash doesn't guarantee success, not to claim that chelsk aren't spending more than the other 3 big EPL teams combined. not meaning to put words in his mouth (so to speak) but i will anyway.

if he'd come clean about the context from the get-go, i think it makes sense to post.

instead, he chose to just make it big. had he made it BIG AND GREEN, it would have been irrefutable.

[GoldMember]

We all know there's a pretty strong correlation between money spent on players and where the team ends up at the end of the season(Newcastle perhaps being a glaring exception here).It is a slight exagerration saying ones Grandmother could do as a good a job as Mourinho,yet someone with a bottomless pit of cash at his disposal does seem to be somewhat underachieving.That facial glow of his isn't the result of extreme arrogance,over confidence or even overuse of the new 'Lisboa' range of sunbeds ....but actually due to polomium210- contracted off Abramovich's radioactive open cheque book.

[zeusbheld]

We all know there's a pretty strong correlation between money spent on players and where the team ends up at the end of the season(Newcastle perhaps being a glaring exception here).

it's that old roeder magic isn't it? take a talented team and run it... into the ground.

i'm interested in seeing how the curbishley situation pans out. the hammers are not big-four material but theyre not relegation material either, at least on paper.

It is a slight exagerration saying ones Grandmother could do as a good a job as Mourinho,

it's more than just a slight exaggeration. the most talented people tend to have the biggest egos, especially if they're used to being successful in everything they do. babysitting a team of people who are certain the universe revolves around them isn't the easiest job in the world.

you're probably not familiar with basketball, so won't know the before-and-after when phil jackson first signed on to manage the LA Lakers. but have you ever been on the set of a big movie? if not, ever read the trades? or at least read some backstory on "waterworld"? babysitting big egos can be as hard as motivating less-than-talented-but-dedicated types.

yet someone with a bottomless pit of cash at his disposal does seem to be somewhat underachieving.

i think that's hard to judge until he either a) wins the CL, loses the premiership or c) abramovich gets bored and finds another hobby.

[GoldMember]

Costner/Roeder:not often you see those 2 legendary names mentioned so close together.Maybe they could do a role reversal.Kev would have a bash at acting and Glenn try out some coaching.

[zeusbheld]

Costner/Roeder:not often you see those 2 legendary names mentioned so close together.Maybe they could do a role reversal.Kev would have a bash at acting and Glenn try out some coaching.

my money's on costner. i bet 'waterworld' made more money on cable rights than 'the collapse of west ham.' the sequel, 'the taking down of newcastle' will be a box office dud also.

[celticraindeer]

Sad Feckers

[MichaelGray]

i think the example of real madrid is quite relevant. i dont see the point of looking at "ten years" but it does have an interesting storyline in terms of "good manager with money": real spent money and won great success, and then spent even more money, and won... nothing, since 2003. whereas chelski spent nothing and won nothing until the owner of russia needed a toy. this toy could have easily gone sour the way real did, if he micromanaged, but mr abramovich at least had the sense to bet on a good horse in 'the special one.' winning the CL with porto was a good tip, but hardly a lock. that was an astute (and lucky) pick IMO.

Some toy. Did you know that dear Ramon recently pledged 500 million quid to a trust fund to ensure that the CFC will continue long after he has ceded control (to his son by all accounts).

[CiaranM]

real spent money and won great success, and then spent even more money, and won... nothing, since 2003. whereas chelski spent nothing and won nothing until the owner of russia needed a toy. this toy could have easily gone sour the way real did, if he micromanaged, but mr abramovich at least had the sense to bet on a good horse in 'the special one.' winning the CL with porto was a good tip, but hardly a lock. that was an astute (and lucky) pick IMO.

real spent a lot had great success, had 1 bad season and then sacked the manager who had brought them all that success !! they've done bugger all since, but i just wonder (before this season) who was actually signing the players. one chairman said they wouldn't sign ronaldhino because he was too ugly for RM. guess he hadn't seen Van Nilst before they signed him.

and as u said abramovich (apart from possibly Shevko) has got a good manager and allowed him to sign and play who he wants !!

