The problem for Chelsea fans is that their success will never be looked upon in the same light as Liverpools, Uniteds etc.

They bought it and that will forever taint them.

I don`t go along with this theory that some clubs buy success, all clubs buy it.
Look at the liverpool team that first won the european cup at least 8 players were bought albeit for small amounts but for what was the going rate at the time.
The likes of chelsea and now man city are just doing the same thing and if we dont like it,tough.

Metro_1 (U6770)

Liverpool and United's success is bought too. Fact is every club has bought success. The only club that can perhaps claim they haven't are Celtic when they won the European Cup with a team of home grown players or Forest who won the Cup back to back without spending a penny.

The problem is gloryhunting fans of United and Liverpool weren't even around to know this hence why they spout the same old rubbish over and over again.

Shanks,s pony (U2264)

Thats the most refreshing opinion/post I've ever seen from a Liverpool fan.

You strike me as a perhaps older and wiser LFC fan than Metro who is probably below 25.

I think you will find that forest actually bought some of their players, Trevor Francis 1 million.

I don`t go along with this theory that some clubs buy success, all clubs buy it.
Look at the liverpool team that first won the european cup at least 8 players were bought albeit for small amounts but for what was the going rate at the time.
The likes of chelsea and now man city are just doing the same thing and if we dont like it,tough.

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

two things. Firstly, the gulf between Liverpool and other clubs in that era is nothing compared to the cash gulf that exists today - this can't be disputed.

Secondly, are you suggesting Chelsea and City started challenging before their takeovers?

When did Liverpool start challenging and what was their financial status at the time?

comment by Shanks,s pony (U2264)

quite possibly you're the only liverpool fan on here with more than one braincell

To be fair Chelsea probably won't be recognised as having 'history' for their recent Prem titles for a few years yet, as they're 'currently' one of the best teams out there (along with Man U).

In 10 years time (for example) we'll look back and 'remember' the titanic clashes between Man U and Chelsea (prior to that Man U and Arsenal) and then it'll be 'history'.

Hopefully by then we'll be back up there…

Recent successes are just that - too 'recent' to be classed as history, IMO.

Metro's point above does hold water, IMO - the money game is totally different to what it was back then, and can't really be compared. And we're also being bankrolled to a certain extent; if we should get any success in the next 3/4 years (fingers crossed) then we'll be accused of the same thing. But would we be bothered? Would we heck.

quite possibly you're the only liverpool fan on here with more than one braincell
______

I resent that assertion. I have hundreds.

Admittedly none of them are mine, and they're all in formaldehyde, but that's just semantics.

All trophies are bought.

@Metro
Chelsea went bankrupt trying to buy trophies and top4 status before Abramovich. They were up there with Leeds and Manu at the top of the spending tables from the late 90s to 2002 or 3.

They succeeded. And that top4 finish is probably the biggest reason Abramovich bought them. They also got an FA Cup or two from it.

And how is it that an Arsenal fan posts this and then slinks away while Chelsea and Liverpool fans get into a dust up?! Cheeky rascal...

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Chelsea fans mention the Littlewoods money that we had but that wasn't actually until the 90s and as we all know we haven't actually won the league since. In the 70s and 80s we earned the moeny we made by being massively successful. We were able to buy the best players because we were successful. The same can be said about Man Utd.

Chelsea and man City have doen it the other way round. They've been bankrolled, spent loads of money to be successful.

Chelsea's money came from a Russian tyrant who stuck a pin in a map and it landed on Chelsea. That's the way it is these days though.
________

Exactly - that's just the way it is these days. We're now owned by our second batch of Yanks, who we've all been asking to splash the cash. I know we don't have the funds of City and Chelsea, but we're not exactly paupers...

Fact is every club has bought success. The only club that can perhaps claim they haven't are Celtic when they won the European Cup with a team of home grown players.

******

Ok then.

United did not buy any players between 1953-57. Won 3 league championships.

After the aircrash Busby had to acquire a few players.

From 1964-68 United bought only 1 player, Alex Stepney. Won 2 league championships and European Cup.

>>the money came from success genereated on and off the pitch

to be honest that's never bothered me and I don't see the difference.

clubs have gained advantage for various reasons, fortunate timing, blind luck, development control laws (and possibly supporters or rivals being behind those decisions), influence over the spread of TV money , influence over the spread of prize money.

'we earned it' a lot of times is rubbish and has lots of background factors.

Money is money is money. And you don't win without lots and lots and lots of it.

Bubbles:
I think you can judge Shank,s Pony's age not only by his comments but also by his inability to find the apostrophe key on the keyboard.

No you can`t dispute the cash gulf that exists today is far greater than in the past, but that is the world we live in now. Chelsea were bought by Abramovich because they were a bargain, a big football club situated in one of richest areas of one of the worlds richest cities.
And he would need to spend what to him was a realatively small amount to create what he hoped would become a world class football club.
The same applies to city.
Whereas anyone buying Liverpool would have to spend about 1 billion to buy the club and then build a new stadium in order for us to compete at the very top level, and that is before you start buying the big names that supporters would demand. I n my opinion that is one of the reasons these billionaires have given us a wide berth.

Fat_JanMolby:

Agreed aside from one point: Citeh are yet to be successful. I don't think that one FA cup counts.

Although, given their outlay it would be criminal if they don't go on to win something significant.

If Sunderland stay up this season is anybody going to accuse them of buying it? Why is it any different to the clubs who compete for the trophies.

To be honest it looks like we're all singing from the same song sheet...

sunderland arent a threat to anyone at the moment, the moment you become a threat, all the deluded scousers come out the woodwork waving their dusty old history book about like it means something

Pony:
Too true. I remember watching a documentary on Abramovitch once and he didn't attempt to buy Arsenal - apparently his first choice - for exactly that reason. He calculated that purchasing Chelsea, who had just come second the season before, and pumping £500m in players was better value than buying Arsenal. The only thing that hasn't worked out for him is that he had hoped that Chelsea would become self-sustaining as a business after this initial outlay.

Sunderland could be a threat to Liverpool. Sunderland have spent money and might compete for that Europa League spot.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator