|
ibroxmassive posted:I like how going back 15 years as a totally arbitrary number just misses the cut off point of Butt, Giggs, Beckham, Neville, Neville and Savage. I think Phil Neville, Beckham and Scholes would still count anyway, they can't have played more than once or twice before 1995. The Chelsea fans should remember that some really loving good players have their chances restricted at Man Utd precisely because the players ahead of them are the previous generations hot prospects. You can't criticise their youth program because some promising winger can't get a game ahead of Ryan Giggs - but all Chelsea's 'wonderkids' that they've scoured the world to illegally poach are stuck behind £20m signings (heh, pocket change) or bosmans on 6-figure weekly wage packets (hmm well you see the distinctly average Yossi Benayoun is only on £70k. Finally, financial responsibility and self-sufficiency at The Chels)
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:25 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 22:01 |
|
|
Your club should stop spending money No our club spent slightly less money than yours, you should spend less money *both clubs continue pissing monopoly money up the wall, lower league clubs cease to exist because they don't have any money, football dies a slow and agonising death*
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:28 |
|
|
w00bi posted:It's probably more than 200 p/w, I'd put it closer to 300. So for all of them, it could be as high as ~20mil off the year. even if it is 300p/w and you dont have the pay off your still not going to make a profit and even if you do i'll take nearly 2 decades of posting 30m profits to cancel out what abramovich has put in
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:30 |
|
|
delicious beef posted:The point is that despite getting rid of a player who plays a broadly similar role to Kakuta, you've just gone and brought in another one who is ahead of him in the pecking order, reducing his chances to play. No I know, and I've already thought how Yossi's transfer is going to hurt Kakuta. But I'm sure Ancelotti knows of the similar roles they play and will keep that in mind. Ancelotti subbed on three academy players this week during the CL game, when he could have subbed Kalou or Ramires. I take that as a good sign.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:30 |
|
|
SteadfastMeat posted:Your club should stop spending money You Are A Leeds United Fan
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:32 |
|
|
w00bi posted:No I know, and I've already thought how Yossi's transfer is going to hurt Kakuta. But I'm sure Ancelotti knows of the similar roles they play and will keep that in mind. Ancelotti subbed on three academy players this week during the CL game, when he could have subbed Kalou or Ramires. I take that as a good sign. While McEachran has been with the club since the age of 8, van Aanholt and Kakuta were poached from PSV and Lens at great expense and it's really pushing it to call them academy products because they had a year or so in the academy system after years learning the game at other major european clubs. van Aanholt also played 2 (two) minutes.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:36 |
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:You Are A Leeds United Fan And look where our spending got us. Attention Man U/Chelsea/Liverpool: Do you want to do a Leeds? No, you don't. So put your loving wallet away and buy promising players from the lower leagues so that some of that sweet sweet Premier League Money can be enjoyed by everyone.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:37 |
|
|
w00bi posted:No I know, and I've already thought how Yossi's transfer is going to hurt Kakuta. But I'm sure Ancelotti knows of the similar roles they play and will keep that in mind. Ancelotti subbed on three academy players this week during the CL game, when he could have subbed Kalou or Ramires. I take that as a good sign. I think the problem, and it's by no means limited to Chelsea, is tha Ancelotti's job isn't to bring players like Kakuta through, it's to win trophies now, and maybe next season and the season after. There isn't really the inclination to develop youth players when your job is on the lie at such a tight margin, and lots of clubs can't afford to take the risks bringing in young players because of how important Champions League money is and how hard it is to get back into those slots. So you get a cycle of champions league clubs using that money to pay huge transfer fees and wages, and smaller clubs being forced to sell because of money and player demands.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:37 |
|
|
but go into Triple-Secret Administration first so I can enjoy some Schadenfreude for once
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:38 |
|
|
Liverpool are going to go closest
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:39 |
|
|
delicious beef posted:I think the problem, and it's by no means limited to Chelsea, is tha Ancelotti's job isn't to bring players like Kakuta through, it's to win trophies now, and maybe next season and the season after. There isn't really the inclination to develop youth players when your job is on the lie at such a tight margin, and lots of clubs can't afford to take the risks bringing in young players because of how important Champions League money is and how hard it is to get back into those slots. So you get a cycle of champions league clubs using that money to pay huge transfer fees and wages, and smaller clubs being forced to sell because of money and player demands. this is a very good point and explains why Man Utd and Arsenal, whose managers have been at the club since the dawn of time and presumably plan on being there for much longer still, are so much better than Chelsea, whose board seem very fickle on managerial appointments and longevity. If you're at a club for 5, 10, 15 years as a manager you can be hands-on in every aspect of a club. I think Man City are a good example too, they had a loving amazing youth system for a long time - giving them players like Richards, Ireland, Onouha, Hart and Barton at a time when their first team wasn't great - as well as a couple of dozen other prospects that didn't quite 'make it' but were good enough to be sold to Championship clubs for ~£1m a piece. That really seems to be on the back burner now they're minted, the monopoly money has forced out or relegated to the bench (for a time) most of the above players and the next lot won't get the same amount of pitch time to prove themselves.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:44 |
