manorpark

ok. One day we may get the chance to find out if Mourinho is a brilliant manager or not, compared to others in the Premier League who have had to "manage" without endless supplies of money. He has not been tested in the Premier League yet. He hasn't really even been "in" the Premier League yet. He has been on "Planet Roman"!! True? How do you think he would cope at (say) Charlton or Villa?

Are you responding to MY earlier point? If the Russian lives to be 500 years old, he will not see a personal profit! He has not turned them around, they are STILL making incredible annual losses and show no signs of ever making a profit. Do not believe Kenyons words on this. The Russians money is not part of a 'Business Investment' by any definition of that term that I understand - other than "Chelsea Football Club is a Business" and "Abramovich gives them an annual amount of money, varying only by the 'size' of their annual loss" The SIZE of their annual losses, is the "deformity" that I detest. The annual payoff allows them to behave like the real world does not touch them It indeed does not. They are a deformity.

source??? From what I have heard on a West Ham board, he has turned them (WH) down. Nothing about agreeing to join Spurs.

With OUR money - and only 'some' from Ashley! I couldn't give a s*** how we do it tbh. Points to credibility - do we want to spend (primarily, with an occasional Ashley-'top up') earned-money like Manchester United, and thus earn grudging respect (bordering on hatred/jealousy!) or do we want to spend unearned-donations like Chelsea, and have our achievements ignored and treated with the contempt they would deserve?? I know what I would prefer.

With OUR money - and only 'some' from Ashley!

No accounting for taste. Why Gateshead (South Newcastle . . )?

allardyce aswell ? bad enough they get players they don't need but managers is going too far I (almost) read it that way at first!!!

Where is this reported?

There are still a lot of us who cannot quite grasp the enormity of what the Ashley takeover means, for both 'now' and for 'the future'. My opinion though is that appointing Allardyce alone has taken us to the top 10 again, that's before his transfer dealings. I have confidence that he'll get the right men in and we'll finish close to Spurs & Everton at the very least. Yes, that is what I also felt, when Allerdyce was appointed - pre takeover. Now, though, it will logically be far better than that! (?)

To be honest, I am having a lot of trouble getting my head around (as I have just said on another hread) the 'enormity' of it all. The enormity-factor is caused by our new billionaire owner, but I so totally agree with you about building the 'spine' of the team. That is what Allerdyce brings to the table, that he is what he is good at. The "Allerdyce Factor".

There are still a lot of us who cannot quite grasp the enormity of what the Ashley takeover means, for both 'now' and for 'the future'.

I do not think that either Asley or Allerdyce would regard even their first seasons ultimate objective as "top 10". It could be (maybe) that that is all we end up getting - but it CANNOT be an 'objective' - and certainly not an objective that they will be telling potential new players about! i was thinking that,reckon top 6 will be the objective Yeah, possibly, but I think we will get more of an idea about this, after Ashley completes the takeover, and his 'player spending' policy becomes more clear. Mid-July?

I do not think that either Ashley or Allerdyce would regard even their first seasons ultimate objective as "top 10". It could be (maybe) that that is all we end up getting - but it CANNOT be an 'objective' - and certainly not an objective that they will be telling potential new players about (though, I know you are not saying that they would actually do that)!

I really like August though, a definite "specific challenge" in each game - if any extra motivation is needed. Should ensure even Dyer TRIES!

I can almost 'hear' him!!!!

It is weird though!

How can they be random - CHELSEA AGAIN!! (Last HOME game) This cannot be coincidence, surely?

How can they be random - CHELSEA AGAIN!! (Last HOME game)

I agree, and with Chelsea's total of (about) £300M losses over (only) a three year period, all their 'spending' money has come from Russia.

Think this is mentioned in one of the other threads - but he has a point. People were quick to jump on Chelsea for spending huge amounts on players, and accused them of buying their titles. Man Utd do it, and they are simply building a strong squad. Double standards when it comes to Man Utd. No double standards, no comparison at all. Manchester United have 'made' their money - earned it. Chelsea have not made ANY money for over three years, they are baled out by "Russian Grants and Donations". It is THAT (un-earned) money they have been spending. That is the difference. I am not a Manchester fan, by the way. Exactly. I hate Man Utd as much as the next man but I appreciate that they make it fair and square, whereas Chelsea don't. Chelsea more than any other club in the country are the epitome of everything that is wrong about football and I don't have any respect or appreciation for them whatsoever. Some people just can't (won't) see that. That is why we need to 'build' here, and use Ashley's additional money (if any!) as just that - ADDITIONAL MONEY (to our own, already large) earned income. Totally unlike the Russian club.

He's right though... blueyes.gif Seriously, look at some of Man U's recent buys. Rooney £18m Ronaldo £18m Carrick £16m Ferdinand £30m Saha £13m (I think?!) Van Nistelrooy £19m Veron £28m Plus loads of others which I can't remember (i.e. Kleberson, Heinze, Park etc.) Plus now £20m on Hargreaves and £30m for Nani and Anderson?!?! And all this as well as poaching young players from around the world, much like Chelsea are doing now too. It's just ridiculous. You need to buy the title. It's been that way almost since the Premiership began... I rest my case... It is a question of 'what with'.

Think this is mentioned in one of the other threads - but he has a point. People were quick to jump on Chelsea for spending huge amounts on players, and accused them of buying their titles. Man Utd do it, and they are simply building a strong squad. Double standards when it comes to Man Utd. No double standards, no comparison at all. Manchester United have 'made' their money - earned it. Chelsea have not made ANY money for over three years, they are baled out by "Russian Grants and Donations". It is THAT (un-earned) money they have been spending. That is the difference. I am not a Manchester fan, by the way.

Our (soon to be) new regime, needs to start to show what they are made of.

There are a limited number of targets. Is it TOO EARLY for Ashley to start showing he means business?? Personally, I do not think it is too early. I know he has not taken over yet, but a quick word in Shepherds ear . . . .

This is probably the best summing-up of the situation - can't see us being title challengers, and a UEFA Cup spot would be a real achievement this season. Would prefer to see Shepherd gone altogether ; we don't know how much power he has retained, OR how many of his retinue/hangers-on are still at the club or associated with it. My concern is that Ashley, being a low-profile operator, may allow him too much leeway in the early days, and that will impede the club's recovery..he may also have had to guarantee Shepherd's position for at least a season in order to persuade him to sell without any hassle.... Also, in playing matters, Sam WILL take time to get the team as he wants it - as we have seen with Ben Haim, it is not easy to secure good players if we are competing with Top 4 clubs ; they want success as well as dosh, and they want it NOW, not in 3 years' time... Once again I say - its a BIG job, and will take time to put right , as well as BIG money.. It is difficult this, isn't it!!? It is very difficult to 'forecast' what will happen in this new world we are in. The future is likely to be so very different from the (very) recent past - more akin to what was happening during the 1992 to 1997 period (with all the progress and attendant excitement) only I suspect it will be much better and more permanent. Also, I think it will see the 'progress' being anchored by winning things. If that is the case, and 'winning cups' is not that great (in the grand scale of things) then we have to be talking about the League. When? I don't know, but being realistic - we have to be challenging in the not too distant future, three seasons tops. I stick by my "new realism" timetable, posted earlier in this thread . . . exciting times ahead for us!