[zeusbheld]

real spent money and won great success, and then spent even more money, and won... nothing, since 2003. whereas chelski spent nothing and won nothing until the owner of russia needed a toy. this toy could have easily gone sour the way real did, if he micromanaged, but mr abramovich at least had the sense to bet on a good horse in 'the special one.' winning the CL with porto was a good tip, but hardly a lock. that was an astute (and lucky) pick IMO.

real spent a lot had great success, had 1 bad season and then sacked the manager who had brought them all that success !! they've done bugger all since, but i just wonder (before this season) who was actually signing the players. one chairman said they wouldn't sign ronaldhino because he was too ugly for RM. guess he hadn't seen Van Nilst before they signed him.

and as u said abramovich (apart from possibly Shevko) has got a good manager and allowed him to sign and play who he wants !!

yeah i'd agree with all of that.

(we're speculating, but...) it was probably the president getting too big for his knickers in 2k3 (and more importantly, too big for his football savvy) and signing all those pretty boys . it was a DEFINITE policy change and a DEFINITE screw up. now they flail around looking for a quick fix to restore the tarnished image of what basically is the greatest tradition in football (IMO, and i'm not a real fan, just respek where it's due).

yep sheva was an abramovich guy, a personal friend apparently. however, if he's willing to drop the bank on him, from a football point of view, i can see where mourinho wouldn't be unhappy about it, as long as he's not contractuallly obligated to play him. i expect sheva will settle in and do alright, but i may be biased because he looks a bit like jimba, and i'd like to see him do well at something besides the amorous pursuit of sheep.

[CiaranM]

yep sheva was an abramovich guy, a personal friend apparently. however, if he's willing to drop the bank on him, from a football point of view, i can see where mourinho wouldn't be unhappy about it, as long as he's not contractuallly obligated to play him. i expect sheva will settle in and do alright

i'm not convinced sheva will cut it in the EPL .... most foreign players seems to take 12-18 months to settle down. drogba and henry being two classic examples. however, sheva was considerably older than those two and (for his age) a hell of a lot more expensive. he is undoubtedly a class act. but from his body language and expression he doesn't look particularly happy ... either on the pitch, on the bench or when (nearly every game) being subbed. he has also been quoted (allegedly) as saying the Chelski style of football doesn't suit him .... mind u Drogba was saying the same thing at the end of last season.

i could be wrong, but feel he might be on his way back to italy .... if anybody can afford him.

[MichaelGray]

Frank Lampard took a couple of seasons to find his feet at the CFC, I was one of those slating him at the time & saying what a waste of 11 million quid. :oops:

[zeusbheld]

yep sheva was an abramovich guy, a personal friend apparently. however, if he's willing to drop the bank on him, from a football point of view, i can see where mourinho wouldn't be unhappy about it, as long as he's not contractuallly obligated to play him. i expect sheva will settle in and do alright

i'm not convinced sheva will cut it in the EPL .... most foreign players seems to take 12-18 months to settle down. drogba and henry being two classic examples. however, sheva was considerably older than those two and (for his age) a hell of a lot more expensive. he is undoubtedly a class act. but from his body language and expression he doesn't look particularly happy ... either on the pitch, on the bench or when (nearly every game) being subbed. he has also been quoted (allegedly) as saying the Chelski style of football doesn't suit him .... mind u Drogba was saying the same thing at the end of last season.

i could be wrong, but feel he might be on his way back to italy .... if anybody can afford him.

yeah the look on his face is that of a guy losing confidence isnt it. i suspect the special one is breathing down his neck at this point too, and i suspect kalou could be worth some minutes as well.

[MichaelGray]

[CiaranM]

yeah the look on his face is that of a guy losing confidence isnt it. i suspect the special one is breathing down his neck at this point too, and i suspect kalou could be worth some minutes as well.

the one thing he has done is energise Drogba .... it seems to have made a huge difference him playing with another out and out striker as opposed to 2 wide men. the guy has been f**king sensational this season !!

[zeusbheld]

yeah the look on his face is that of a guy losing confidence isnt it. i suspect the special one is breathing down his neck at this point too, and i suspect kalou could be worth some minutes as well.

the one thing he has done is energise Drogba .... it seems to have made a huge difference him playing with another out and out striker as opposed to 2 wide men. the guy has been f**king sensational this season !!

yes. he's on fire. also a MAJOR change in attitude on his part. his first goal of the season was a wake-up call and a hell of an announcement--he could have (possibly even legitimately) allowed himself to be pulled down and would almost certainly have drawn the penalty, instead he just dragged the ***** with him and powered the ball in. i used to be convinced he wore a speedo under his uniform. not any more.

is it just me or does the quality of his strike partner make a difference? he plays better with sheva on the field than when the special one tries to put robben in the middle IMO. i think sheva's had a strong impact already, even without scoring, just not 30MM impact, even by the distorted standard of abramovich money.

[zeusbheld]

far more interesting is the premiership relegation/eufa cup scrap involving no fewer than 14 teams ... we've never had it so good

yes. i believe we'll see hammers make a move away from the drop zone (they're more talented than that, poor pardew just 'lost' the team IMO, and curbishley seems to have their attention at the moment).

we may yet see newcastle sink deeper and deeper. they're more talented than that, but i'm not convinced roeder is.

charlton might as well start selling players in the january transfer window, up their cash a bit for the impending downsizing.

as for man u getting hargreaves, glazer made a show of saying he's behind fergie financially, one can read into it what one likes. i expect a serious run at hargreaves is in the works though.

[GoldMember]

far more interesting is the premiership relegation/eufa cup scrap involving no fewer than 14 teams ... we've never had it so good

yes. i believe we'll see hammers make a move away from the drop zone (they're more talented than that, poor pardew just 'lost' the team IMO, and curbishley seems to have their attention at the moment).

we may yet see newcastle sink deeper and deeper. they're more talented than that, but i'm not convinced roeder is.

charlton might as well start selling players in the january transfer window, up their cash a bit for the impending downsizing.

.

Yep well already there's not only a gap at the top end of the table but also at the bottom -albeit smaller ,separating 17th/18th Middlesborough/WH both on 17 points and 19th placed Charlton on 12 points.

Looks a bit ominous for Charlton and Watford.The lack of cash and decent management is quite a formidable double whammy to overcome.

Whereas only 9 points separate 18th and 8th.This table is already looking a bit deja vu like.They used to say 40 points is enough to survive..but that piece of statistical wisdom was soon eventually disproven. Won't mention who the culprits were :roll:

[MichaelGray]

In a bid to buy La liga & the European Cup next season, RM have just splashed out more than 50 million on two Argy. players. They are due to arrive in January I understand. Of course no one bats an eyelid at this, but if the CFC spend 30 million on one ruski then murmerings go out across Europe.

We will cut spending - Abramovich

Billionaire owner Roman Abramovich expects Chelsea's spending in the transfer market to be reduced once the benefits are reaped from its academy.

He told The Observer: "Our strategy is to bring up our own players through the academy, which we have invested a lot in, and hope it gives results."

He added: "We will be spending less in the transfer market in future years."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/6207215.stm

[CiaranM]

In a bid to buy La liga & the European Cup next season, RM have just splashed out more than 50 million on two Argy. players. They are due to arrive in January I understand. Of course no one bats an eyelid at this, but if the CFC spend 30 million on one ruski then murmerings go out across Europe.

Real Madrid have signed Boca Juniors midfielder Fernando Gago for £14m.

Gago has signed on a six-and-a-half year deal and follows River Plate striker Gonzalo Higuain, 19, in moving from South America to Spain.

Higuain, who was born in France and raised in Argentina and is yet to commit his international career to either country, moved in a £9m deal.

now by my counting that is 23 million not 50 million and 1 player is 21 and the other 19 !! quite a considerable difference to splashing 30 million on 1 30 year old russian !! however, it would appear to be a quite a gamble and will be interesting to see how it pans out !!