Has Abramovich poisoned his own chalice?

[NMH]

Takes over an English football club with his careless money, hires top manager after top manager, and ....seems they dropped like flies one after the other, and few are rushing to be next in line.
Okay, so it's a big payday whether they succeed or fail, but few want to leave any more reliable careers elsewhere to take over the Chelsea team. The squad seem a bit ramshackle and slung together for the sake of it now, less cohesion and some dodgy names there to deal with.

Not affecting us, Gus won't be heading there I know - but it WAS a good club with a strong league history until the Russian came in. Their fans might have thought the ship had come in, and they'd be laughing away with the trophies just falling into their lap.

Shambles.

 

[BensGrandad]

Takes over an English football club with his careless money, hires top manager after top manager, and ....seems they dropped like flies one after the other, and few are rushing to be next in line.
Okay, so it's a big payday whether they succeed or fail, but few want to leave any more reliable careers elsewhere to take over the Chelsea team. The squad seem a bit ramshackle and slung together for the sake of it now, less cohesion and some dodgy names there to deal with.

Not affecting us, Gus won't be heading there I know - but it WAS a good club with a strong league history until the Russian came in. Their fans might have thought the ship had come in, and they'd be laughing away with the trophies just falling into their lap.

Shambles.

Where does that come from? They were a middle of the road Division 1 side winning very little and not getting relegated. During the 50s & 60s they were mainly relegation candidates. I would think that Chelsea fans have relished the days of Abramovich as they had never seen such success before then.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Where does that come from?

Do you really have to ask?

 

[BensGrandad]

But the statement 'but it WAS a good club with a strong league history until the Russian came in' is wrong that was never the case. Since he became involved they have far exceeded any previous history and any expectations. They were always competing with West Ham as the poor relations of London in division 1 terms and trying to be the 3rd best London team behind Arsenal and Spurs.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Simply...no

 

[Hungry Joe]

But the statement 'but it WAS a good club with a strong league history until the Russian came in' is wrong that was never the case. Since he became involved they have far exceeded any previous history and any expectations. They were always competing with West Ham as the poor relations of London in division 1 terms and trying to be the 3rd best London team behind Arsenal and Spurs.

My question related to NMH's bizarre thought processes, not your sensible repost.

 

[NMH]

"Founded in 1905, they play in the Premier League and have spent most of their history in the top tier of English football. Chelsea have been English champions four times, FA Cup winners six times and League Cup winners four times. They have also achieved European success, winning the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup twice"

But don't let that stop you people changing history to suit y'selves. Next you'll tell me they had not been in The Champions League, until it was CREATED

 

[NMH]

My question related to NMH's bizarre thought processes, not your sensible repost.

 

[Gwylan]

"Founded in 1905, they play in the Premier League and have spent most of their history in the top tier of English football. Chelsea have been English champions four times, FA Cup winners six times and League Cup winners four times. They have also achieved European success, winning the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup twice"

But don't let that stop you people changing history to suit y'selves. Next you'll tell me they had not been in The Champions League, until it was CREATED

You said that "it WAS a good club with a strong league history until the Russian came in". I don't see demonstrating how many honours the club has won after Abramovitch has taken over helps your argument.

As BG pointed out, prior to Abramovitch, the club had won one league title in its history. It had a couple of cups but had spent quite a few seasons in the 80s in the second tier. It had a decent league record but certainly not a strong one.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Too easy. Like taking candy from a baby.

 

[NMH]

But the statement 'but it WAS a good club with a strong league history until the Russian came in' is wrong that was never the case. Since he became involved they have far exceeded any previous history and any expectations. They were always competing with West Ham as the poor relations of London in division 1 terms and trying to be the 3rd best London team behind Arsenal and Spurs.

Their winning trophies by spending huge £££ is not changing their "strong league history". It doesn't mean their history STOPPED or went downhill, it means they have had a strong history up until then.

Sorry, I was using the English language and I guess that is still a bit confusing for some of you.

 

[MikeySmall]

You said that "it WAS a good club with a strong league history until the Russian came in". I don't see demonstrating how many honours the club has won after Abramovitch has taken over helps your argument.

