Benners, it’s only a slight adaptation of Chelski – blame the British press for the tendency to add “-ski” to anything Russian-related.

Anyway, today’s events at West Ham have made my eyes pop out somewhat even though in hindsight it’s just part of the grander scheme of Abramovich, Berezovsky and friends using the world of footy for their dirty little purposes:
http://www.playthegame.org/upload/rafael_maranhao_-_the_boom_of_a_brazilian_club.pdf

Big companies with international reputations collapse sometimes, and none are garaunteed to stay afloat. We overspent and ended up in a state. I don’t know what you are talking about REAL reputations for, we were a good European side that had beaten the best teams in Europe in recent years. We were contenders at the top consistantly for years, and won alot of domestic honours as well as bringing in some great continental players. (If Chelsea weren’t real contenders by coming 3rd and 4th in the league in recent years, then you have to admit Arsenal and Liverpool aren’t real contenders at the moment.)

I’m not saying that we were bigger than Barcelona, Real Madrid or Manchester United. I’m saying we’re a well known and well respected European club that has come to the fore after massive financial investment and restructuring.

How can you quote a sentence where Roman says “i don’t want to throw my money away” and then say that he’s happy to throw his money away.

Chairman usually buy a club to enjoy the experience and have their influence to try and improve a club, it’s not insane for him to mention that he wants to have fun.

A ‘ruthless’ billionaire who has put 1.1 billion pounds into charities in his home nation will usually keep his cards to his chest. Kenyon was happy to forecast a bright future for the club without detailing the intricacies of the business plan.

We now have 2 players for every position (nearly) and a host of great young players. The spending will relax soon, and you guys haven’t seen ANYTHING if you think Chelsea are dominating the league currently. The players sold by Chelsea have all been sold because they aren’t key to the future of the club (although Tiago, Duff and Parker deserve honourable mentions as players that Mourinho thought he needed but had to sell in their best interests.)

Arsenal were benefactors of the distortion of the transfer market, they benefitted from their club’s pulling power which NECESSITATED smaller clubs releasing players for less than they were worth. Now Arsenal can’t abuse their reputation and under-pay smaller clubs for the star players because TOP players cost TOP dollar. Chelsea have paid ridiculous amounts to buy the players they need to succeed long and short term.

Maybe your clubs just aren’t as well respected as you thought they were. Real Madrid and Barcelona seem to be doing fine at the moment.

You are guessing about the Chelsea bid for Walcott, there was no official bid.

John Terry had an opportunity to join Manchester United (he met with Alex Ferguson when he was younger) and turned them down because he felt Chelsea were moving in the right direction and treated him like a real professional. He signed professional terms at the usual time every promising youth player does. Whatever, i’m not going to argue the validity of the word signing, he was not brought through the youth team AFTER SIGNING FOR THE CLUB in consideration of the short term. (Huth came through the youth training system as well dead-eye.)

I agree you are a pesimist in regard to Chelsea. You aren’t being particularly pessimistic about Arsenal’s future.

Ballack could have gone to Real for tax free wages and would have made similar money. He came to Chelsea because at the time (before Juventus fell apart) we looked like the better side. Have you forgotten that we were joint favourites with Barcelona to win the champion’s league last year? People like winning that trophy i hear.

It has been Wenger’s and Benitez’ safety blanket in the league for 3 years. They both have complained constantly about Chelsea’s money, which has subconsciously made it okay for them to underperform domestically and undermined the success of Chelsea’s unbelievable team. Sounds like an excuse to cop-out, and I wouldn’t be happy if I was an Arsenal or Liverpool fan turning up to my own stadium and watching a team of lightweight European players tapping the ball around like it’s a warm up for the knock out competitions.

Interesting then that both of those sides underperformed in the league and tried to pick away at the other big clubs in the Champions League. Why do you think both of those teams were so vunerable in the league and undefeatable in their respective Champions League runs? More heart? More desire? Hardly, they are just fitter because they have an excuse not to try in the league.

What do you think Rocky? Do you think the dogged determination of players like Igor Biscan and Flamini has been the reason they did well in the Champions League, or the fact that both teams relax in the league and save their strength for the knock-out competition so they can play on the break?

If Chelsea do indeed have an international reputation (nothing compared to Man United and Real Madrid, who have REAL international reputation), then they shouldn’t have had a problem recovering from the financial mess they were in before Abramovich took over. Abramovich, had he seen this as a business, would’ve exploited Chelsea’s potential to be a successful properly-run club, no?

However, Abramovich admitted from day one that Chelsea would be his toy. He did not buy Chelsea to turn it into a profitable, well-run club. He said to the BBC:

“…it’s not about making money. I have many much less risky ways of making money than this. I don’t want to throw my money away, but it’s really about having fun and that means success and trophies.”

Therefore, it’s not even an issue at the club! As a result, buying everything required to win will take precedence over a long-term strategy to run Chelsea like any other club for as long as Abramovich is in charge. The policies at Chelsea reflect that.

Arsenal were not benefactors of any transfer market distortion as we could never afford to pay the kind of money the likes of Madrid, Juventus and Man United paid for players. Inaccurate statement as far as that is concerned.

As far as United’s benefits from transfer market distortion are concerned, they are balanced out on the other side where United shares are being traded. Dud buys like Seba Veron harm United’s shareprice and the shareprice was even more dependent on United’s success on the pitch. A Champions League exit would affect them even more than a club in the same competition that was not being traded on the stock exchange. Therefore, it evened out because United weren’t sucking off an unlimited flow of cash like Chelsea are.

Your assertion that the transfer market will settle is not new. Many said this would happen in 2006 as well, however, Chelsea have again exceeded the 50 million mark in transfer spending. And will continue to do so simply because winning at any cost is the motto at the club right now, as reflected by Abramovich’s vision. You’re basing your assertion on a hope that it might, I based my pessimism on actual trends.

As for Walcott, Chelsea had a higher bid than Arsenal accepted but Walcott was only ever going to Arsenal. We actually did get him for less than Chelsea’s bid, reported to be between 15 and 17 million in a structured deal.

Also, John Terry wasn’t ‘signed’, he came through the youth ranks.

Chelsea will continue to spend simply because money is a luring factor for the really big signings you lot are making right now. Weren’t Shevchenko and Ballack already playing at seriously big clubs? This will result in a continuation of their dominance in competitions, and that’s fine. But please call a spade a spade and don’t argue that Chelsea have breaking even and smoothing operations at the top of their priority list. If they did, they’d have used the international reputation and awesome business potential that exists at the club.

Not liking what Chelsea are doing is not a “safety blanket” for Arsenal fans, another inaccurate statement. I speak for myself, and if you look at my reports and articles, you won’t see me blaming Chelsea for any of our ills right now, would you? I didn’t respond to your comment because you got carried away and I’d rather this doesn’t get personal. However, I stand by my original statement and have provided further evidence to the effect in this comment. Sweeping statements, hardly so.