Don't forget that Man Utd dominanace was not down to buying expensive players, it was the home grown, youth players that helped us to win. Beckham, Scholes, Nevilles etc
The point being is you did buy them(rooney & co)to win the title yes?whats we didnt buy him this season has nothing to do with it,your still trying to buy players to win the title for this season whats the difference? none!
Vidic,carrick, this season not pocket money were they,on top off evra,park,ronaldo,ferdinand to name a few not home grown are they? yet another weak argument!
i shouldn't have too justify why i support chelsea i have no control how the club is run and who by im just a true fan end of!
I've been going to Chelsea since the early 70's, so you can't really call me a "glory hunter." Funnily enough, although my family are all from Berkshire, I've got 2 brothers who grew up supporting Liverpool, probably because the seventies was their golden era. I call my brothers the glory hunters lol. Over the last two and a half seasons, I've heard every argument for and against Abramovich, so I'll only add a couple of points. Firstly, a lot of clubs have benefited from the cash that Abramovich spent on players, and a lot of clubs have rebuilt their own sides as a result. Not all of the cash went overseas. Secondly, and most important, we (Chelsea fans) have had a great time of it. No one can take away those memories.
As I type this, I'm watching the Chelsea reserves playing the Chinese national team live on Chelsea TV. The Chelsea reserve side has an average age of 19, and these lads are the future of the club. Most of them are English too. Abramovich paid £20 million for the training facilities at Cobham with the intention of setting up the best youth academy in the world. If you see the facilities, he's certainly done that.
I've been going to Chelsea since the early 70's, so you can't really call me a "glory hunter." Funnily enough, although my family are all from Berkshire, I've got 2 brothers who grew up supporting Liverpool, probably because the seventies was their golden era. I call my brothers the glory hunters lol. Over the last two and a half seasons, I've heard every argument for and against Abramovich, so I'll only add a couple of points. Firstly, a lot of clubs have benefited from the cash that Abramovich spent on players, and a lot of clubs have rebuilt their own sides as a result. Not all of the cash went overseas. Secondly, and most important, we (Chelsea fans) have had a great time of it. No one can take away those memories.
As I type this, I'm watching the Chelsea reserves playing the Chinese national team live on Chelsea TV. The Chelsea reserve side has an average age of 19, and these lads are the future of the club. Most of them are English too. Abramovich paid £20 million for the training facilities at Cobham with the intention of setting up the best youth academy in the world. If you see the facilities, he's certainly done that.
At last a true blue! it was good to read your points which are all valid but the one which i liked the most was the fact other teams have benefited from Abramovich, over charging for players and then rebuilding there own teams with his money!
as for the under 19 mostly being English is far better show than Arsenal who keep bringing youngster from every where but here!
Hopefully we do our bit for the national team because if we all go the way of the Arsenal we wont have a England Team in the next 5 years!
There are some great English youngsters at the club, and quite a few are out on loan at the moment. Scott Sinclair is a terrific 17 year old. Did you see his goal in the FA cup for Plymouth at Barnet?. Ran the length of the pitch to score. Michael Mancienne is a central defender on loan at QPR, along with Jimmy Smith, a midfielder. Michael Woods has played for the first team in both cup competitions, an attacking midfielder in the Lampard mould. There are some great foreign kids too. Ben Sahar, a 17 year old Israeli striker, scored a hat trick against a Villa reserve side with Laursen and Samuel in defence last week. He's currently away with the Israeli full national side. Sergio Tejera is a 16 year old Spanish midfielder with great potential. he's scored against China tonight, direct from a free kick. Probably the best of the lot in my opinion, is a winger by the name of Miroslav Stoch. Remember the name, he's destined for great things.
Chelsea are ruining football in this country. I am not having a go at the small hardcore support that Chelsea have. Like all clubs, they have a hardcore that will support through thick and thin. Those fans are a credit to football. But Chelsea just don't have the support to be able to challenge Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool in the global market. They are just a small club who struck gold.
