Football The 2010/2011 Season Thread

[Embattle]

2-2

 

[CorNokZ]

ffs Hangeland, I love you, but why did you have to score one more?

 

[cHodAX]

Weak as water defending that.

 

[megadave]

hectic ending :E

 

[megadave]

think i cheered that hangeland goal louder than any of ours yesterday

 

[Turamber]

I thought a draw would be a good result today, but I can't say I expected such a lack of fight from Villa. We would never ever have lost like that to frigging Newcastle under O'Neill.

I don't blame MacDonald as he shouldn't be in this position. We should have a proper, experienced manager. Instead we have an owner who wants to sell our best players, replace them with half fit cheap crap and sit in his mansion counting his millions.

The lack of fight at 2-0 down was palpable, the players just started walking around. Disgraceful.

 

[megadave]

i removed nani from my team yesterday morning but hes still in it for today, the useless ****

thought fulham were great today, credit to them

 

[leviathane]

Chelsea are ready to make Real Madrid a "super offer" of £33m for Sergio Ramos, with Spain's World Cup winning defender set to earn over £8m net per season over five years.
Full story: Marca (in Spanish)

 

[megadave]

crock
of
shit

 

[Embattle]

Aston Villa looked clueless in todays game, as I said O'Neill left because he could see it coming and didn't fancy being the one who takes the blame for others actions.

 

[Ch3tan]

Well that was two points thrown away. If we'd carried on from the first half then we would have won easily.

Still could be worst, at least we aren't Villa today

Also, Villa bashing aside, Newcastle played some lovely stuff today. Carroll was very impressive.

 

[Raven]

Great game today, Scholes on fire again. Yet more crap refereeing though...

Good weekend for the fantasy football too, still got Teves, Toure and Kuyt playing tomorrow

 

[Turamber]

Aston Villa looked clueless in todays game, as I said O'Neill left because he could see it coming and didn't fancy being the one who takes the blame for others actions.

Quite right, the side needs strengthening but the owner only cares about his $'s. A manager trades on his reputation and his stock would have fallen heavily presiding over the season we're about to have.

That said we wouldn't have lost 6-0 to fucking Newcastle on his watch. He'd have demanded more fire, more pride from the players.

I also can't see him starting a half fit Stephen Ireland, a player not known for his tackling and covering, in central midfield next to Petrov. That game cried out for Reo Coker, but he only came on at 4-0 down. Jesus wept, he's not Pele you clueless idiot MacDonald.

Not that it is MacDonald's fault, it is the fault of the owner for sitting on his hands and not getting a new experienced manager in.

 

[ST^]

Fulham really impressed me in the 2nd half. Great game to watch.

 

[Embattle]

Quite right, the side needs strengthening but the owner only cares about his $'s. A manager trades on his reputation and his stock would have fallen heavily presiding over the season we're about to have.

That said we wouldn't have lost 6-0 to fucking Newcastle on his watch. He'd have demanded more fire, more pride from the players.

I also can't see him starting a half fit Stephen Ireland, a player not known for his tackling and covering, in central midfield next to Petrov. That game cried out for Reo Coker, but he only came on at 4-0 down. Jesus wept, he's not Pele you clueless idiot MacDonald.

Not that it is MacDonald's fault, it is the fault of the owner for sitting on his hands and not getting a new experienced manager in.

I would suspect the trouble has without question managed to seep to the players, question becomes can it be reversed before it gets worse which will decide where Aston Villa end up this season but either way they won't do as well as previous seasons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/8935758.stm - Any one know anything about him?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...manchester-city-with-chelsea-is-a-bit-rich.do - Fairly good for those who directly compare Chelsea to Man City.

 

[Ch3tan]

I would suspect the trouble has without question managed to seep to the players, question becomes can it be reversed before it gets worse which will decide where Aston Villa end up this season but either way they won't do as well as previous seasons.

BBC Sport - Football - Man City boss feels Balotelli can be better than Torres - Any one know anything about him?
Comparing Manchester City with Chelsea is a bit rich | Football - Fairly good for those who directly compare Chelsea to Man City.

Ballotelli? Lots. He is a big talent, and hopefully for him he'll put attitude problems aside now he is no longer in Italy.

 

[leviathane]

didn't they say robinho was gonna be a god?

 

[Ch3tan]

Mancini didn't, and it's Mancni saying this about Balotelli. Wasn't it the idiot chairman Cook who said that about Robinho?

 

[ST^]

Comparing Manchester City with Chelsea is a bit rich | Football - Fairly good for those who directly compare Chelsea to Man City.

Doesn't change anything. Chelsea would be competing for Euro qualification and nothing else if it weren't for Russian money.

 

[Ch3tan]

How is that fairly good Embattle? it's a pretty short and piss poor comparison.

The only difference between Chelski and City is that Chelsea had a better core of players already in place, an experienced chairman once you stole Kenyan. The first two years of buying every and any player in sight is exactly what City are doing, along with the 2 world class players in every position aim. It's only 5 years later that Chelsea are starting to act with some normality as Roman is demanding the club operate as a business and pays for itself. But you are established now, so you don't need to spend a fortune.

 

[Embattle]

Doesn't change anything. Chelsea would be competing for Euro qualification and nothing else if it weren't for Russian money.

I've made no attempt to deny the money helped, unlike a lot of other people here who make snide remarks almost totally ignoring their own clubs history.