As BG pointed out, prior to Abramovitch, the club had won one league title in its history. It had a couple of cups but had spent quite a few seasons in the 80s in the second tier. It had a decent league record but certainly not a strong one.

And they were financially screwed!!

 

[NMH]

You said that "it WAS a good club with a strong league history until the Russian came in". I don't see demonstrating how many honours the club has won after Abramovitch has taken over helps your argument.

As BG pointed out, prior to Abramovitch, the club had won one league title in its history. It had a couple of cups but had spent quite a few seasons in the 80s in the second tier. It had a decent league record but certainly not a strong one.

So by that token, our league history is completely shite. No point in stating that we are a historic English club at all, Brighton have never won the top division or major cups so ....no mark club The shame.

 

[BensGrandad]

League Champions 1954/55 pre Abromovich
2004/5
2005/6
2009/10

FA Cup Winners 1969/70
1996/97
199/2000
2006/07
2008/09
2009/10

League Cup Winners 1965
1998
2007

EUFA Cup Winners Cup 1971
1998

Abramovich took over in June 2003 so it is plain to see that they have had most of their success due to his money.

 

[Silent Bob]

So he's poisoned the chalice, which he himself fetched out of the toilet and gave a good clean, that's EXACTLY what he's done.

 

[Gwylan]

So by that token, our league history is completely shite. No point in stating that we are a historic English club at all, Brighton have never won the top division or major cups so ....no mark club The shame.

But you didn't say historic, you said "strong". I don't think outside observers ticking off a list of strong English teams would have Brighton anywhere on it.

But 20 years ago, Chelsea would have been low on that list too.

 

[terryberry1]

What is it with Russian's and poisen?

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

the main problem that I can see is that mourinho brought in an excellent set of players (alongside players like terry and lampard that were already there), but most of those players have either left or are past their prime....no manager has been given enough time to rebuild the squad

the likes of carvalho, makalele, ballack, robben, joe cole have all left....cech, terry, ashley cole, lampard, essien and drogba are probably (or definitely?) past their best

I can't see the logic in hiring a 33 year old manager (who they spent a LOT of money getting in) and not giving him the time needed to rebuild that squad

short term thinking seems to be abramovich's main fault.....who knows, if they'd won the champions league under grant (they were a john terry blunder away from it) he might've f***ed off sooner

 

[beorhthelm]

he certainly has poisoned the chalice with this latest reaction, who would take the job now? but the logic used to get to this conclusion is bizzare, they've had 3 league titles (2nd every other year bar one), won 3 FA cups and 2 league cups in 8 years. i think that counts as the ship coming in.

 

[NMH]

But you didn't say historic, you said "strong". I don't think outside observers ticking off a list of strong English teams would have Brighton anywhere on it.

But 20 years ago, Chelsea would have been low on that list too.

In my lifetime, they have been pretty strong, featured in some excellent competitions with Leeds as adversary in the early 70's, and had some great players that were internationals.
Because Liverpool, Forest, ManU and Arsenal had been winning league titles and trophies didn't make them the only strong teams or great ones. Just as today doesn't only have 2 teams because Manchester is competing for the league. Comparing West Ham as "poor relations" only proves my point, as The Hammers aren't too shabby either.

This fast-returns expectation that has been ignited with big-spending owners is at its' worst with Chelsea, and especially with the management turnover in particular.
The continental style is with Chelsea in full, with managers sacked if they aren't winning the league or a major cup. That is distasteful in my opinion. Okay so they stuck with a failing manager longer than expected - this time. But how many of the biggest names in management have been through the doors in the last decade? It's getting silly - and who-ever takes the chair next is going to be conspicuous in the light of expectation.
Buying Torres when he wasn't so interested in leaving Liverpool was a very bad move, it turned out.

Natural team-building with youth-teamers coming through, and a consistent membership of the first team seems preferable for us too, I'm not altogether comfortable with the continual influx of names. We were topping the division early this season, but Gus wasn't to keep faith with that squad .... I'm not sure that we would have suddenly plummetted without any tinkering whatsoever. Not going to state that we'd have maintained a top place, of course not.