mikhail said:
Seriously, how can anyone point to the Chelsea of yore and say "Look, they spent millions too!" When they became Chelski, they laid out £200m on players, driving players out of the price range of teams like Man Utd FFS. There's big club, and then there's buying the league.
Want to know the difference between Man Utd and Chelski? Man Utd's money came from their many, many fans supporting their product. Chelski's came from oil wells stolen from the people of Russia.
What's more, Chelsea of old were a pleasant team, played good football, had likeable people involved. Chelski have been involved in a number of cases of tapping up players, were forced to pay out £10m for a player who they got to break his contract, have dived, whinged and spent again to win a couple of EPL titles in a style of football that makes most purists sick (especially given the fine passing football of Arsenal and Man Utd before them) and have an overbearing arrogance that gets up plenty of people's goat.
Finally, old Chelsea had Zola, the coolest man alive.
Old Chelsea:
Chelski:
Want to know the difference between Man Utd and Chelski? Man Utd's money came from their many, many fans supporting their product. Chelski's came from oil wells stolen from the people of Russia.
What's more, Chelsea of old were a pleasant team, played good football, had likeable people involved. Chelski have been involved in a number of cases of tapping up players, were forced to pay out £10m for a player who they got to break his contract, have dived, whinged and spent again to win a couple of EPL titles in a style of football that makes most purists sick (especially given the fine passing football of Arsenal and Man Utd before them) and have an overbearing arrogance that gets up plenty of people's goat.
Finally, old Chelsea had Zola, the coolest man alive.
Old Chelsea:

Chelski:

