BBC BLOGS - Matt Slater
« Previous | Main | Next »

Chelsea's gain is Porto's pain

Post categories:

Matt Slater | 10:36 UK time, Thursday, 23 June 2011

I used to love Barry Fry. For six wonderful months in 1993, I was hooked on his tactical risk-taking, compulsive wheeler-dealing and look-at-me celebrations. He might have made his name at Barnet but he was Southend United's then, our cheeky chappie, and we were going places.

And then he left, taking coaches and players with him to Birmingham City. The swine.

This tale is hardly unique, and it is older than football (Judas's big-money move to FC Pharisee being an early example), but it is still catching people by surprise.

The latest group to suffer are FC Porto supporters. In Andre Villas-Boas, they had a fellow fan in the hot seat, the "chair of his dreams", and they were going to take on Europe's finest together.

Now, on the morning of the city's biggest annual street party, the Festa de Sao Joao, most Porto fans are in a dark, heart-broken mood. They will be drinking to forget tonight.

Villas-Boas, of course, is not the first coaching talent these fans have lost to the pull of Roman Abramovich's wallet: Jose Mourinho made the same journey seven years ago. But these are very different departures.

The Special One went to Chelsea with the blessing of "the Dragoes", having given them two and a half wonderful seasons and Champions League glory. A former Benfica manager from the southern city of Setubal, Mourinho had also never pledged his heart to Porto. It was professional, not personal.

And nobody seemed to mind he was taking a youth coach with him to do his scouting. After all, that coach was only 26 and nobody had heard of him anyway.

They have now, though, and they call him Villa$-Boa$ or Libras-Boas, "Good Pounds".

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.

Villas-Boas' former PE teacher tips him to be a success at Chelsea

Villas-Boas' rise has been well documented - the note pushed under his neighbour Sir Bobby Robson's door, the Englishman's patronage, the stint in charge of the British Virgin Islands' team aged only 22 and his work for Mourinho at Porto, Chelsea and Inter - but there is one part of his story that is worth retelling here.

Villas-Boas was not supposed to be a football manager. From the poshest part of Porto, Chelsea's new manager counts a count amongst his ancestors (as well as the now famous grandmother from Cheshire) and the private school he went to is Portugal's best.

But a future in business, law or medicine held no allure. For him, there was only FC Porto and on Mondays a 12-year-old Villas-Boas would bring in reports from the weekend's game for his classmates. It was not long before his PE teacher Jose Eiro was also getting these reports, with added analysis that may or may not be worth thinking about for Colegio do Rosario's next match.

Eiro remembers Villas-Boas as a quiet sort, not a great student but popular, who would come alive when matters turned to football. He is the school's only big sporting success.

That he has fulfilled his dreams of becoming a leading coach is no surprise to Joaquim Magalhaes, the last man to coach Villas-Boas as a player at the local amateur team Ramaldense.

Magalhaes told me Villas-Boas was a better player than legend would have it, which is that he was even worse than Mourinho.

An attacking midfielder who could play either side, Villas-Boas was promoted by Magalhaes to the struggling senior side at the tender age of 18. Pretty soon the "introverted, humble" lad from a posh school was bossing around team-mates 20 years his senior. And the most surprising thing about it was that they did not seem to mind.

By this time, Villas-Boas had already started to climb the coaching ladder. Magalhaes recalls him bringing an FC Porto youth team to play Ramaldense's and being quite the disciplinarian with his young charges.

This contrast between the quiet and unassuming, and the assertive and commanding, is something journalist Fernando Eurico acknowledged when we met high above the Rio Douro shortly after Villas-Boas was confirmed as Chelsea boss.

For Eurico, sports editor for national radio station Antena 1, Villas-Boas is a more complicated character than the man he will inevitably be compared with in London, Mourinho. Charming but not showy, modest but ambitious, open but not entirely honest.

It was that last comment that I picked up on as it seemed to be central to the main point Eurico was making - Porto fans were furious with Villas-Boas because he had "created an illusion" that he was staying, that he was building a team here capable of beating Barcelona, that he had eyes for no other.

Eurico said this was patently not true to the Porto press pack, who knew about Chelsea's advances, but still the kiss-the-badge antics continued. Players were persuaded to extend their contracts, plans were made for this season's Champions League campaign and scouting dossiers on Barcelona were handed out for summer reading by the poolside.

Those players come back for pre-season next week and the talk in the dressing room will not be about beating Barca in the European Super Cup but about who else is leaving and if those coming in will have what it takes to hold off the suddenly revived challenge from the two Lisbon clubs.

Slightly reluctant to take another journalist's word for it, I did what any reporter would do in a strange city, I asked a taxi-driver and as luck would have it Portuguese taxis are still driven by ex-footballers.

Manuel Monteiro, who assured me he had enjoyed a 16-year career as a player for Portalegre and others, was succinct in his assessment of Villas-Boas. "Compared to Mourinho, he is a child," he said. "Who had heard of him a year ago? Nobody. And I can't see the likes Didier Drogba or John Terry being told what to do by a child!"

Only time will tell is the only possible response to that, and time is a more precious commodity at Chelsea than any amount of Abramovich's money.

But one thing is certain, Porto fans wish Villas-Boas had given them a little bit more time. And for that he is Barry Fry to them now.

As well as my blogs, you can follow me when I'm out and about at http://twitter.com/bbc_matt

Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    Good article :)

    I think Villas-Boas could be one of the best gambles Chelsea and Abramovich make. The Premier League is a lot tougher than Portugal, but from what I've seen, I think this guy has what it takes to be better than Mourinho. Good luck to him!

  • Comment number 2.

    Hugely overblown commentary on a fake club that's ruined football.

  • Comment number 3.

    I would have liked to see him spend one more year with Porto and 'if' he could keep the players together they could have had a really good attempt at the Champions League. Sadly money (especially in the Greed is good Sky Premier League) dominates and he is at Chelsea now.

  • Comment number 4.

    i think if Drogba, Lampard etc don't follow his directions they will be out of the club. Abramovich has paid £13M to sign him and given him a 3 year contract so will not want to admit failure on that score.

    It sounds like he is not someone scared of a challenge though either

  • Comment number 5.

    I am extremely nervous about this appointment and would rather have had Guus Hiddink at the helm... As the taxi driver rightly said, it'll be difficult to visualise the likes of Frank, JT and Didier taking instructions from him. Anyway, we are where we are and we'll see how the season pans out. As for Porto fans, i can only feel their pain and sympathize with them.

    @2 - Get over this whole "fake club spending money ruining footy" blah blah blah blah sentiment......Everyone spends the money that they have, fortunately we seem to have a little more than the others.........

