2007/08 Champions League Final

[kingofthering]

yeah that pretty much sums the teams up to be honest. Teams like Man Utd, Liverpool etc are all about passion and it means more than weekly bonuses to them when they win. With chelsea, theres less passion and more business. It just shows that it doesnt get them to the top. Close, but not close enough. It meant alot to terry and lampard when they lost but it wouldve meant alot more to the man utd players if they lost and probably the fans too.

So in other words, Man. U is the MG of the soccer world, charming and human, whereas Chelsea is the Toyota - business and domination.

[ZeTurbo]

They became successful, but the perception is that they didn't really earn or deserve it. Abramovic simply bought them success by virtue of having deeper pockets than anyone else, meaning the usual laws of running a football club as a business didn't really apply. Not even traditional big clubs like Liverpool or Arsenal could even come close to competing with them in terms of spending power. (As an aside, it was recently revealed that Chelsea currently are operating with debts of well in excess of £700 million, ie way over a billion dollars. If Abramovic were to get bored of his play thing and leave Chelsea, they would be up shit creek so fast it would make your head spin.)

To make matters worse Chelsea now tend to be the club that "glory supporters" tend to follow now, ie the sort of "fans" that will support whoever they think has the best chance of winning. This is exactly the sort of thing that made real fans turn against Man Utd in the mid-nineties; their masses of fake fans. Chelsea have usurped Man Utd as the club that every real football fan loves to hate. The fact that they tend to play painfully dull football doesn't help their cause either.

I agree with what you are saying, for the most part. Butwhen ppl say they "bought" their sucess it kind of makes me mad. When you think that Man Utd spent close over 60 Million Euros on 3 players(hargreaves, andersson and nani) just last season, Real madrid spent just as much bacmk in the day to land Zidane, Barcelona spent like mad to get ronaldinho, henry and the rest of the gang, bayer munich spent many many millions to get ribery and toni.... The fact is EVERY major club "buys" success.

So in other words, Man. U is the MG of the soccer world, charming and human, whereas Chelsea is the Toyota - business and domination.

except the domination part

Overall im glad chelsea lost, they should not have gotten rid of mourinho, teach them right!

[Kitdy]

So in other words, Man. U is the MG of the soccer world, charming and human, whereas Chelsea is the Toyota - business and domination.

Man U are like the Yankees. Legions of fans, many titles, frequent domination. I used to hate them because they were so popular, and this is mainly because of their huge budget. They are the second richest team in soccer I believe, so it's not like Chelsea is in their own league when it comes to spending.

[Kitdy]

I agree with what you are saying, for the most part. Butwhen ppl say they "bought" their sucess it kind of makes me mad. When you think that Man Utd spent close over 60 Million Euros on 3 players(hargreaves, andersson and nani) just last season, Real madrid spent just as much bacmk in the day to land Zidane, Barcelona spent like mad to get ronaldinho, henry and the rest of the gang, bayer munich spent many many millions to get ribery and toni.... The fact is EVERY major club "buys" success.

In a non-cap system, generally the team with the most money is the best if it is managed well.

It is fun to cheer on teams that punch above their weight though.

[Spastik_Roach]

Sweet glory! Forza United!

[john14]

Sweet glory! Forza United!

I agree, Forza Manchester United. I was so happy when Ryan Giggs scored the penalty during the shootout. Giggsy has been such a great player for us. Who can forget his famous goal against Arsenal in the 98/99 FA Cup semi-final. YouTube - 99'FA Cup semi-final Man Utd vs Arsenal

[ZeTurbo]

I guess this is the right place to post this:
AVRAM GRANT SACKED
And in related News : ( IN PORTUGESE)
MOURINHO TO INTER MILAN
It basicallly says Mourinho has signed a 3 year deal with Inter Milan and he is taking Deco and Frank Lampard with him.

I cannot believe Grant was sacked, Chelsea will NEVER win anything again with this kind of mentality.

[Zytek_Fan]

Chelsea seems to think spending money will get them titles...
hmmm...sounds like the NY Yankees.

[kingofthering]

I guess this is the right place to post this:
AVRAM GRANT SACKED
And in related News : ( IN PORTUGESE)
MOURINHO TO INTER MILAN
It basicallly says Mourinho has signed a 3 year deal with Inter Milan and he is taking Deco and Frank Lampard with him.

I cannot believe Grant was sacked, Chelsea will NEVER win anything again with this kind of mentality.