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:While McEachran has been with the club since the age of 8, van Aanholt and Kakuta were poached from PSV and Lens at great expense and it's really pushing it to call them academy products because they had a year or so in the academy system after years learning the game at other major european clubs. van Aanholt also played 2 (two) minutes. No I know not all academy players are the same, I'm sure I could have been more specific. But I just wanted to show Ancelotti using younger players, that's all. It's important to me as a Chelsea fan that regardless of how long a young player has been at Chelsea, that they still get playing time. quote:I think the problem, and it's by no means limited to Chelsea, is tha Ancelotti's job isn't to bring players like Kakuta through, it's to win trophies now, and maybe next season and the season after. I agree. I also mentioned it somewhere in some other thread, but Chelsea's problem of late has been the manager changes. No manager could build a relationship with the young players, hence why no youth players could go through. Mancienne has gone through all these managers and Ancelotti barely knows him. Ancelotti seemed to spend a lot of time last season at reserves/youth games and actually took the time to talk about them in interviews/conferences. If Ancelotti does get to stay for many years (Which unlike I originally wanted, I now want) I think Ancelotti will definitely put through players.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:44 |
|
|
Clubs that keep managers and don't have boards straight out of Football Manager will win more titles than those who do, that's simple. Arsenal: 18 permanent and 4 caretakers Man United: 18 permanent managers Liverpool: 18 permanent managers Chelsea: 27 permanent and 3 caretakers (26:4 if you count David Webb with 13 games) Stability in a club builds greater teams who attract talent who build greater teams.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:51 |
|
|
w00bi posted:No I know not all academy players are the same, I'm sure I could have been more specific. But I just wanted to show Ancelotti using younger players, that's all. It's important to me as a Chelsea fan that regardless of how long a young player has been at Chelsea, that they still get playing time. with no disrespect to Zilina, it's when these players (and probably not McEachran yet as he's an irl babby) get even regular bench spots and cameos in the prem and against decent overseas teams - or even starts against the bad teams - that i'll be a bit more convinced. The best thing they could do right now is give Ancelotti every assurance that he's got the job for as long as he wants it so he can ramp up integration of youngsters into the team and not live in fear of being sacked if he finishes 3rd one season or goes out in the CL quarter-finals. I know his Milan team had the reputation of 'lol old men' but that may well be because in Italy the manager is really 'the first team coach who also picks the team' - and even then Silvio likes to flip out on managers if they dare play with 1 up front, even if they win.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:53 |
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:with no disrespect to Zilina, it's when these players (and probably not McEachran yet as he's an irl babby) get even regular bench spots and cameos in the prem and against decent overseas teams - or even starts against the bad teams - that i'll be a bit more convinced. Well Chelsea has Newcastle this Wednesday. And Ancelotti said that he will use the youth players there as well give fitness time for Lampard and Terry. But you're right, Ancelotti will need to give them a good amount of time in PL games against bad/medium teams. quote:The best thing they could do right now is give Ancelotti every assurance that he's got the job for as long as he wants it so he can ramp up integration of youngsters into the team and not live in fear of being sacked if he finishes 3rd one season or goes out in the CL quarter-finals. I concur.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 20:57 |
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:
Hart isn't really a City youth teamer, he was Shrewsbury's first choice when they bought him, albeit not yet Premiership level. The general point is pretty spot on though, their youth system was excellent, it'll be interesting to see if it does produce players of that quality again when the spending slows or stops.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:01 |
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:with no disrespect to Zilina, it's when these players (and probably not McEachran yet as he's an irl babby) get even regular bench spots and cameos in the prem and against decent overseas teams - or even starts against the bad teams - that i'll be a bit more convinced. What reason do Chelsea and Roman have for wanting to slowly/painfully develop youth players? He wants trophies and he wants them, like, yesterday. Why would he give a gently caress about spending a few seasons of being good, but not amazing, so maybe they can develop a couple of solid players, when he can just loving buy whoever he wants? Even if the 'lol monopoly money' days are over at Chelsea, Roman seems comfortable with spending 40-60m a year in net spending if it will ensure him PL title runs and at least CL semi finals.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:01 |
|
|
Well UEFA's new rules will prevent Chelsea from buying replacements just from Roman's personal bank account. Thus you have to look internally as long as you don't make a huge profit.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:03 |
|
|
w00bi posted:Well UEFA's new rules will prevent Chelsea from buying replacements just from Roman's personal bank account. Thus you have to look internally as long as you don't make a huge profit. I look forward to Roman getting around that by charging 50k pounds for Chelsea Season tickets, buying them all himself and then reselling them for 1k pounds each.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:10 |
