[Merged] The Football Thread 2005/2006 Season - Page 192

smicer07 · 20-05-2006, 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

But you're missing my point - Liverpool won't do that again for a good few years yet just like United. Gerrard might acheive FA Cup success occasionally but the Premiership and Champions league are honours he won't be experiencing.

But you'd have said the same before the start of the 2005 season, and he picked up the Champions League trophy at the end of the season. Who's to say what will happen next season? Chelsea haven't even got close to winning it yet, even with all their cash, so it just goes to show you need a mixture of excellent team spirit/luck as well as quality players to win it (for the 5th time).

---------- Post added at 00:18 ---------- Previous post was at 00:17 ----------

Mourinho a better manager than Ferguson?? Give me a break. Come back in 10 years and then you might have some sort of comparison possible I reckon.

Russ · 20-05-2006, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Come on who has come throught their youth system in the last ten years, O'Shea who they keep trying to sell, Brown who is always injured and Fletcher who they don't like and whilst I agree that the money Chelsea spend is crass I feel there is more than a little of a pot calling kettle black situation going on.

And I feel there's more than a degree of the usual anti-United bias going on! You can't compare United now to the team of the 90s, when the youth policy was more evident (even if you decide to 'forget' Rossi, Bardsley, Eagles, Fletcher etc who are all showing signs of becoming quality players). Our reign then was based on the younger guys alongside the experience of the old guard. Chelsea's success is based on Roman's chequebook.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

no buts because your manager needed years to make the most of them, to me that makes mourinho a better manager then fergie quite simple.

When Jose has acheived half of what SAF has done in the premiership THEN come back and you might have more success with that one!

Did anyone see the double going to Chelsea? Twice? The treble even?

edit: me and the scouse agreeing so often is NOT good for my image

TheDaddy · 20-05-2006, 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

And I feel there's more than a degree of the usual anti-United bias going on! You can't compare United now to the team of the 90s, when the youth policy was more evident (even if you decide to 'forget' Rossi, Bardsley, Eagles, Fletcher etc who are all showing signs of becoming quality players). Our reign then was based on the younger guys alongside the experience of the old guard. Chelsea's success is based on Roman's chequebook.

No I gave Fletcher more of a mention than you manager does these days, the only other real prospects you have are Rossi and Richardson both of which did not come from your youth team but were stolen from other clubs.

Russ · 20-05-2006, 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

No I gave Fletcher more of a mention than you manager does these days, the only other real prospects you have are Rossi and Richardson both of which did not come from your youth team but were stolen from other clubs.

Hehe, Fletcher scored the goal which beat Chelsea - he'll always be popular!

What you're forgetting (or is that 'conveniently ignoring'?) is that the kids from the 90s were part of an awesome youth team which no-one has been able to replicate. They went on to create the success which paved the way for United to be able to afford Rio, Rooney, Ronaldo etc.

Chelsea did not earn their success. They simply bought it.

**Damien** · 20-05-2006, 00:42

I have to agree with Russ here. United did bring up a lot of youth players and it took time before Man united started to be succesful as they are now. Only then, after united started winning, did they have enough money to spend so much in the transfer market. Since which they have actually been less succesful.

United won more when they didnt spend a lot than they do now.

Chelsea have gone right to the top and stayed there as a direct result of the sudden influx of money. First season, bam. Title. There was no bringing players up though the youth team or slow success. They were doing bad and now they are winning a lot.

They have bought their success. It quite horrible to watch them win the league in such a way which takes the excitement away. Chelsea spend and win everyone else is in a race for secound place.

I would rather United win the league than Chelsea.

TheDaddy · 20-05-2006, 00:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

Hehe, Fletcher scored the goal which beat Chelsea - he'll always be popular!

What you're forgetting (or is that 'conveniently ignoring'?) is that the kids from the 90s were part of an awesome youth team which no-one has been able to replicate. They went on to create the success which paved the way for United to be able to afford Rio, Rooney, Ronaldo etc.

Chelsea did not earn their success. They simply bought it.

I actually think our youth team was just as good

**Damien** · 20-05-2006, 00:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

As someone said earlier, just like Gerard at Liverpool, what's he going to win with Arsenal? United proved they would have won the title had Chelsea not bought it again so success is more likely there, but Henry is hardly likely to get a fulfilled end to his career with the @rse.

Well we will see wont we. If there is one thing about football its that things happen that you may not expert. Arsenal got to the champions league final and we have a good set of players to form a possible 3rd team under Wenger since he arrived.

Why just go to the teams that you think are more likely to win? Arsenal gave him his break and he has been there a long time. Maybe he wants to stay at the club and win with them. I think it would be worth a lot more to him to win at Arsenal than Barca.

TheDaddy · 20-05-2006, 01:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I have to agree with Russ here. United did bring up a lot of youth players and it took time before Man united started to be succesful as they are now. Only then, after united started winning, did they have enough money to spend so much in the transfer market. Since which they have actually been less succesful.

United won more when they didnt spend a lot than they do now.

Chelsea have gone right to the top and stayed there as a direct result of the sudden influx of money. First season, bam. Title. There was no bringing players up though the youth team or slow success. They were doing bad and now they are winning a lot.

They have bought their success. It quite horrible to watch them win the league in such a way which takes the excitement away. Chelsea spend and win everyone else is in a race for secound place.

I would rather United win the league than Chelsea.

A lot of their success is due to Claudio Ranieri, he never gets any credit, as for them buying the title, you get what you deserve, they are not supermen nor can they buy every player, so many times last season you would see teams try to play for a draw or with their heads down at kick off already beat, that to me is what makes it boring.
I agree though I would rather see any team win the League other than Chelsea possibly even Spurs.

gazzae · 20-05-2006, 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Er yes and yes wasn't it the season after you signed Roy Keane the first time you won the league for thirty years ( I admit I am not sure as I seem to remember beating you to hand the title to Leeds can't remember the year though) and your club has continued to spend ever since.

No, Utd signed Keane in the summer of 93.

sherer · 20-05-2006, 12:30

Cantona was the signing that got us the league title and he was only about 1 or 2 million

yes we have bought players but we used money from sponsor that we had earnt to buy them not from some russian guy with an unlimited bank account

Chelsea were in debt when Roman bought them

Russ · 20-05-2006, 12:33

Wheren't they something like a week from liquidation or something?

sherer · 20-05-2006, 12:50

i don't think it was that bad but they had debts of 80m which Roman wiped out and then the next 2 seasons they have been in debt too which Roman has wiped out each time as well as the money for the new training ground and players as well

i guess it's just a matter of the way you look at your club we say we earnt out money and used that to buy players and the chelsea fans love Roman and his money

we bought big in the past and will do in the future but we trade that off with ouw youth system

20-05-2006, 23:23

Congrats to Hereford on gaining promotion to the football league once again, an entertaining game by all accounts, it's a pity Halifax had to lose out.

Att: 15,499
Who said that the conference football was rubbish ?

Also good luck to Grimsby who play Cheltenham next weekend in the Div 2 play off's.

Maybe Cambridge United will be up there next season

Russ · 20-05-2006, 23:34

Guys I have a plan.

This thread is for the 2005/06 season and we're at the end of it, so once all the play-offs have taken place I'll lock this one down and open another ready for the world cup. Once that's over, next season's thread will start

Druchii · 20-05-2006, 23:47

Sounds good to me

But what if people want to discuss this season at a later date ?

---------- Post added at 23:47 ---------- Previous post was at 23:46 ----------

I really should stop using the wink smiley