Exactly, how the hell could they do that? Honestly, the man took them to the first Champion's League game, for christsakes, and all they do to repay him for Terry's slipup is a pink slip. They lost on a mere technicality, not on some pathetic defeat.

From what I've heard, games are more interesting now than the Mourinho-who can play the most defense-era games.

[Kitdy]

Exactly, how the hell could they do that? Honestly, the man took them to the first Champion's League game, for christsakes, and all they do to repay him for Terry's slipup is a pink slip. They lost on a mere technicality, not on some pathetic defeat.

They also finished second in the league, didn't they? So all in all, an impressive if not ultimately disappointing season.

I don't follow football much, but it seems Jose left due to a conflict with Abramovich and I have a feeling this is the same thing; or he may have unrealistic goals or some crap like that.

[Jack_Bauer]

It's definitely unrealistic goals from the chairman. The powers that be at Chelsea have stated on several occasions that "second is not an option", but that just isn't the way football (or any other sport for that matter) works. It's not like they got hammered by Man Utd in either competition. They lost the league very narrowly on the final day of the season, and then they lost the Champion's League final even more narrowly in the lottery of a penalty shootout. If you go sacking your coaching staff every time you fall short by the tiniest of margins you're never going to get anywhere. Sometimes you just have to hold your hand up and admit that the opponents were just that little bit too good. Man Utd's brilliance this season is hardly the fault of Avram Grant.

To build long term success in football, above all else you need stability. Avram Grant was given about 8 months in the job before being sacked. That is nowhere near enough time for him to able to establish himself and his methods at a club. Chelsea would do well to look at the example of the two most successful British clubs in recent years, Man Utd and Arsenal. It is no coincidence that the two most successful clubs also happen to be the teams with the longest serving managers in the league, in Ferguson and Wenger.

It is interesting to note the example of Ferguson. Back in 1989 all Man Utd fans and the whole British media were demanding Ferguson be sacked. He was reportedly given 1 game to save his career in a cup game against Notts Forest. They won the match narrowly 1-0, went on to win the cup, and Ferguson subsequently went on to become arguably the greatest and most successful manager in recent history. I wonder where they would have ended up if the chairman had been rash and sacked Ferguson all those years ago?

[Suka]

Who would sign a contract with Chelsea now?? How are they going to find a new manager?

If i was a world class manager and Chelsea came knocking i would have to say no. No one wouldn't be able to guarantee silverware, and it looks like if you don't win any trophies it an automatic sacking.

[ZeTurbo]

It's definitely unrealistic goals from the chairman. The powers that be at Chelsea have stated on several occasions that "second is not an option", but that just isn't the way football (or any other sport for that matter) works. It's not like they got hammered by Man Utd in either competition. They lost the league very narrowly on the final day of the season, and then they lost the Champion's League final even more narrowly in the lottery of a penalty shootout. If you go sacking your coaching staff every time you fall short by the tiniest of margins you're never going to get anywhere. Sometimes you just have to hold your hand up and admit that the opponents were just that little bit too good. Man Utd's brilliance this season is hardly the fault of Avram Grant.

To build long term success in football, above all else you need stability. Avram Grant was given about 8 months in the job before being sacked. That is nowhere near enough time for him to able to establish himself and his methods at a club. Chelsea would do well to look at the example of the two most successful British clubs in recent years, Man Utd and Arsenal. It is no coincidence that the two most successful clubs also happen to be the teams with the longest serving managers in the league, in Ferguson and Wenger.

It is interesting to note the example of Ferguson. Back in 1989 all Man Utd fans and the whole British media were demanding Ferguson be sacked. He was reportedly given 1 game to save his career in a cup game against Notts Forest. They won the match narrowly 1-0, went on to win the cup, and Ferguson subsequently went on to become arguably the greatest and most successful manager in recent history. I wonder where they would have ended up if the chairman had been rash and sacked Ferguson all those years ago?

Not to mention Rafa Benitez going on his 4th year.

Who would sign a contract with Chelsea now?? How are they going to find a new manager?

If i was a world class manager and Chelsea came knocking i would have to say no. No one wouldn't be able to guarantee silverware, and it looks like if you don't win any trophies it an automatic sacking.

Guus Hiddink for one has already turned Chelsea down, he rather manage Russia till the next World cup. God i love this manager.
i see an up and coming guy like Michael Laudrup taking the post. Nothing to lose. Also, Rijkard wouldn't be a bad choice, he has dealt with ludicrous expectations before, although at Barcelona those came from the Fans.

And not only Coaches but players also, If you are a top footballer are you going to move to a club with such ideologies?