They cannot support their massive spending. They are an insolvent club, who lost over £100Million last year. Without Abramovich's open chequebook they would be consigned to the history books.
What happens when Mr Chelski decides he's had enough? He will walk away, and where will your club be. Bankrupt. No doubt about it. Even if he takes the astronomical debt with him, they can't even afford to pay the wages of the players.
Of course, if Newcastle had a rich benefactor I would be smiling. But I would also be very nervous about the future if that rich benefactor was throwing money around like Abramovich without a care in the world. The club still needs to be ran as a business regardless of how much personal money the chairman has.
Weak argument? What???? You think buying any player in the world for as much money as it takes doesn't give Chelsea a huge and unfair advantage over every other team? My grandmother could manage them if she had unlimited funds.
The top and bottom of it is, every other team in the premiership have to fight tooth and nail for every penny that they EARN - and that in my eyes makes each and every one of those clubs more entitled to the premiership than Chelsea. You mention other clubs trying to buy the title, such as Man Utd, Chelsea, Leeds...... BUT the difference is THAT WAS THEIR MONEY that was earned through their business and their investments. It wasn't given to them on a silver plate.
I am just trying to provoke a healthy debate - so there's no need for any personal attacks. But we are all entitled to our opinions, and thats what these forums are for.
I seem to have read somewhere that Arsenal's move to Highbury in the 1930's was paid for by a rich benefactor who bankrolled the stadium and the team. I also seem to remember Liverpool in the 1970's paying huge money for players bankrolled by the Moores family.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings though. Abramovich isn't going to walk away. He's set up a £500 million trust fund so that if anything happens to him, the club will survive.
Chelsea are ruining football in this country. I am not having a go at the small hardcore support that Chelsea have. Like all clubs, they have a hardcore that will support through thick and thin. Those fans are a credit to football. But Chelsea just don't have the support to be able to challenge Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool in the global market. They are just a small club who struck gold.
They cannot support their massive spending. They are an insolvent club, who lost over £100Million last year. Without Abramovich's open chequebook they would be consigned to the history books.
What happens when Mr Chelski decides he's had enough? He will walk away, and where will your club be. Bankrupt. No doubt about it. Even if he takes the astronomical debt with him, they can't even afford to pay the wages of the players.
Of course, if Newcastle had a rich benefactor I would be smiling. But I would also be very nervous about the future if that rich benefactor was throwing money around like Abramovich without a care in the world. The club still needs to be ran as a business regardless of how much personal money the chairman has.
Weak argument? What???? You think buying any player in the world for as much money as it takes doesn't give Chelsea a huge and unfair advantage over every other team? My grandmother could manage them if she had unlimited funds.
The top and bottom of it is, every other team in the premiership have to fight tooth and nail for every penny that they EARN - and that in my eyes makes each and every one of those clubs more entitled to the premiership than Chelsea. You mention other clubs trying to buy the title, such as Man Utd, Chelsea, Leeds...... BUT the difference is THAT WAS THEIR MONEY that was earned through their business and their investments. It wasn't given to them on a silver plate.
I am just trying to provoke a healthy debate - so there's no need for any personal attacks. But we are all entitled to our opinions, and thats what these forums are for.
'personal attacks'?????? where????????what have i said which is a attack,was it not you who posted anti-chelsea comments i have not said a word about your club or more important you! im all for a open debate but dont accuse me of things i hav'nt said or done,ive answered fair and square!
I know this is a chelsea room, and I'm not slagging the team off or anything but with an open chequebook, chelsea would rather go out and buy a player rather than give youth a chance...your only home grown player in the team..JT..all the others either go on loan or sit in the reserves until they've had enough andl eave...not an attack on the club just my opinion..
__________________
The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled Was Convincing The World He Didn't Exist
yet another weak argument! 
it was good to read your points which are all valid but the one which i liked the most was the fact other teams have benefited from Abramovich, over charging for players and then rebuilding there own teams with his money!
Linear Mode