  • Comment number 6.

    2.At 13:19 23rd Jun 2011, CoalitionOfTheWilting wrote:
    Hugely overblown commentary on a fake club that's ruined football.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    @2

    To blame Chelsea for ruining football is too simplistic.

    Sky, Murdoch, Premier League, Greed and most of all the huge amounts of money in the game are far bigger factors.

    The problem is that (especially in England) fans are customers, to be fleeced as much as possible. They are preyed upon because of their passion for the 'product' and then are fed endless Sky hype about how great and competitive it is, when in reality money is killing the game and making it more uncompetitive.

    Chelsea are just a small cell of a far bigger cancer that is destroying football (especially in England).

  • Comment number 7.

    5,

    It's not a sentiment, it's a fact.

  • Comment number 8.

    @ 2. Fake club? What league are you watching. Chelsea is the only 1 that even put pressure on ManU last year so you really shouldn't be commenting like that.

    I truly do feel bad for Porto fans though. But I'm really excited as to how Chelsea will play this coming season.

  • Comment number 9.

    Should have signed Rafa ;o)

  • Comment number 10.

    @ 6. What a philosopher you are JamTay1. maybe you should take that to the Premier League Board and see if they will fix it.

  • Comment number 11.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 12.

    Totally devastated as a “Portista” (Die hard Porto fan) I had a feeling he would leave!
    I was looking forward to playing Barcelona for the SuperCup and the champion’s league next season, we had a chance doing well.

    But like this we back to square one. Every season we have to sell our best players and break up a perfectly good team.

    We just can compete like this!
    However I’m still proud of what we have achieved not bad for a limited budget and won in Europe...

  • Comment number 13.

    His quality is not in question, his adaption to British culture is proven, but the great unknown is how our prince-like players, whose egos jostle for position, will take to being influenced by a mere boy (in their eyes).....

    Oh to be a fly on the wall when the captain of TERRYble FC is told that he is no longer a starting certainty as this must happen if VB stays two seasons or so....

  • Comment number 14.

    Great article...
    I like the barry fry comparison!
    As a chelsea fan i am hugely excited. I personally would have lied anecollotti to take us forward, but that is in the past now and i cannot dwell on it too much!
    I am also somewhat skeptical of how he will control the dressing room, i understand he is respected buy the senior players, but will that be enough to motivate the likes of lampard drogba, especially if he plans to blood some young players in which could mean less playing time for the afore-mentioned players, amongst others.

    Im also curious of who he will play at the start of the season and who he is looking to develop and integrate into the team. Sturridge needs to be a starter, McEachren needs a few cameo's to help him into the side and essien 7 ramires should be regular fixtures in the side, like last season.

    Personally Malouda needs to go and he needs to bring kakuta through as well and van aanholt & bruma, they are the future! I think if he can bring those players and make them starters and win 1 title 1 cup (CL) IN HIS first two years, playing a good brand of football i think he will be safe!...i hope!

  • Comment number 15.

    Are Chelsea really destroying football? They have paid for Porto to be a well funded club for the last few years. Mourinho, Deco, Carvalho, Ferreira, Villas-Boas, possibly soon Falcao. I think Mourinho might have been at the end of his contract but the rest have/will be bought at ridiculous prices, hence keeping Porto sweet as a club for a few years.
    Chelsea's spending doesnt do any favours for English clubs as it drives prices up, but they are great for foreign clubs with lower incomes as they have pumped millions buying up the latest big names and hence kept these clubs going.
    Roman for FIFA president - for helping to fund world football!

  • Comment number 16.

    Comment number 11.At 13:29 23rd Jun 2011, CoalitionOfTheWilting wrote:
    6,

    There's a world of difference between Sky/PL money which is, after a fashion, doled out across the entire PL, and a small club being put in a wholly false position in the game due entirely to an obscene injection of cash acquired through suspicious means.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    I'm not disagreeing with you!

    I just think that Chelsea are only a small part of a much larger problem. Sadly football has been stolen from the fans and has become a business, where the only rule is that greed is good!

    Chelsea (probably due to their postcode) have just been lucky enough to have the huge injection. Now it is Man City's turn. You will hear no arguments from me about how ridiculous this is, but the problem is that really it's the whole Premier league/Sky cartel which needs changing rather than just picking the clubs who have become the latest Oligarch/Arab plaything!

    Incidentally (at the risk of been censored!) you are not possible suggesting than the wealth Abramovich has could have been aquired through dubious means? Perish the thought!....... ;)

  • Comment number 17.

    Unlucky Porto.... now give is Falcao and Moutinho!

  • Comment number 18.

    It's an incredible gamble by Abromavich, one that I don't think anyone really saw coming as he's not really the gambling sort.

    For a man that demands instant success he's asking a lot of a still relatively rookie manager to win everything in sight.

  • Comment number 19.

    Hopefully he will get CHelsea playing some better football!! God knows they have some talented players that must be bored stupid playing negative football over the years. He may give some of the older players a new lease of life, a bit like Wenger did at Arsenal when he arrived. However if he is not sucessful early on will he be given the time?

  • Comment number 20.

    #11 CoalitionOfTheWilting

    There's a world of difference between Sky/PL money which is, after a fashion, doled out across the entire PL,
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If you think that is the case, then you are quite mistaken. IF ONLY Sky cash was doled out evenly across the league then there would be more competition.

    However, a team like Chelsea are on TV much more than a team like West Ham. Chelsea are paid upwards of half a million pounds for each appearance. Also, through such penetration and exposure, they attract more fans and more money. This creates the virtuous circle that keeps the big clubs at the top.

    Abramovich may have put in loads of money etc but Chelsea have a higher turnover, alot of which comes from TV. Smaller clubs have less turnover, which includes less TV income.

    Sky created an imbalance with how the money was distributed and Abramovich challenged the stauts quo and Chelsea have now become part of the status quo.

  • Comment number 21.

    #19 swimchap

    Hopefully he will get CHelsea playing some better football!! God knows they have some talented players that must be bored stupid playing negative football over the years.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Is there something wrong with the record breaking 103 goals scored in the season before last that you don't find exciting?

  • Comment number 22.

    to 7#

    I struggle to see which part is 'fact'

    let me explain a fact to you, fact: something real, that has occurred or is the case.

    the opposite of fact would be fiction: An imaginative creation or a pretense that
    does not represent actuality but has been invented.

    to say we are fake, suggests we are not authentic or genuine, that we are a sham. How can that be when we have been a club since 1905? By this comment do you suggest all the trophies that we have won are in fact not real and are made of plastic or pixie dust? Is the 1970 FA CUP triumph a hoax? as well as the 71' super cup win over Real Madrid? Was the 2-1 win over Man united last season merely my imagination? Is Didier drogba just a Ghost?

    Im sick of this fake club thing...i suppose we have fake money as well then? Yes thats why Roman buys all these players, he simply cashed in on 50 monopoly sets and uses that money.

    Can i ask who you support, so that i know you football club is materialistically speaking - 'real'

  • Comment number 23.

    @18

    I agree, it is an incredible gamble on a guy who has studied coaching since his teenage years, has worked with Mourinho and Bobby Robson, speaks good english, has already been at chelsea and won the treble in his first season at Porto. What a gamble!

  • Comment number 24.

    Chelsea only get that extra money due to the artificially-created situation which the club found itself in due to the appalling amount of money poured in by Abramovich.

    Were they to have to make it on their own they'd be on the box less than Sunderland.

    Pretty it up all you wish, that's how it is.

  • Comment number 25.

    Once again Coalitionofthewilting 24#

    You have your facts wrong...thats not how it is at all. What is articial about the situation created? Clubs where being bought by millionares/billionares before chelsea and after. No one complained then. Why? Because none of those clubs enjoyed the same success as chelsea did. WHy? Because chelsea where already a top 4/established top 6 side before Roman came in.
    The situation is simple and real - not artificial. Money is constantly being pumped into football clubs, some more than others...not fake just coincidence that chelsea in this case we do get a considerable amount of money.

    Stop using words that suggest anything about our club as fake, or not as it seems/ not rightfully gained. Football is a game, behind that it is a business, which involves money, this is the reality.
    if some low league long ball merchant/ jealous arsenal or liverpool fan who wants the glory years back, cant handle success from another club then maybe you should watch dream team or football factory and immerse yourself in some artificial story-lines to forget the harsh reality that is football!

  • Comment number 26.

    2.At 13:19 23rd Jun 2011, CoalitionOfTheWilting wrote:

    ---------------------------

    well said! agree 100%

  • Comment number 27.

    I don't see why it's a gamble. He will very likely do as well or hopefully better than previous managers, but maybe he will not win the Champions League. Maybe he won't win anything. We'll still be in the top four unless he turns out to be about as bright as a trained monkey. If he gets the sack after 1 year then the rivals and media pundits will moan for five minutes until there is something else to moan about. It's Roman's money, which by all reports he has plenty of, so where's the gamble?

  • Comment number 28.

    And to have to jump through hoops in order to justify the unjustifiable is simply laughable.

  • Comment number 29.

    get your new chelsea ringtone whiles stocks last...

    Ding Dong Ding Dong
    You'll not Last Long

    titled Gone By Christmas

    or a remix of a Tina Turner classic

    " we dont need another EGO "

    available for all smart phones apologies in advance to all chelsea fans for implying they have the abilty to use one.

  • Comment number 30.

    @25
    hes clearly a liverpool fan, bitter about any other successful club.

  • Comment number 31.

    Let us not kid ourselves here fellas, AVB will be sacked if he does not win ANYTHING. Chelsea is not your average club, that listens to people, fans and the to some extent the Manager. Law of averages tell you that, unless he wins ateast a trophy next season he will be dumped

    The expectations that these Chelsea fans are feeling is exactly what was in the air, when Scolari was appointed, remember how a sensation coup he looked when It appeared. Even Mourinho was let go after a season without winning the league, despite what he had achieved before.

    There was no reason to sack Ancelotti, no Club apart from perhaps Madrid gets rid of a Manager that wins you you’re the Double and starts the following season by winning 7 games in a row and 5 points at one time ahead. What Chelsea needed to do was to address what caused their failings. You could point to Ray Wilkins, and I wont argue much, but it is the team which wont give any more, and unless there is a serious overhaul Chelsea wont win the League let alone the CL, with that team.



    The signs are he is a decent manager is, AVB, but this time next year he probably wont be the manager at Chelsea, not with the way Roman managers things. I think he should have gone to Inter Milan where there is an owner who is not only more patient that Roman in Morrati and understand the game a lot more but perhaps stay with Porto another season there.




  • Comment number 32.

    29#
    very clever..................................... ^_^
    we've lasted 106 years you jealous huddersfield fan.

    Every one in football has an ego...even ryan giggs :o!

  • Comment number 33.

    @31
    there was an argument behind letting ancelotti go, namely that he appeared to be tactically very poor and unable to change a game, he also seemed very against implementing the youth into the squad. Not all his fault and not the best arguments but his inability to motivate the team for 3 games against united sealed his fate.

  • Comment number 34.

    CoalitionOfTheWilting wrote:

    The more you post, the more you come across as someone with a chip on your shoulder, rather than someone who is looking at the overall situation objectively.

    Also, Chelsea's turnover prior to Abramovich turning up was higher then than Sunderland's is now!

  • Comment number 35.

    " Incidentally (at the risk of been censored!) you are not possible suggesting than the wealth Abramovich has could have been aquired through dubious means? Perish the thought!....... ;) "


    reliable sources in both Ukraine and Russia inform me if he was to ever set foot in either country he would face immediate arrest and long term confinement.

    only in england can well heeled crooks find safe haven along with spain

  • Comment number 36.

    Yawn another Chelsea manager article. Have the BBC still not hit their quota of 10 per season? There are other (more interesting) things going on in football right now. Di Canio has just signed us another Italian.....from Scottish Division Two. Come on.

  • Comment number 37.

    35,

    Well he must have fallen out big-style with Putin, considering he was one of the triumverate (Putin included) which oversaw the overthrow of Yeltsin and the subsequent doling out of treasure.

  • Comment number 38.

    ANOTHER blog on Andre Villas-Boas?

    That makes it 5 blogs on the BBC website, plus a couple of main feature stories such as the warning from Avram Grant.

    Does it need this much coverage? Can't anyone here blog about something other than Villas-Boas or TeamGB?

  • Comment number 39.

    35.At 14:16 23rd Jun 2011, HAHA CharadeYouAre wrote:

    reliable sources in both Ukraine and Russia inform me if he was to ever set foot in either country he would face immediate arrest and long term confinement.

    -------------------------

    Yet he seems to turn up to Russias home games no problem.


  • Comment number 40.

    @36

    At least these articles have replaced the seemingly endless and incredibly dull McLeish articles of the past two weeks. Point taken though, it's all a bit much. It's amazing how many ways the BBC, Sky and the others try to continually re-package a story with no new information while they wait for something better to come along. However, since many who follow these things are simply at work procrastinating, they don't have to try too hard.

  • Comment number 41.

    Oh get over it CoalitionOfTheWilting! Chelsea were the 5th best supported club in English football history, had won 9 major trophies (including 3 in Europe) and had crowds regularly over 50/60,000 throughout their near 100 year history before Abromovich came along with his money. Cut out the petty comments as you're probably just jealous of Chelsea's success.

  • Comment number 42.

    #35 HAHA CharadeYouAre

    reliable sources in both Ukraine and Russia inform me if he was to ever set foot in either country he would face immediate arrest and long term confinement.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Are you a WUM or just very mis-informed?

    Abramovich is a governor of the state of Chukotka in eastern Russia (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101217/161815038.html%29 as well as being involved in their FA (did you see him at FIFA as part of the delegation that won Russia the 2018 World Cup?) and, as PulpGrape says, follows their national football team.

  • Comment number 43.

    37.At 14:20 23rd Jun 2011, CoalitionOfTheWilting wrote:

    ----------------------

    all i will say is that many many of ya average folk in both countries are not to happy with RA which is why he fled to the UK come to think of it thats not that usual bearing in mind Gaddafi has umpteen investments here has amoung other things a residency in Surrey and supports manchester united, rumour also has it if it was not for eithers capitol investments Compo and Clegg would find it even harder to drum up another scheme to tackle long term un-employment.

    back on topic:

    my own original chavset ringtones are now available via ITunes

    more titles will follow.

    alas not in chelseas direction no matter how much dirty money they throw at trying to achieve them.

  • Comment number 44.

    42.At 14:28 23rd Jun 2011, MrBlueBurns wrote:

    --------------------

    may i remind you! Russia is a big country look at a map! its also disected into many regions and would swallow england without even burping. as far as his apparent cosy relationship with MR P and apparent safe passage at high tables yes this is very true but the guy is forever looking over his shoulder as even he could take a bullit from the peace keeping force any time soon.

    dont be too fooled by what you see on the TV specially if it comes from the BBC itself.

  • Comment number 45.

    @35

    Even a complete ignoramous could draw the conclusion that the vast majority of RA's assets are held in Russia, so, if he was facing charges in that country why have none of these assets been siezed?

  • Comment number 46.

    perhaps roman should have just bought porto directly instead of chelsea,they have won the holy grail!

  • Comment number 47.

    33#
    i do agree. I myself was skeptical off ancelottis tactics the season before when we won the double. We played & thrashed a poor wigan side at the start and narrowly beat pompey who had better chances than us in the final.

    I am one for giving a manager time, thats why i didnt want carlo to go, despite my worries about his approach to the games we played. I was perhaps over-optimistic that carlo, in his never to be '3rd season' would have brought through the youngsters and won the CL...maybe not but to be fair he was a class act and a gentle man. He did well to repair the image left from mourinho that we are a dirty gritty club (although to be fair to jose we never were) and were liked by football fans a lot more, thanks to carlo!

    I think villas boas will do the same, with better tactics & motivation - perhaps because he is younger and has more fire in his belly. Not to say carlo is not passionate...just abit to methodical and cuatious sometimes!

  • Comment number 48.

    #44 HAHA CharadeYouAre

    You really are something 'special' aren't you. I could do a real armchair psychological analysis of you just from a few comments, if I had the will.

    Suffice to say, you seem borderline fantacist and what you post can almost immediately be written off as nonsense. You know little about the subject in hand or how it interacts more widely so probably just give up before you make yourself look even more foolish.

  • Comment number 49.

    Porto fans can and will get over it. They are shooting above their weight in success in financial terms and he has brought great success recently. He got them in the Champions League. That might allow them to keep some of their players for an extra year. Otherwise they would all be sold as usual.

  • Comment number 50.

    Quite amusing to see a few of the "Fake club" and "Negative football" brigade commenting here. This appointment has got them crawling out from under their rocks. lol. Lets forget the record goals scored season before last, or that many billions have been pumped in by numerous club owners ever since Liverpool started spending all that pools money in the seventies. But that doesn't fit with your 'Chelsea are to blame for world poverty' agenda. You guys crack me up :).

    I think this is a great appointment. I like it because it beings back the dynamicism of the Mourinho years. Something Scholari, Grant and Ancellotti lacked.
    Sure, his age is a small gamble, but I think it's the right time to do it. Chelsea are starting to restructure and rebuild, those egos that might have been a problem, well, they are at an age now where there 'player power' isn't what it once was. I think the timing is perfect.

  • Comment number 51.

    45.At 14:35 23rd Jun 2011, the swashbuckler wrote:

    --------------

    you obviously have no idea how the state operates in russia or any of the former soviet countries.

    one word " Money "

    i am surprised by such ignorance as i assume you are a resident of the UK and if you've had your eyes open for the last 20 years you will have noted here we have adopted like minded stratagies which is of course why RA feels more than at home here now.

  • Comment number 52.

    @47
    he certainly was a credit to the club with his attitude. Hopefully avb continues the trend.

  • Comment number 53.

    #47 krisiordanov88

    I was saying it before Christmas and little has changed my mind since that the problem Chelsea had this season was Ancelotti persisting with Drogba and Anelka in the autumn when they just weren't playing very well and converting the umpteen chances that were being created every game.

    Sturridge should have been given a run at that time and wasn't. I can only assume that the issue between Ancelotti and Sturridge that was first identified the previous season ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/8009894/Chelseas-Carlo-Ancelotti-criticises-Daniel-Sturridges-performance-against-MSK-Zilina.html ) carried on.

    This meant that Chelsea were dropping points, it meant that Abramovich tried a quick fix in acquiring Torres and it meant that the squad/team shapes and tactics for the remainder of the season were stuck between a rock and a hard place. The lack of success this brought and the doubts that persisted in Ancelotti's ability to make more of the resources at this disposal did for him in the end.

  • Comment number 54.

    You say that Chelsea were a top 4/ established top 6 club before Abramovich arrived, but make no note about how that was achieved. I believe that was done with Ken Bates making investments in the club with money he didn't have, to the tune of somewhere around a £100 million, debt that was merely written off with Abramovich's purchase of the Club. The prospect of him buying the club might not have been so appealing had Gronkjaer not scored that final day of the season goal against Liverpool, without which Chelsea were more than likely headed for administration.

  • Comment number 55.