How is that fairly good Embattle? it's a pretty short and piss poor comparison.

The only difference between Chelski and City is that Chelsea had a better core of players already in place, an experienced chairman once you stole Kenyan. The first two years of buying every and any player in sight is exactly what City are doing, along with the 2 world class players in every position aim. It's only 5 years later that Chelsea are starting to act with some normality as Roman is demanding the club operate as a business and pays for itself. But you are established now, so you don't need to spend a fortune.

You can't steal a person, although his exact reason for leaving would probably be a larger wage packet. We bought a lot but certainly didn't buy everything in the market or chase every player. We did buy some players for silly amounts only then to sell them on at a rather large loss....which was certainly utterly stupid.

As for balancing the books that had been intended for a long while although our current ground will certainly make that hard.

 

[soze]

As for balancing the books that had been intended for a long while although our current ground will certainly make that hard.

I'm not sure a new ground is the answer how big a stadium could you guy fill week in week out? Because a new stadium where you are is going to cost a small fortune and will take an age to pay back.

This is assuming you build the Stadium as the club is the owner just builds one and gives it to you that is a different story.

 

[Talivar]

Before Chelsea got russian money there was still financial inequality. United and liverpool had both already sold there souls to the devil and could get any player for almost any price that they wanted. Very few teams could match that. Chelsea didnt ruin anything because it was headed that way already, they merely sped up the process. When we went on our spending spree the majority of the pllayers looked to be carefully handpicked and turned out very good. Some like Shevchenko flopped but thats the minority. If you take out them first 2 seasons we have actually spent much less than both united and liverpool since i think. United books only look half ok because they sold a player for 80 million lol. So if you want to all sart pointing fingers and assigning blame for the downfall of football due to money then surely we have to look to the actual start of the rot and teams like united and liverpool?

 

[Ch3tan]

Before Chelsea got russian money there was still financial inequality. United and liverpool had both already sold there souls to the devil and could get any player for almost any price that they wanted. Very few teams could match that. Chelsea didnt ruin anything because it was headed that way already, they merely sped up the process. When we went on our spending spree the majority of the pllayers looked to be carefully handpicked and turned out very good. Some like Shevchenko flopped but thats the minority. If you take out them first 2 seasons we have actually spent much less than both united and liverpool since i think. United books only look half ok because they sold a player for 80 million lol. So if you want to all sart pointing fingers and assigning blame for the downfall of football due to money then surely we have to look to the actual start of the rot and teams like united and liverpool?

Talivar, go check when Liverpool and Man Utd were sold, then come back and admit your post is factually incorrect - ie, bollocks.

Man Utd were floated on the stock exchange, they were a PLC. Also if you are taking about Uniteds books, please don't only look at the one season.

typical Chelsea fan, don't really know shit about anything.

edit:// Also Scheva part of your spending spree? LOL you can't even get your own clubs history right. Kezman, Mutu, Drogba, Duff, Robben, Parker etc. They were your spending spree. The players Ranieri and Jose signed early on.

 

[cHodAX]

Talivar, go check when Liverpool and Man Utd were sold, then come back and admit your post is factually incorrect - ie, bollocks.

Man Utd and Liverpool were floated on the stock exchange, they were PLC's. Also if you are taking about Uniteds books, please don't only look at the one season.

typical Chelsea fan, don't really know shit about anything.

Since moving to a PLC until being bought by the Glazers we were heavily in profit EVERY season including all the years we were expanding and modernising the stadium.

As you said, he doesn't have a clue, certainly not about United anyway.

 

[Talivar]

Im sure the glaziers began there acumilation of shares at end of 2002 or 2003, so maybe at same time as Roman then. And liverpool i know they got hick ect a few years later but hadnt they already built up a lot of debts?.

 

[cHodAX]

Im sure the glaziers began there acumilation of shares at end of 2002 or 2003, so maybe at same time as Roman then. And liverpool i know they got hick ect a few years later but hadnt they already built up a lot of debts?.

United became a PLC in the early 90's, built the stadium entirely off profits generated and still turned in great profits every year even during rebuilding. We NEVER spent money we didn't generate in the PLC era bud, our financial reports to the stock markets prove that. All our big spends such as Veron and Van Nistelrooy were with money from gate receipts, TV revenue, corporate hospitality and merchandise.

I won't get into Liverpool, I don't know enough about how they were funded before the Yanks but I do know they rarely made a profit.

 

[Ch3tan]

Liverpool were not floated afaik, so they relied on their owners capital.

United were well run as a business before floating, and even better after floating.

As for Glazer buying shares that early, I don't recall that -I am almost certain that the Glazers came in with a full buyout offer without building up shares beforehand, but I'll have to check that.. The Irish Magnier and Mcmanus had the majority shareholding before the Glazers came in.

 

[Talivar]

Yea but i think you both got angry at me and not looked how i worded it all, I said sold your souls (meaning glaziers) ect. I never said before the glaziers you wasnt profitible. My point was football was headed to this point with or without chelsea/roman. Liverpool already ahd their debts so a new owner like hicks was ineviitible and Glaziers had already began their assault on your shares. Real madrid would still be as they are ect. All this would have still have attracted the attention of the arabs and other rich owners eventually. All chelsea did was speed up the process by showing the format works.

 

[Talivar]

And i maybe wrong but im sure Glaziers slowly built up their shares but everyone assumed that BSKYB guy would get them?