Let me start by saying that I'm a Liverpool fan. And one of the criteria to being a Liverpool fan is to dislike Manchester United.
You may, therefore, be surprised by the title of this piece.
However, Chelsea have fast become my most hated team in the world. Even more so than United, even more so than Everton.
There are many reasons for this. One is their harassment of referees in large groups. They seem to think that refs aren't allowed to give decisions against them. These groups are usually led by the likes of Drogba, Terry and Ashley Cole.
This leads me to my second reason. I dislike almost all of their players. In fact the only one I like is Michael Essien.
This reason is just personal opinion, I understand, but Drogba for example, I find the most disgraceful player I've ever seen.
Obviously, I'm not too fond of United either, but their style of play, and some of the players they have are a long way ahead of Chelsea, and anyone else in England for that matter.
However, the main reason I want Man United to pip Chelsea to the post in the Premier League, and beat them in Moscow, is because Man United have earned it, while Chelsea would have bought it.
United have no doubt spent big while Ferguson has been in charge, but not needlessly big.
He's seen an area that needs improvement and spent the appropriate money to improve it.
In fact, the only huge money signings in the strongest eleven of United are Ferdinand and Rooney.
However, Chelsea got an investment from Roman Abramovich and immediately splashed an unnecessary amount of cash.
For example, up to May 2006, he had signed 13 players for more than £10 million. six of whom have since left. He has also bought many more since then.
A standard starting eleven for Chelsea today would have cost them £146,630,000. And those are players bought just since Abramovich came in. And I haven't included £21 million signing Shaun Wright-Philips, either!
This worked for a bit. Coupled with managing to entice 'The Special One' to oversee operations at Stamford Bridge, Chelsea managed to buy the title two seasons in a row.
But they couldn't buy the Champions League.
And I want it to stay that way. For Chelsea to win the Champions League would be a travesty. It would mean that even Europe's Premier Club competition is able to be devalued, and conquered by money.
The terrible prospect of that even outweighs the awful prospect of United winning a double.
comments (17) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Can see you getn a bit of abuse for this one...but we have all thought it. Nothing in the rules against it and they still had to gel as a team. Which they did.
2 months ago
yeh they did do well to gel quickly, and if Liverpool had the money, i'd want them to spend it to win the title. However, i wouldnt want them to spend it unnecessarily (such as £21 million for Wright-Phillps) when you could get him for less, or someone even better for less.
And all that matters is winning trophies really, i dont like how chelsea have done it but im certain no chelsea fan will care. theyve won the trophies after all.
2 months ago
"It would mean that even Europe's Premier Club competition is able to be devalued, and conquered by money."
Don't make me laugh. The only one devaluing anything is Liverpool. Always playing for the cups as if the Premier League is beneath them. Every time You play a weakened team in the league, while your rivals play their best team in the hope of actually winning the the league, you devalue English football. You can say that Chelsea bought their way to success, but at least they prioritized the league before Europe.
2 months ago
what?!? Liverpool always prioritise the league! its the one the fans want more than anything. We play a weakened team in cup competitions so we can be more competitive in the league, and only play a weakened team in the prem when we have nothing to fight for!
from 2 months ago
liverpool always filed a weakened team in the prem the weekend before a european game, no matter if you're just 2 points behind the leaders or 30. a perfect example is the barnsley game. just admit, you don;t want to see Chelsea win because then you lot can't go ranting on about how u can't buy history. In the long run, if Chelsea win in Moscow, they'll have a better record than you in the last 18 years.
from 2 months ago
the barnsley game was in the fa cup, and the match before that game in the league we drew 0-0 with chelsea, which shows it wasnt a weakened side, and after the barnsley game we went on a 6 match winning streak, playing our best eleven whenever possible.
2 months ago
Europes Premier club competition has already been conqured by money. To believe otherwise would be very naive to say the least.
from 2 months ago
Touche!!
2 months ago
not to the extent that chelsea would've if they were to win it. Real Madrid came close, but again, the unnecessary amount spent by chelsea is the worst thing
2 months ago
I think Chelsea is a good side. On of the best I`ve seen for some time coming out of Europe. Capable of beating any team in the world. Perhaps not the most entertaining but very result oriented,compact with strike power when needed.
My money is on them. And I`m betting with surprising ease as well which should silence many.
Remember I`m Brazilian so I actually dread meeting Chelsea in Tokyo.....I would actually be happier to face Cristiano and company...easy pickings .
from 2 months ago
You are always going on about good football etc etc yet Man Utd are by far the better footballing team but you side with Chelsea. Why is this?
from 2 months ago
I like the way they handled Fenerbahce. I like the way they shut out Alex who is a hard to mark player.
They are dull but they do their home work and play a tight game. They play for the result like Brazil in 1994.
Not so good for the sport..not what I like...but the reality is I think they will shutout Cristiano and I really think they will win......baring any illegal outside factor or ManU showing me something I haven`t seen yet.
2 months ago
One of the best....first line
2 months ago
Chelsea unnecessary spending is definetely a problem for Chelsea fans themselves. None of them wanted to see Sheva, Pizarro, Wrightphillips, Kezman etc.. at Chelsea. They were all a waste of money, we all know that..However, this tired ranting about Chelsea's spending power is getting a bit out of hand. Im sure that if Liverpool were in Chelsea's position, you would want your team to buy any player deemed necessary to win the league.
To claim that Chelsea winning the CL would devalue the competition is an off the wall statement and is simply ridiculous.
You can root for United if u like, no problem in that. You can dislike all the Chelsea players u like, no problem in that. But your reasoning, i must say, are very very lousy....
2 months ago
SAME OLD STORY.......money,money,money.........
although i agree utd deserve it as they have earned it,chelsea have gotten lucky a few times this season,who knows..??
for all you know,they might run out of luck by the end of the season...(now)
2 months ago
I have to laugh at the thought that Chelsea don't 'deserve' to win as they would have brought the trophy.
The starting line ups in the final will look something like this:
Van de Sar Free Cech 7m
Hargreaves 17m Essien 24.4m
Vidic 7m Carvalho 19.85
Ferdinand 30m Terry Free
Evra 5.5m A Cole Free
Carrick 18.6m Makelele 16.6m
Scholes free Ballack Free
Ronaldo 12.24m Lampard 11m
Rooney 20m (rising to 30) J Cole 6.6m
Tevez (not known, but surely worth 15-20m) Drogba 24m
Anderson 17m Kalou 8m
Total around 140m Total around 125m
Manchester United are hardly Chelsea's poor relations are they? Even if Giggs and Brown play instead of Hargreaves and Anderson for example, the totals will not change that drastically. There was a time when Manchester United were built on young players coming through the ranks, those days are gone. For the last decade they have been buying big the same as Chelsea. Chelsea just did it over a shorter, more intense period, but the ideas of the two clubs have been exactly the same. Man Utd haven't brought a player through the ranks since O'Shea and Fletcher some 5 or more years ago, neither of whom are anywhere near regulars.
My team Liverpool are no different, just on a smaller budget, but this article is not about them. Just thought I would mention it so I wasn't accused of ignoring Liverpool's situation.
2 months ago
MICAH&VICTOR
First of all we are a chelsea fan.
i think transfer of players to chelsea is too costly. i suggest players should be properly bargained for before any transfer should commence. And the coach is not active as the past coaches have been i urge him to be active.
UP BLUES
write a new comment