    I've been a Chlesea fan for over 20 years now and I am a "Genuine football fan" and it'd funny how its always the blind dumb biased team fans go on about Chelsea's money, you never hear anyone from within the game whinge about Chelsea money or say that it'd destroying football. But what really annoys me is that people dont remember or dont care that for many many years Utd were the team with all the money and all the glory and pretty much monopolised the Premier League. Obviously as a Chelsea fan I was delighted when news broke we had a new billionaire owner, but as a football fan it also excited me that another team would be a serious contender to Utd's dominance.
    As for the fake team, your nothing without Abromavich blah blah that comes from so many bitter fans, firstly as someone else said, we were a top 6 team before Abromavich playing in europe on a regular bases, also we werent just playing in europe we were winning cups in europe, something these so called "football fans" seem to forget. Secondly, even if Abromavich were to leave tomorrow, Chelsea would still be the 6th richest team in THE WORLD based on revenue, so there is no worry of Chelsea falling apart the day he leave, also Abromavich isn't going to sell to Joe Bloggs down the Kings Road with a fiver in his pocket, the day Chelsea is put up for sale there will be massive interest from a lot of people with very big bank balances. Thirdly, as for the no history argument, hmmm, born in 1905, won the top league in 1955, and other awards from well before my time, we have never moved, Stamford Bridge is in exactly the same location as it was in 1905. As for things i've seen Chelsea do in my life time, well, win and compete in the League and F.A. cup, spent most of my life time in the top flight, competed in and won European cups and now the Abromavich era, which we are creating history right now and a rather successful history at that.

    To end, I wish people would get off their high horse about Chelsea and money and history, if it was history and footballing pedigree that mattered in in todays world then there would only be a few clubs worthy of competing at the highest level, and where are those teams now?.....

  • Comment number 56.

    i should say that was in relation to #25

  • Comment number 57.

    48.At 14:39 23rd Jun 2011, MrBlueBurns wrote:

    --------------------------

    You again! are u a stalker? you seem to be following me on all the blogs one final point, you would not want me on your couch thats for sure

    analise that chubby cheeks.

  • Comment number 58.

    42. At 14:28 23rd Jun 2011, MrBlueBurns wrote:

    Are you a WUM or just very mis-informed?

    Abramovich is a governor of the state of Chukotka in eastern Russia (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101217/161815038.html%29 as well as being involved in their FA (did you see him at FIFA as part of the delegation that won Russia the 2018 World Cup?) and, as PulpGrape says, follows their national football team.

    He was the governor. resigned in 2008. But yes he is close to the Kremlin (thats why he is still rich!), was involved in the 2018 bid and the Ukraine would never arrest him unless he was out of favour with Moscow. Would cause too much of a spate.

    Russia is also a country in name only. Beyond that its a system of states under general Moscow control but with a great deal of autonomy for many areas. For example Tatarstan.

  • Comment number 59.

    Everyone can say he'll win the Champions League or he'll be fired by christmas, fact is we need to give him a chance before he can truly be judged. There's no way he can avoid being compared to Mourinho but his record is nowhere near Mourinho's yet. His CV already contains a fair few trophies but these were won in a poor league (21 points clear!) with by far the best team and in a European competition that the top teams aren't in and that most of europe can't be bothered with.

    Time will tell how he does with a bigger club, under more pressure and with a lot more competition.

  • Comment number 60.

    55. At 14:49 23rd Jun 2011, chelseasimon wrote:

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    I understand your point but United's money was mostly organic (i.e. grew as the club grew). Chelsea, while a big club, had the huge injection (like Man City now and Blackburn before) of money (from a fairly dodgy sauce ;) ). United's money also paid to build the stadium. Roman's money hasnt. Its all gone on the team.

    I'm a Newcastle fan so our injection in the early 90s was local. It took the club to unknown heights (in recent years) but also built the stadium.

  • Comment number 61.

    #54 ChrisVilla78

    Whether they would or would not have gone into administration is a moot point, and one that can be viewed either way from what I have read (check out a book by Harry Harris called The Chelsea Diary, I think - he say 'yes' one minute with a 'but' the next).

    The point is that Chelsea were not a nothing team before Abramovich arrived and are/were in the same position as many top clubs find themselves in now. (Liverpool up until their recent takeover, Everton and Fulham come to mind).

  • Comment number 62.

    50. At 14:44 23rd Jun 2011, Back To Back Champs In 06 wrote:

    ----------------------------------
    completely agree, its all too familiar and it comes out in these chelsea related blogs, mainly by happless gooners, disillusioned liverpool fans and jealous mancs. Its been happenign for a good 6-7 years now, frankley im bored, these clubs (liverpool & manchester) who talk about their past soo much, only seem to look at recent events when it comes to chelsea, forgeting our history.

    If we go back and start taking notes on how much clubs have spent since the sixties united, liverpool, arsenal would all be in pole position (ofcourse speaking in todays money)...not chelsea! GET OVER IT IT YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT!
    united have just spent close to 40million on a top 8 winger who has only just broken into the england team and a 19year old who has been hyped as the new john terry! If you ask me its these clubs that ruin the english game buy actualy giving in to the ridicoulus asking price of yuong england hopefulls...just because their english. Atleast chelsea only pay extremes for proven talent...al be it floppable talent!

  • Comment number 63.

    MrBlueBurns

    note well this lil passage from : At 14:51 23rd Jun 2011, boils

    " Ukraine would never arrest him unless he was out of favour with Moscow. "


    for the time being the man is on the kremlins to do list as such its in no ones interest at this time to enact swift and imediate justice on such a thief, but like everything else in this world......

    " things can soon change "

  • Comment number 64.

    57.At 14:50 23rd Jun 2011, HAHA CharadeYouAre wrote:
    48.At 14:39 23rd Jun 2011, MrBlueBurns wrote:

    --------------------------

    You again! are u a stalker? you seem to be following me on all the blogs one final point, you would not want me on your couch thats for sure

    analise that chubby cheeks.

    --------------------------------------------

    Is that supposed to be a threat? Sounds like a homosexual advance.

  • Comment number 65.

    @HAHA CharadeYouAre

    Couldn't care less where he got the money from (or anybody else for that matter), as long as he keeps spending it on more players and better managers...

    Roll on the corruption and Premier League Titles.

  • Comment number 66.

    It's a gamble when you think...he's got to play 8 more league games including the dreaded "Christmas Programme" - can he cope with those extra 8 chances to lose? Its far more travelling than Portugal just to fit in those 8 extra games and can he cope with that personally and he's still relatively inexperienced - he might have got lucky with Porto (the best team in Portugal by a fair margin). Also there's 4 competions here that need to be looked at, all of which are longer, than the Portugese versions (as well as more domestic competion for the players you have).

    Not a gamble - 3 year contract with decently controlled purse strings mean that if he's mucking up after 2 years you can offload for very little cost. Wages saved from the big-4 at Chelsea will save a fair bit cash.

  • Comment number 67.

