or to join or start a new Discussion

10 Comments
Article Rating 1 Star

Ambramovich vs. Man United. !!!!!!

I wonder if all you Gooners out there, who keep slagging Chelsea off because on the shed load of money that Ambramovich has poured into the club, realise if he hadn't, then Man Utd would have won the Premiership more than the 19 times they have.

3 times Chelsea have won it. Without the Russian's money, it's highly unlikely that they would have,as I sure you would agree. So by that reasoning the teams that finished as runners-up each time would naturally have been the champions. So that's Arsenal once and Utd twice.

That is all

Thanks for reading this article

Proudgooner

posted on 27/5/11

i begin to wonder if any of his money went blatters way

posted on 27/5/11

Chelsea would be NOTHING without Roman !! Anyone wish to argue otherwise feel free but he is the ONLY reason Chelsea have won anything recently.

posted on 28/5/11

The flaw in the arguement is that Arsenal would have won the league in the Roman era.

I am sure most of my fellow Gooners would be happy for United to have 2 extra titles if we could have had one extra.

posted on 28/5/11

You forgot one thing. The refs tend to be used to make sure that there are 2 teams who win the league regularly, so if he had not poured all of that money in it would have been Arsenal instead. PLus the extra money from winning more would have meant more money to spend on the team so more success.

With Man C now having billions

posted on 28/5/11

You forgot one thing. The refs tend to be used to make sure that there are 2 teams who win the league regularly, so if he had not poured all of that money in it would have been Arsenal instead. PLus the extra money from winning more would have meant more money to spend on the team so more success.

With Man C now having billions

posted on 28/5/11

You forgot one thing. The refs tend to be used to make sure that there are 2 teams who win the league regularly, so if he had not poured all of that money in it would have been Arsenal instead. PLus the extra money from winning more would have meant more money to spend on the team so more success.

With Man C now having billions

posted on 28/5/11

You forgot one thing. The refs tend to be used to make sure that there are 2 teams who win the league regularly, so if he had not poured all of that money in it would have been Arsenal instead. PLus the extra money from winning more would have meant more money to spend on the team so more success.

With Man C now having billions

posted on 28/5/11

You forgot one thing. The refs tend to be used to make sure that there are 2 teams who win the league regularly, so if he had not poured all of that money in it would have been Arsenal instead. PLus the extra money from winning more would have meant more money to spend on the team so more success.

With Man C now having billions

posted on 28/5/11

You forgot one thing. The refs tend to be used to make sure that there are 2 teams who win the league regularly, so if he had not poured all of that money in it would have been Arsenal instead. PLus the extra money from winning more would have meant more money to spend on the team so more success.

With Man C now having billions

posted on 28/5/11

??????

My last comment suddenly got posted before I finished. No idea what happened, but as I was saying....

With Man C now having billions will they let it be a 3 horse race or will Chelsea "drop away".

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 1 from 1 vote

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available