BD Replies:
You can’t address the issues anymore. Your idiocy is showing.

Jackal Says:
“You would have had ample time to examine your position. So I’m disappointed that you have come back doing an impersonation of a librarian. A fixated one at that. And your still making the “Not Fair, Not Fair, Boo Hoo” noises that have been coming out of the Anti Chelsea lobby since what you seem to think of as “Year Zero” – When the nasty big bad wolf made his aquisition and the status quo got the wind up.”

BD Replies:
State clearly “Chelsea would have had the success of recent years regardless of Abramovitch’s money.”
Just state that in response please! Then your idiocy will REALLY be showing.

Jackal Says:
Yes, Chelsea are a threat. Get over it. The resource argument is not credible. What do you want? – All clubs with the exact same resources? – A sort of Communist Ideology set up? – Well guess what, that argument would totally discredit all of Man Uniteds recent achievements, would it not? Or are you going to stay in hypocrite mode and deny that. And no feeble wittering about where the money comes from. A debt is a debt, an operating loss is a loss (or a long term investment, in some eyes) Everyone has a form of debt. That is how “Business” operates and what business is about.

BD Replies:
You clearly understand NOTHING of the going concern principle of business. Some clubs have more resources than others because they have managed themselves better and have been more successful. All, however, have operated on an even playing field.

That is until the Russian rolled-up and gave Chelsea an unprecedented advantage.

Jackal Says:
“So just cut the crap. You are merely attempting a cheap manouvre to deflect attention and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see where you are coming from.”

BD Replies:
Que?? Do you even know what point you’re trying to make at this juncture??

Jackal Says:
“I initially objected to some points you made which were based on bogus arguments. You are still repeating the same bogus arguments. Or staying on anti Chelsea message, in other words. If you are not prepared (or able) to be rational then this “debate” can go no further. Same old crap does not prove anything beyond the level of conditioning that some parties have soaked up.”

BD Replies:
You surmise that my arguments are bogus and I’m not rational because my views differ from yours and you can’t construct substantive points to support your view. So you keep going off subject and being silly, to try and deflect from your inadequacies in that department.

Jackal Says:
“Get a grip on the facts and engage some brain cells, FFS”

BD Replies:
Pathetic! Grasping at straws! You can no longer rationalize an argument. Furthermore I have dealt with the facts in relation to money spent, losses run up and (in the case of Mourinho) trophies won.

Jackal Says:
“One final piece of good advice:Believe what you see, not what you hear.”

BD Replies:
Not that advice from you could ever be regarded as safe but………are you just trying to look intelligent here or is there some point in this, relevant to anything that has gone before??

Now let’s not forget the “3 in a row” revelation which has categorically revealed you as a fraud and (at best) a part timer.
Learn about football and how to construct an argument and get back to me. Until then……over and out!

You would have had ample time to examine your position. So I’m disappointed that you have come back doing an impersonation of a librarian. A fixated one at that. And your still making the “Not Fair, Not Fair, Boo Hoo” noises that have been coming out of the Anti Chelsea lobby since what you seem to think of as “Year Zero” – When the nasty big bad wolf made his aquisition and the status quo got the wind up.

Yes, Chelsea are a threat. Get over it. The resource argument is not credible. What do you want? – All clubs with the exact same resources? – A sort of Communist Ideology set up? – Well guess what, that argument would totally discredit all of Man Uniteds recent achievements, would it not? Or are you going to stay in hypocrite mode and deny that. And no feeble wittering about where the money comes from. A debt is a debt, an operating loss is a loss (or a long term investment, in some eyes) Everyone has a form of debt. That is how “Business” operates and what business is about.

So just cut the crap. You are merely attempting a cheap manouvre to deflect attention and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see where you are coming from. I initially objected to some points you made which were based on bogus arguments. You are still repeating the same bogus arguments. Or staying on anti Chelsea message, in other words. If you are not prepared (or able) to be rational then this “debate” can go no further. Same old crap does not prove anything beyond the level of conditioning that some parties have soaked up.

Get a grip on the facts and engage some brain cells, FFS

One final piece of good advice:Believe what you see, not what you hear.

The former underachieved and is overrated, the latter only in contention because of a financial platform that has never been afforded to any other club in history.

So you are a long term Chelsea fan. I know a couple myself who remained dormant between 1971 and 2004, but we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, this longevity brings us back to:

“Failure to win 3 consecutive Premiership titles a major negative? I’m not one for having all of the facts and figures in my long term memory, so please excuse me if I ask you when a team last did this. Please go back in time to the origins of the Football League itself if this is necessary. I expect it has been done at some point, but I wouldn’t bet on it.”

Inexcusable!! You have lived through 2 of the occasions that ’3 in a row’ was done! Unfortunately, this undermines your credibility completely. Any fan worth his salt would have known this!

You have been uncovered as a fraud!

Finally, don’t accuse others of lacking objectivity because they support another team. Your one-eyed view of this issue emanates from the fact you support the team the whole article concerns….no question mark over your objectivity then!!!???

No wonder you want Grant to stay. No wonder you are using the very same arguments that issued forth 3 seasons ago when the Mancs were getting spanked. I guess they have become a deeply embedded reflex by now.

Are these the very reasons that were responsible for SAF having never beaten a Mourinho led Chelsea until the Charity Shield at the beginning of this season?

And if, as you say, its all about resources, would you not concede that Manchester United’s record in the CL under SAF is actually extremely poor, bordering on “Abject failure”, (to use a spot of hyperbole that you are fond of, just to colour the argument ) why is this? – is it anything to do with his abilities, or facets thereof?

Glad you think I might be a “nouveau” Chelsea Supporter. All I will say is that I can see Stamford Bridge when I look out of my kitchen window and the first time I saw them was against Everton at Goodison. We lost 5-2. Look up the year if you feel so inclined.

If I had to guess, I’d say that the closest you get to Old Trafford is Google Earth and your idea of supporting them, rather than making any financial contribution (“supporter”) is to try and contribute (from a distance) by dissing the opposition in cyberspace and generally fighting your (self made) corner. Excuse the conjecture, perhaps you would care to tell me whether I’m getting warm or not?

I’ve not read your Mourinho article (thus far)incidentally. But I can hazard a guess.

Incidentally, “passionate” is good, but “objective” should not be overlooked,if and where possible.

Are you guilty of previously undisclosed bias, dya think?

Link to an article I wrote last year regarding Mourinho.

http://soccerlens.com/chelsea-has-jose-mourinho-lost-his-bottle/1592/

Hi BD, thanks for your considered response, which will address shortly. In the meantime, could you just confirm that it was you that posted this on the skysports site recently?

Bd Condell (Manchester United fan) says…

From a morale point of view Keegan is probably what is needed right now. However, whether he succeeds in bringing Newcastle to a new level will depend on the amount of money made available (as it would for any other manager appointed). On the downside, longer term, Keegan, while clearly a charismatic guy, has shown that he doesn’t have the temprement for management. He’s too emotional; needs to be adored by the fans constantly; and when things go wrong he can’t take the heat and walks. Last week Kev declared that he was probably finished with management and his life had gone another direction. This week he accepts the Newcastle job! The man’s an emotional roller coaster ride. He definitely won’t be boring though!

Posted 01:10 17th January 2008

???? -I’m just trying to figure out what your motivation is, thats all!

“BD, I asked you to qualify your comments not because I couldn’t understand the words, but because they made no particular sense. Not even if they were skillfuly rearranged. So referring all and sundry back to them is not, in fact, of any help. I was hoping/expecting a cogent argument based on logical propositions with an underpinning of accurate facts.”

What it says is clear, as is the argument. With the resources available any number of managers could have delivered success at Chelsea and most would have done better than Mourinho i.e.delivered the CL as well.
Is that clear enough for you? Its a straight forward point, not needing any further ‘logical proposition’ to support it. The ‘facts’ are the money and resources the Russian made available and the trophies that Mourinho won.

Marry the two and in my opinion he underachieved in his time there. You may disagree and thats your perogative but please……..it’s a straight forward point…you must get it by now??

As for:
“To persist with “The Tealady could have won the CL” line is plainly absurd and does not serve you well. Neither does this “half a billion dollars to spend” thing. A complete and utter falsehood. Its just waaaaay off base. More mindless reinforcement of the “Big Bad Chelsea” myth.”

Regarding the Tealady, it’s hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point.) It also adds some colour to the argument.

The “utter falsehood” claim is worn out by Chelsea fans. The fact is that the Russian invested hundreds of millions of his own cash in Chelsea, facilitating the buying of a team/squad beyond the means of any other club on the planet. Since his arrival, Chelsea has operated at HUGE losses, driven in part by their willingness to attract players by offering over inflated salaries.
All other clubs are answerable to their shareholders/owners and have to operate as going concerns.

Hence Chelsea have not been playing on an even playing field (so to speak) and have had a huge advantage over all of their rivals because of this. Other clubs that are financially strong (Man Utd, Arsenal) got there through successful running of their clubs on and off the pitch and have had to do so while remaining profitable and generating the profit for future growth. To try and deny this as THE ONLY reason that Chelsea are competing at the top level is naiive, delusional and rather pathetic…but hey if the cap fits!

By extension of the above, any manager given the role of managing Chelsea is a shoe in to win trophies and proves nothing regarding ability, in my view.

Regarding your 3 in a row bombshell…News Update:

Huddersfield Town 1923, 1924, 1925

Arsenal 1933, 1934, 1935

Liverpool 1982, 1983, 1984

Man Utd 1999, 2000, 2001

Makes one wonder exactly how much you know about football and suggests you are one of these nouveau Chelsea fans who only took interest when the Rusiian arrived with his cash??

Finally, the UEFA cup comment doesn’t merit a comeback. The analogy is laughable. Don’t insult my intelligence please.

Because of the slowness on counter attacks Chelsea creates very few scoring opportunities in a game. Hence they have to fight too hard in order to win. Hence the numerous injuries. If Chelsea can play the way they did in 2005 against Barcelona (4-2) they would find life easy.

When attacking the whole team has to be involved, it should not only be Drogba openning up. Midllefielders and strikers should always prepare themselves to receive a pass anytime. Unfortunately in Chelsea passes are so predictable that opponents easily snatch the ball from the person receiving a pass. No wonder most of Chelsea passes are backward.

Can someone forward this to Avram Grant?