Taylor Swift

I think it's about time one of us brought the ridiculous amount of money he's spent into the equation. And Ferguson's outwitted him. Ranieri was sacked for finishing 2nd and making the Champions League semis. He also won a cup. I wouldn't be surprised if Mourinho ends up with the same this season. It's not his fault his club has given him money to spend. This season could still turn out to be a historic season for Chelsea btw. One cup won, in with a shout for two more and the league is not over yet. And anyways, even if his record is tainted by the amount of money he's spent, you're still disregarding what he did with Porto in the two previous seasons before he joined Chelsea.

says alot. He's won a league title in his past three seasons. f****** beat that man. With the money he's had he has nowhere to hide. You're getting on like you're shocked Chelsea won the league. Wise up. Ranieri finished 2nd in his first season under Abramovich and he's considered an average manager. Mourinho spent a load of money improving that Ranieri side. The fact that you downplay his league titles and criticize him for not winning a cup competition, a kind of competition that you yourself stated he won by going on a lucky streak the first time around is absolutely astonishing. League titles are much harder to win than cup competitions. That's why you don't have no-name clubs winning the league yet clubs who go on a 'lucky streak', like Porto, can win the Champions League.

Terry and Lampard were brilliant under Ranieri as well. Cech was a Ranieri signing. Lampard obviously wasn't brilliant enough to be the FA Writer's Player of the Year, and runner-up for the European Player of the Year as well as runner-up for the World Player of the Year while Ranieri was coaching him. Tbh, there should be no doubt that Mourinho is a great manager. The fact is, it's harder to win a title than it is to win a cup; it's about consistency and he's developed a ruthless consistency at Chelsea. He's won the title twice and contrary to popular opinion, the title race for this season isn't over. And Chelsea are also still in the Champions League, btw. PS. Where did I mention Cech? Lampard was brilliant that year under Ranieri, many would have said he was the best central midfielder in the Premier League that season. Many also said Terry was the best central defender that season. I don't listen to the player awards, Cannavaro was named world player of the year a few months ago! Chelsea are about to lose the title to a team which plays better football under a better manager. Mourinho is a very good manager but he isn't a world class manager. You're talking about the year Arsenal went undefeated, am I correct? The season where Patrick Vieira and co dominated almost every game they played. Lampard wasn't the best central midfielder that season, and neither was John Terry the best central defender. Honestly, Mourinho is a great manager and his RESULTS have consistently proven this FACT.

Terry and Lampard were brilliant under Ranieri as well. Cech was a Ranieri signing. Lampard obviously wasn't brilliant enough to be the FA Writer's Player of the Year, and runner-up for the European Player of the Year as well as runner-up for the World Player of the Year while Ranieri was coaching him. Tbh, there should be no doubt that Mourinho is a great manager. The fact is, it's harder to win a title than it is to win a cup; it's about consistency and he's developed a ruthless consistency at Chelsea. He's won the title twice and contrary to popular opinion, the title race for this season isn't over. And Chelsea are also still in the Champions League, btw. Lampard is one of the most over rated players (particularly by himself) I've ever encountered. He is decent, handy but he's also shit. And a complete prick. Just because he's shit for England doesn't mean he's shit for Chelsea. Being a great manager is about designing a system that draws out the best in your players and hiding their weaknesses. By no means am I saying Lampard is a great player, but there's no doubting the fact that he excels in the system that Mourinho designed and the fact that his goals have been an instrumental part of why Chelsea are the reigning two-time Premiership champions.

Tbh, the fact that one of the people criticizing him actually stated says alot. He's won a league title in his past three seasons. Fucking beat that man.

Terry and Lampard were brilliant under Ranieri as well. Cech was a Ranieri signing. Lampard obviously wasn't brilliant enough to be the FA Writer's Player of the Year, and runner-up for the European Player of the Year as well as runner-up for the World Player of the Year while Ranieri was coaching him. Tbh, there should be no doubt that Mourinho is a great manager. The fact is, it's harder to win a title than it is to win a cup; it's about consistency and he's developed a ruthless consistency at Chelsea. He's won the title twice and contrary to popular opinion, the title race for this season isn't over. And Chelsea are also still in the Champions League, btw. PS. Where did I mention Cech?

And to add, for anyone who will argue that the Chelsea team for the past few seasons hasn't been tested (except this season), well, you can only beat what's in front of you.

I rate Cole higher than I do Robben (the lazy tit). He's much more effective and efficient now. Not a ball-hogger who can produce a moment of brilliance once every 5 or so games, but someone who can be depended on to contribute to their attacking system (a system which works very well albeit is pretty ugly).

Can't believe some are actually agreeing with Vic. An argument could be made if all he has achieved was achieved at Chelsea. It wasn't therefore this argument is shit. How did he take a team like Porto, lead them to a UEFA Cup triumph in one season then the next, lead them to the Champions League title, beating along the way clubs like Manyoo and Chelsea. Clubs like Chelsea, whom at the time was managed by a rated Claudio Ranieri, a club that had limitless money to spend, just like they do today. He's a brilliant manager. It also shows in the fact that Lampard, Cole (Joe), Terry and Drogba have developed as players.

Chelsea v Spurs starting in 40 mins. Hope it's a cracking game like the FA Cup one. Also hope Spurs get thrashed

To be fair NE5, even though one can see that Macbeth does try to put the club in a bad light in the finances page, there's no doubt that we should be worried about the turnover/wages ratio. It's just not sustainable.