    #64 PulpGrape

    Yes, I was confused for a moment. I mean, I was flattered, if not curious but, my answer must remain no!

  • Comment number 68.

    anyways sorry back on topic.

    wow chelsea have a new manager!

    im gobsmacked.

    when did this happen, why, when and how

    waits to be enlightened.

  • Comment number 69.

    60. At 14:55 23rd Jun 2011, boils wrote:

    No Abromavich hasn't just injected money into the TEAM there has been a lot of money invested in the youth system, training facilities, massive upgrades to the Bridge.
    People seem to think all Abromavich has done is build a squad and buy titles, but that isn't the case. What he has done is build Chelsea into a super power in world football, with some of the best facilities in the game.
    As I said, I have no worries for when he leaves, we will still be Chelsea and we will still fight on all fronts. Although there are aspects I dont like about how he runs the club I can hardly complain as he has brought such great success to my beloved club.

  • Comment number 70.

    54#

    moments like that, and the up & down dramas is what makes football beautifull!

    are fortunes have changed from that point, chelsea fans obv. happy. other fans should not be happy, but should also not hate, if your club was in that situation and is now succesfull would you not be happy? I really do pitty a jealous mind.

    Milan Manderic did somerthing similair with pompey, and the help of harry redknapp, and they are heros to pompey fans...as is jesper gronjear to chelsea :))))))))))))

  • Comment number 71.

    69.At 15:03 23rd Jun 2011, chelseasimon wrote:
    60. At 14:55 23rd Jun 2011, boils wrote:

    No Abromavich hasn't just injected money into the TEAM there has been a lot of money invested in the youth system, training facilities, massive upgrades to the Bridge.
    People seem to think all Abromavich has done is build a squad and buy titles, but that isn't the case. What he has done is build Chelsea into a super power in world football, with some of the best facilities in the game.
    As I said, I have no worries for when he leaves, we will still be Chelsea and we will still fight on all fronts. Although there are aspects I dont like about how he runs the club I can hardly complain as he has brought such great success to my beloved club.

    ------------------------------------

    Ok don't get carried away now. The facilities don't really serve a purpose apart from give the opportunity for players to have photographs taken in large jucuzzis. Besides Arsenal have better "facilities" anyway. Regarding the youth, yes loads of money has been thrown at it but in almost a decade not a lot has come out of it. What was Arnesen doing all that time? I think Chelsea are still some way off being a "super power in world football" if that is even possible given that they are a domestic club.

  • Comment number 72.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 73.

    72.At 15:10 23rd Jun 2011, HAHA CharadeYouAre wrote:
    64.At 15:00 23rd Jun 2011, PulpGrape wrote:

    -------------------------

    absolutely not!

    In fact if i had my way i would have all such people shot!
    or at least make far better use of the derelict sheds at auschwitz. and give the tourists something really interesting to look at and photograph. and spice up history lessons in our schools.

    --------------------------------------

    Hmmm I tend to think the same about people who post on these blogs all day everyday instead of going out earning a living and paying taxes.

  • Comment number 74.

    #71 PulpGrape

    You're right about the capital investment. However, whilst few, if any, first teamers have come out of it, a number have players have come through it and have then been sold on.

    Also, we keep being told that English football should be changed and that this will take time, then you expect quick results from Chelsea?

    McEachran and Bertrand are classic examples of what is possible. In truth, how many players have other clubs (e,g, Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal) have come right through the ranks and have stayed as first teamers in recent years?

    Broadly, the big clubs have so much money that as long as the youth team breaks even (through smaller sales) then they can afford to go and buy the talent they want.

    All this makes no comment on the rights and wrongs of this.

  • Comment number 75.

    69. At 15:03 23rd Jun 2011, chelseasimon wrote:
    60. At 14:55 23rd Jun 2011, boils wrote:

    No Abromavich hasn't just injected money into the TEAM there has been a lot of money invested in the youth system, training facilities, massive upgrades to the Bridge.

    People seem to think all Abromavich has done is build a squad and buy titles, but that isn't the case. What he has done is build Chelsea into a super power in world football, with some of the best facilities in the game.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    He turned them into a superpower by building a team under Jose. He bought what Jose wanted and Jose took it from there. Best facilities only matter if you have anything to show for it. Who? Terry was earlier (initially a West Ham player) and who else..Jody...? Every club has amazing facilities these days. Chelsea are huge because of Roman's money, being in the EPL, Sky's coverage and Jose's management. But Roman's money is the real driver. Without that huge injection (hundreds of millions) Chelsea would still be playing for 4th.

  • Comment number 76.

    The safe option would be the wise veteran Hiddink, but haven't we tried managers of this type already, in the shape of Scolari, Grant to an extent, and Ancelotti? Maybe a fresh, vibrant and young manager like AVB is exactly what we need!
    However i'd have liked to have got him a year or two later after he'd gained some CL experience. Time is something of a luxury these days for not only PL managers but managers in Spain, Italy and France. People here moan about the short tenures of PL managers, but take a look at the managers in those countries, in Italy its very similar, managers are fired like no where else there, and its the norm, i remember one team going through 3 in a year. And It would be no surprise if AVB was gone after a year, two years maximum. Its the cold, brutal truth and those who say this appointment will change, and he'll get time are way off the mark. Abromavich wants CL glory and hey why blame him, he's put a lot of money into it. Lets just hope that the young man does well in the short time he has at the bridge. Looking forward to seeing him!

  • Comment number 77.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 78.

    " What he has done is build Chelsea into a super power in world football "


    another deluded fool.

  • Comment number 79.

    #75 boils

    Terry joined Chelsea when he was 14. He was linked with West Ham cause he came from their neck of the woods in Barking.

    But yes, in the past, players such as Jody Morris, Jon Harley, Neil Clement etc came through the ranks. Ultimately, they weren't good enough for Chelsea but did ok elsewhere.

  • Comment number 80.

    im surprised by the lack of censoring on this article, some people are getting away with murder.!

    to 65# a massive thumbs up for the lightly humored comment in what is turning into a heated debate that has nothing to do with the article (surprise surprise)

    Fact is chelsea are a global brand now, because we have more of these start players, and are winning things, which helps us go to placeslike south east asia & parts of africa & develop football for young children..and also in turn helping our image and creating a bigger fanbase, all clubs do that if they have the money. Leeds playes in the early 2000's would go to tours in asia & north africa. Sadly their star players, along with their wealth & fame has gone so they are unable to do such things!

    to 60# 'united growth was more organic' unfortunatley i agree. However it is not our fault we were created in the south of england in 1905. In a time where football was dominated lagley (mostly) by northern teams, because it took of better there. This is why historically the MOST succesful teams are from the norht, they had a head start for a reason i cannot imagine why. Therefore united were always going to be a big club with much more money. in that case it is organic!

    So i do apologies on behalf of chelsea for us trying to catch up in recent years. We were getting a bit sick of being a selling club and being out priced for players by united & liverpool in the last five decades, despite having regular attendaces of 60,000 in the 60's & 70's.

    So now perhaps its chelseas turn to monopolize english football, perhaps its southern england ( aka wealthy england's) chance to be successful (arsenal, spurs chelsea, qpr) and maybe in 30 years time, 'we'll be standing here with our 21 to united 21 titles...waiting to knock you of your perch' ....you know that old nonsense!

  • Comment number 81.

    im surprised by the lack of censoring on this article, some people are getting away with murder.!

    to 65# a massive thumbs up for the lightly humored comment in what is turning into a heated debate that has nothing to do with the article (surprise surprise)

    Fact is chelsea are a global brand now, because we have more of these start players, and are winning things, which helps us go to placeslike south east asia & parts of africa & develop football for young children..and also in turn helping our image and creating a bigger fanbase, all clubs do that if they have the money. Leeds playes in the early 2000's would go to tours in asia & north africa. Sadly their star players, along with their wealth & fame has gone so they are unable to do such things!

    to 60# 'united growth was more organic' unfortunatley i agree. However it is not our fault we were created in the south of england in 1905. In a time where football was dominated lagley (mostly) by northern teams, because it took of better there. This is why historically the MOST succesful teams are from the norht, they had a head start for a reason i cannot imagine why. Therefore united were always going to be a big club with much more money. in that case it is organic!

    So i do apologies on behalf of chelsea for us trying to catch up in recent years. We were getting a bit sick of being a selling club and being out priced for players by united & liverpool in the last five decades, despite having regular attendaces of 60,000 in the 60's & 70's.

    So now perhaps its chelseas turn to monopolize english football, perhaps its southern england ( aka wealthy england's) chance to be successful (arsenal, spurs chelsea, qpr) and maybe in 30 years time, 'we'll be standing here with our 21 to united 21 titles...waiting to knock you of your perch' ....you know that old nonsense!

  • Comment number 82.

    @51

    But now now you're contradicting yourself as you said he would be arrested if he stepped foot in Russia, which doesn't support your 'money' argument which I assume meant that they look the other way if you are wealthy. You're not making much sense nor are you backing up anything you say with fact or even the slightest detail, which leads me to believe that you are making it up as you go along.

  • Comment number 83.

    #80 krisiordanov88

    to 60# 'united growth was more organic' unfortunatley i agree. However it is not our fault we were created in the south of england in 1905. In a time where football was dominated lagley (mostly) by northern teams, because it took of better there. This is why historically the MOST succesful teams are from the norht, they had a head start for a reason i cannot imagine why. Therefore united were always going to be a big club with much more money. in that case it is organic!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This might be something of an oversimplification but if you look at the north west and north east, and the midlands, these areas are what was once known as the industrial heartland. There were critical masses of people in more highly populated areas who would support a club with their mates.

    Look at a map of the premier division clubs today. It's London, Midlands, north west and two from the north east. Swansea and Norwich are the other two and they are smaller clubs.

    Rightly or wrongly, you could put a club in the south west but there just aren't the number of people to sustain it. UEFA can bring in all the fair play rules they want but essentially they just maintain a status quo that ultimately means that unless you live a fairly densely populated area, you have a snowball in hell's chance of getting to the top table.

    There is obviously more to it than that but I think that is the essence of it.

  • Comment number 84.

    #80 nice post but your facts about Northern teams dont really stand up after 1930 (and how back do you want the excuse to go!).

    If you forget Liverpool, since Arsenal won the league in 1930, the terms have been fairly equally, if we call north of Birmingham the North. There has been money in the game in the South for generations. It was Spurs who were breaking the transfer record in the 1960s.

    And Chelsea won the league in the 50s if I am right. So the fact that they were a selling team meant what?

  • Comment number 85.

    78#

    i am begging you (on my kness) to elaborate on your comment of 'deluded fools'

    what are we then, if we have won 3 of the last seven premierleagues, 3 of the last 11 fa cups, reached the semis of CL 5 times in 8 years. have championship winning reserve team, a youth team that boasts recent fa cup finals/victories, an established fan base across the world and the 6th highest revenue in hte world and an aray of international stars that are household names including 2 captains and 4 vice captains???

    PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME NOW!???!??!?!?!?!

  • Comment number 86.

    " You're not making much sense nor are you backing up anything you say with fact or even the slightest detail "

    do you mean links to snippets from the english media ? the biggest propoganda machine in the modern world.

    what i will say, and feel no need at all to substantiate ,is my opinions and views and subsequent knowledge about RA, do not eminate from the british media.

    they come from sources far closer to home and from those who really are in the know. as you proberbly do not speak Russian, written or spoken i see little point in providing my sources.

  • Comment number 87.

    YES there was the odd team number 84#, however largley nott forest, liverpool manchester are the most successful, arsenal are an exception. I meant in general northern teams were already established by the team my team chelsea and others were just getting started, due the the FACT the footballs popularity began in northern regions! so chelsea couldnt always get the best players, and the fact that we couldnt sustain the bigger wages meant we were a selling club!

  • Comment number 88.

    Portsmouth won the league twice. So did Ipswich! But yeah I see your point.

    Couldnt get the best players...so you waited until Roman to build a youth system? ;)

  • Comment number 89.

    85.At 15:39 23rd Jun 2011, krisiordanov88 wrote:

    ----------------------

    take another look? you will note i in fact said

    " another deluded fool "

    this means i was refeering you as the singular as most sensible chavites would be slightly more carefull before writing " " What he has done is build Chelsea into a super power in world football "

    as far as i am aware you have yet to win the CL? despite the millions thrown at it and of course managers that have come and gone in its pursuit. even winning the CL does not make you a " world power "

    as far as world power in footballing terms i give you..............

    Brazil and West Germany and now Spain

    perhaps you should have said

    " What he has done is build Chelsea into a super power in PL football "

    this would make more sense and furthermore go some way to pursuading me you are not another " deluded fool " commenting on Football.

  • Comment number 90.