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:Clubs that keep managers and don't have boards straight out of Football Manager will win more titles than those who do, that's simple. This is quoted a lot but imo it's pretty clear people have got the situation the wrong way around. Greater teams winning things lead to stability in a club. Alex Ferguson is pretty much the only exception to that rule in modern times of sticking with someone through the really bad paying off in the end. Wenger is still at Arsenal because he turned them into an instant success; not because they grafted for years and years and eventually came good (some people might argue the reverse has happened). Stability is only generally achieved by the manager doing a good job anyway and keeping him. Very few successful managers in this day and age started with a poor team and due to stability turned them into a great team.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:10 |
|
|
cheese posted:I look forward to Roman getting around that by charging 50k pounds for Chelsea Season tickets, buying them all himself and then reselling them for 1k pounds each. One would hope UEFA somehow prevents this.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:11 |
|
|
w00bi posted:One would hope UEFA somehow prevents this. Haha or what about Roman getting a rich Chelsea fan to pay the club 10m for John Terry to show up at the fans birthday party and then Roman hooks him up with a sweet business deal? Maybe get a business associate who owes Roman money to pay that money to the club by hiring them to come play an exhibition game in his backyard? Surely there are ways for Roman (or the group that owns City now) to turn their billions into 'revenue' for their clubs to facilitate transfers/wages?
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:17 |
|
|
cheese posted:Haha or what about Roman getting a rich Chelsea fan to pay the club 10m for John Terry to show up at the fans birthday party and then Roman hooks him up with a sweet business deal? Maybe get a business associate who owes Roman money to pay that money to the club by hiring them to come play an exhibition game in his backyard? Surely there are ways for Roman (or the group that owns City now) to turn their billions into 'revenue' for their clubs to facilitate transfers/wages? A certain degree of creative accounting is probably expected, totally gaming the system is going to be easily spotted and punished for clear breaching of the rules. You're being silly if you think anything like these scenarios would possibly happen.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:21 |
|
|
Noxville posted:A certain degree of creative accounting is probably expected, totally gaming the system is going to be easily spotted and punished for clear breaching of the rules. You're being silly if you think anything like these scenarios would possibly happen. What if they charged for tours of the practice facility?
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:22 |
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:Wenger is still at Arsenal because he turned them into an instant success; not because they grafted for years and years and eventually came good (some people might argue the reverse has happened). So the board have increased amounts of faith and goodwill towards Wenger and will keep him longer, keeping the club stronger as they won't chop and change managers every other season
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:23 |
|
|
Big Black Sock posted:What if they charged for tours of the practice facility? As long as they kept it secret, no problem. I bet they could get 10,000 pounds for such a tour.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:23 |
|
|
Noxville posted:A certain degree of creative accounting is probably expected, totally gaming the system is going to be easily spotted and punished for clear breaching of the rules. You're being silly if you think anything like these scenarios would possibly happen. I was coming up with some silly/obvious examples (birthday party, come on) but my point was that there must be dozens of ways for a rich owner to sneak 200k here, 100k there into his clubs revenue stream throughout the year for a man with Roman's connections. It would be obvious if Chelsea's revenue was suddenly 50m higher, but it would be tough to pin a lot of things as obvious and clear cut examples of rules violations.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:26 |
|
|
cheese posted:I was coming up with some silly/obvious examples (birthday party, come on) but my point was that there must be dozens of ways for a rich owner to sneak 200k here, 100k there into his clubs revenue stream throughout the year for a man with Roman's connections. It would be obvious if Chelsea's revenue was suddenly 50m higher, but it would be tough to pin a lot of things as obvious and clear cut examples of rules violations. You'd need to put it in an incredible number of places to do it unnoticably and to enough of a degree to make a worthwhile difference to a club with an income that's already over £200m per year.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 21:34 |
|
|
Its very easy for a rich owner to 'sneak' money into the club. Citys have already done it. Buy up all the land around the stadium and rent it out.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 23:09 |
|
|
I doubt that Roman would lobby for the finance rules and then try to get around them. Also, don't the rules allow for 50m a year to be put in or something for at least the first few years? I forgot to include Brown and Fletcher as more recent youth team graduates, but seriously Man U fans, you guys can turn the smugness down a notch, Man U is not Barcelona and you guys aren't Barcelona fans. I expect better from you all. Chelsea's youth setup has been awful since before Roman arrived and just now seems to be getting better, but I am going to hold my praise until some of the youngsters actually turn into first team regulars.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 23:27 |
|
|
You were the person who first mentioned how United's youth teams weren't much better recently than Chelsea's, we were just showing how wrong your comparison was.
|
| # ? Sep 19, 2010 23:41 |
|
|
willkill4food posted:I forgot to include Brown and Fletcher as more recent youth team graduates, but seriously Man U fans, you guys can turn the smugness down a notch, Man U is not Barcelona and you guys aren't Barcelona fans. I expect better from you all. well it's mainly been me and ibroxmassive using Man Utd for contrast with Chelsea, and neither of us are United fans?
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 00:26 |
|
|
Iggy Pop Barker posted:I think Man City are a good example too, they had a loving amazing youth system for a long time - giving them players like Richards, Ireland, Onouha, Hart and Barton at a time when their first team wasn't great - as well as a couple of dozen other prospects that didn't quite 'make it' but were good enough to be sold to Championship clubs for ~£1m a piece. That really seems to be on the back burner now they're minted, the monopoly money has forced out or relegated to the bench (for a time) most of the above players and the next lot won't get the same amount of pitch time to prove themselves. I don't think the academy is on the back burner as such but it will be harder for the kids coming through to get senior experience. The best thing for them would probably be the first team winning a trophy sometime in the near future so we can start treating the Carling Cup the same way United/Arsenal/etc do but I don't think their prospects are hosed, last season off the top of my head I remember Ibrahim, Nimely, Boyata and Cunningham all making senior debuts, Vladimir Weiss is off at Rangers to get experience and there's others i'm forgetting as well as a bunch of promising younger kids behind them as well.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 01:28 |
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:This is quoted a lot but imo it's pretty clear people have got the situation the wrong way around. Thank god somebody pointed this out. Sure, some clubs are too quick to kick people out that doesn't really effect their chances of winning titles. For example, since 1980 Milan have had a total of 20 different managers yet still won more Champions League trophies than anybody else in that period. Vicente del Bosque is another example who gets thrown up when talking about stupid boardrooms but let us not forget that before he got the job Madrid had experienced a change of manager every season for three years. Also there are often times when clubs need to get rid of good managers. Rijkaard at Barcelona is a good example of that. You could argue that Milan needed to get rid of Sacchi when some of the players turned against him. I'm guessing there are plenty of people on this forum who would suggest keeping faith in Benitez because "Stability means titles" would have been a poor choice too given the circumsntaces. The fact is there are so many factors here it's pointless to just pretend having the same manager is important. Chelsea were wrong to get rid of Mourinho but keeping Grant or Scolari around for much longer could have caused a lot more problems and could have easily led to long term decline. So the club has a lot of managers in the late 90s and early part of this decade? I don't know how this would harm the team in anyway. willkill4food posted:I doubt that Roman would lobby for the finance rules and then try to get around them. Why not? For example, City will have no problems meeting any requirements when the regeneration around the stadium is complete. If Mansour knows he has a major advantage over any other club he could suggest bringing in new rules knowing other clubs would have to work to meet them. It's horrible but if somebody has an edge over their competitors they will do anything to secure a long term advantage.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 01:41 |
|
|
Transatlantic Gulp posted:Vladimir Weiss is off at Rangers to get experience Yeah he's getting experience of the bench.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 03:45 |
|
|
K U N T Z posted:Yeah he's getting experience of the bench. In 5 league games he's had 3 appearances. He was never going to get played against Man U, he'll get time in Turkey I would hope.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 03:49 |
|
|
Ive come around on Chelsea and dont particularly care how much money they spend. I mean have you seen Abramovich's yacht? Id rather he waste money on some thick spendthrift teenagers.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 04:19 |
|
|
quote:Blackstone Group, the private equity firm said to be on the verge of backing Tom Hicks in his last ditch bid to retain control of Liverpool FC in the face of fierce fan opposition, is understood to have ended all talks with the Texan. Good news I suppose for Liverpool fans.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 14:50 |
|
|
At what point do they go into administration?
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 14:52 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 22:01 |
|
|
ibroxmassive posted:At what point do they go into administration? A 15 point penalty might relegate Liverpool this season.
|
| # ? Sep 20, 2010 16:47 |
|