He only won the title with Lazio because he spent shit loads on Crespo, Mendieta etc. Other than that triumph, his record is nothing spectacular and thus, it'd be more worth it to take a risk with someone who isn't going to demand a lot of money from the club to work. Someone young and promising. Really? Winning the UEFA-cup in 1982 with a SWEDISH team, winning the portuguese league two years in a row with Benfica and finnishing second in the UEFA-cup the year after, winning the Italian cup with Roma and Fiorentina, twice with Lazio and the Cupwinnerscup with Lazio. Decent record IMO. Don't think we can get a manager who has won more than him, tbh. The Italian Cup is the equivalent, maybe even worse than, the League Cup in England. Doesn't say much. And I already told you about Lazio and how he spent shit loads, why are you bringing it up again? He won't get to spend millions here. The only notable thing he's done is win the UEFA Cup with IFK Goteborg and getting Benfica somewhere in Europe, a brilliant achievement I'll admit. However, that's it really. You can make a case for quite a few managers based on a couple of titles here and there. And he'll command extremely high wages and money to spend, which is exactly why we'd be better off looking elsewhere.

He only won the title with Lazio because he spent shit loads on Crespo, Mendieta etc. Other than that triumph, his record is nothing spectacular and thus, it'd be more worth it to take a risk with someone who isn't going to demand a lot of money from the club to work. Someone young and promising.

No, I'd rather we get someone young and promising (not Shearer). The most important aspect that I'd desire in any future manager atm is tactical awareness. We haven't had someone who's brilliant tactically in, well, ever.

It's rare for someone to actually have the funds to acquire the land, develop it and run a business on it. From my experience, there's always two or three main parties involved; one to acquire the land (the main financier), one to develop it (a minor entity ie. the contractor to build the hotel), and lastly, one to run a business on it (the second main entity eg. hotel owners). The only times I've seen this happen is when the second main entity ie. the person who is last in the chain, has enough funds to acquire the land and develop it. Since we seem to be the first main entity, it'd be stupid of us to pretend we know anything about running hotels. Much better off this way imo.

Parky, I know it is privately funded. I believe I was one of the first to actually explain how this kind of deal works. An explanation which you agreed with. It's not technically borrowing. The hotels and stuff won't be owned by the club, so we don't technically have to borrow any money to build all that. Someone else is doing that and they'll own it, the club will still own the land though and get a 'free' ground extension. If that is the case and it sounds like it is....It's a very good deal for us... However, none of us knows the ins and outs of this deal. And there are other possible scenarios - that's all I'm saying. PS. I didn't see you show your fantastic knowledge of the world of real-estate before other people, myself included, explained how it works.

It's really hard to figure what kind of deal the club has structured with the investors when looking from the outside perspective. The first deal that I mentioned would be a masterstroke from Freddy, the second one a much more common deal but yet, it will still benefit the club.

Just to add, from what I know about business, real-estate and how these sorts of things are done, this is a common way of doing business. However, another scenario which is also possible is that the club is funding the development of the hotels/casinos etc. but will let someone else come in and run it (and put a name on it eg. Hilton/Marriott etc.). Tbh, I've seen this type of deal happen more than the previous one that I mentioned. This kind of deal works well for both parties because even though the club is putting money into the development, they have a guaranteed 'return' ie. the investors (the hotel investors) have to pay a certain amount back to the club each month/year. I believe that this 'return' is being invested in the development of the ground. So technically, one could say that the money spent on the ground can actually be spent on the team, but even if this is the case, I'd rather we spend money on the ground than give it to Roeder to spend. It'd be similar to giving Souness £50m to spend, just not worth it.

It's not technically borrowing. The hotels and stuff won't be owned by the club, so we don't technically have to borrow any money to build all that. Someone else is doing that and they'll own it, the club will still own the land though and get a 'free' ground extension. If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to get money from the investors to reinvest in the team rather than getting an extra 8k seats which, tbh, are you desperate for? If there was a queue of people waiting to buy season tickets I could understand it more, but surely the quality of the playing squad should be of paramount importance? For no particular reason I think this is more a way of boosting the value and the profile of the club to a potential buyer rather than any obvious benefit to the club's fans. The post below yours explains the reasoning very well. Like I said earlier in the thread, it's a good thing but just happening at the wrong time. Nonetheless, we're planning for the future which is a good sign.

It's not technically borrowing. The hotels and stuff won't be owned by the club, so we don't technically have to borrow any money to build all that. Someone else is doing that and they'll own it, the club will still own the land though and get a 'free' ground extension.

It's not going to be long term debt man. James said earlier in the thread, this will be backed by investors. What, imo, happens is that since the club owns the land, they 'lease' it out to these 'investors' who will develop the land into hotels, casinos etc. etc. whatever and sign a contract for something like 10 years or something similar (obviously with option to extend) with the club. Whatever gets developed isn't 'owned' by the club, only the land is. Whatever profit these hotels/casinos make isn't the club's profit. It'll be the investors' profits. The main good thing about this is that since the land around St. James' is obviously valuable and very attractive, Freddy has actually done a smart thing by 'leasing' it out and negotiating into the contract, a development of the ground which will be funded by these 'investors'. To them (Fred and the investors), it's a win-win situation.

At least we're planning for the future?

Tbh, I think this is a great idea albeit at the really wrong time. However, since the move is going to be funded independently from the revenue of the club, there's no harm in getting it done now. It'll give us a platform for the future and won't mean that we have to play catchup. The fact is that it's a good idea, and it will put as on an even or close keel with the likes of Manyoo, Liverpool and Arsenal, the type of clubs we should be aiming to compete with eventually. Obviously the football part needs working out but imo, if this isn't going to affect our transfer budget etc. then get it done now because it'll only be harder and more expensive in the future.

:lol: what a thread!