    All those making the comments about Chelsea and their money are either very naive or very daft. But I don't blame them because their views are clearly not their own. They're merely regurgitating the media's vitriol for all things Chelsea. They may even be incapable of original thought. So to clarify things for them :
    We never hear about Barcelona buying the best players for huge amounts of money. We only hear about their excellence on the football field. The same can be said of Real Madrid. Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and , more recently, Man City. They have all bought players and the success that derives from that. It's the facts of life for football on a global scale and not something indigenous to Stamford Bridge as the Press, and those supporting their views on this site, would have us believe.
    I agree that money has become too much of a factor in our great game. That players wages , transfer fees and inflated ticket prices have become so high to warrant ridicule is incontrovertible.
    What can be done to stop this financial runaway train is beyond the guile of those in charge who even court controversy themselves at the highest levels.
    I suggest , for a start, the capping of wages and transfer fees. Do away with transfer windows which serve only to inflate prices for players too. We need to return football to the man in the street so ticket prices need to be greatly reduced and availability improved.
    Anyway.........best of luck to Andres at Chelsea but a word of warning. The mamby-pamby feely-touchy approach won't work here. We need a sergeant major in charge and not a kind hearted psychologist.

  • Comment number 91.

    Why does it matter that Chelsea are funded by a rich benefactor?

    In a market dominated already by teams such as Man United and Arsenal, how is another team meant to compete?

    Winning = more money = better players = more winning.

    Once you’re on top it's hard to get knocked off, just look at Liverpool's dominance, followed by United.

    The only team that has recently been able to compete year on year is Chelsea; Roman is just levelling the playing fields.

    Do you begrudge Apple for taking over from a market dominated by Nokia? Apple did it successfully because they had huge finances to throw at it.

    All you complaining about Chelsea because Man U did it ‘organically’ need to be realistic. Nokia did it ‘organically’ and I don’t see anybody shedding a tear for them now that there 2 foot of the cliffs edge looking down.


    Brighton till I die!

  • Comment number 92.

    #90 drogsbreath - a voice of reason in this debate. I won't go into RA's 'dodgy business empire' - he's from Russia and their oligarchs do business differently to the UK (same could be said of Mittal at QPR or Arsenal's Russian shareholder for example, let alone the anti-democracy dictatorship who own Man City). It's everywhere in football and it's a little unfair to blame fans of a club for how their owner made his money.

    The problem with too much money in football isn't just down to rich owners, it's down to the Champions League, the G20 and the way that their money-driven competition has expanded in the past 15 years. Some think it more important than the World Cup and teams strive for 'top 4' rather than to win silverware. This is where football is being corrupted and the big clubs are the ones who are corrupting the beautiful game, for their own financial gain.

  • Comment number 93.

    I suggest , for a start, the capping of wages and transfer fees.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What would you cap it at though? The big clubs would have no trouble paying someone say £60'000 a week which is still out the reach of a lot of Premier League clubs. A transfer that costs £10 million isn't really considered that dear anymore, again though it's out of reach for a lot of clubs.

    The financial fair pay rules will stop the likes of Chelsea, City, Barcelona and Real Madrid spending huge amounts of 'borrowed' money on transfers and wages if they want to play in Europe but it won't stop them (maybe not so much City) and the likes of United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Milan, Inter, Juventus, Bayern Munich etc having a massive financial advantage because they make more money than everyone else so can therefore spend more.

  • Comment number 94.

    no we rebuolt our team several times then sold it again, in order for some partial success/promotins back to the top flight in order to create revenue, then had a good team which won 4 cups in the late 90's and 2000...went on form there, signed lamps, brough terry through etc... built on that to make us an attractive investment for roman, who took us to the next step.

    At the end of the day i couldnt give a .... waht you all think about chelsea you are infact wrong, we are a globaly recognised football brand, if oyu like it or not. And there is no difference between us any other big club in england.. part from
    united owners, although billionares, have put the club into debt and have descreaed proft margins, whislt still spending money (more than chels) on players
    arsenals owners have put money into the club, but enjoy no success

    withough being rude, your all hypocritcial jealus patheitc fans who cant handle a once cheaky little outfit from sw6, knockin with the big boys, stealing your lime light


    KTBFFH!!!!!!!!

  • Comment number 95.

    Haven't read every post, but just want to comment on the concept of "greed" in football. If you are in a job, a good one, let's say, and an even better offer comes up, do you insist that your loyalty to that job prevents you from moving up in the world? Craziness! Being a football manager is just like any other job. You would be a fool not to jump at the chance of a higher salary. The only thing keeping me in my current job, as well paying as it may be, is the economy currently sitting in the sewer and the attendant lack of other jobs right now. It's all about securing the future.

  • Comment number 96.

    91# Thats exactly it.

    I as a fan of football have massive respect for Utd as a football club, but as you said, Winning = more money = better players = more winning and as it was mostly utd doing this season after season before Abromavich came along and shook things it, how was anyone else supposed to compete, they simply couldnt. Your analogy with Nokia and Apple was spot on though!

    As for Chelsea not being a super power in world CLUB football (sorry, shouldnt have added that before, as I im all to aware of how small minded people can be and pick up on tiny details even if you knew fine well what I meant) because we havent won the CL thats narrow mindedness. Of course we are a super power in world CLUB football, up there with Man Utd, Barca, Real, Inter, Munich etc, the top players would want to play for us and we can offer them football at the highest level. We are known the world over, 6th highest revenue producing club in the world, all those things and more that others have mentioned make us a super power in world football.

  • Comment number 97.

    Not a Chelsea supporter BUT without RA's input United would have a few more titles and the EPL would be even more boring (at the top) than it is just now.

  • Comment number 98.

    @#12.

    Nothing to be ashamed of here, I too am a Portista, and I was betrayed along with every other fan. Not so much him leaving to another club, that happens to our players a lot especially after successful campaigns. But it was the false sense of security he gave the fans, the "I pledge my heart" to Porto type of feeling he gave us. But it's been two days now, and i'm honestly over it, so long as we can keep our players. At least the coach who replaced him, Pereira was the assistant coach and knows how things run at the club, so he won't have to start from scratch for the Barca game. What I do hope however is that this departure doesn't effect Porto's players psychologically before facing Barca, because we will have to be fully prepared for that match. The European Super Cup is the only European competition bar the Cup winners cup, that we've failed at in the final hurdle only winning one out of the possible 4, so hopefully we can change that against Barca, and at the same time put an exclamation point on just how great a season it has been for Porto.

  • Comment number 99.

    38

    that's the media im afraid, instead of researching the "world" of football for a blog about something surprising and unexpected or imagination, they wait for a story like this so they can all have an easy write up.

  • Comment number 100.

    Loving the Chelsea fans bragging about thier succesful pre-RA era.

    1st Division 1954-55
    UEFA Cup Winners Cup - 70-71 & 97-98
    Super cup - 98

    No wonder it cost RA £140M to buy a club with such a rich history!!

 

Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.