Wenger the 'voyeur'.

[c3blu]

Arsene Wenger is at it again, giving opinions on things that dont concern him. Not content with trying to tell teams like Bolton and Blackburn which tactics to use when visiting the Emirates, he is once again casting his envious eyes towards the Bridge.

Chelsea's ?80m loss is the latest topic to be granted Wengers over-rated opinion.Moaning again(shock) about how unfair life is(convieniently forgetting Arsenal have been the richest club in London for years) He states that we should only be allowed to spend what we earn. Forgetting to mention the fact Chelsea unlike almost every other club in the top flight are not in any debt. He fails to tell us weather this means spending profit or turnover, if its the latter and we can only spend ?160m a season on new talent then i'd be sick.

He also fails to tell us how the mighty gooners(a proper club by the way) are almost ?500m in debt.(i think that takes care of there transfer budget for the next 20-30yrs)

Wengers been told once to mind his own business, its nothing to do with him how we run our club. It always seems to be us as well. Liverpool are reported to be about ?100m in debt, it does'nt stop them spending money and they hav'nt built their new stadium yet. It looks like foriegn investment is going to take care of their problems but for some reason thats allowed. Man U also seem to escape his rath, and we all know they like Arsenal have an almighty mortgage. Wenger should put his own house in order(people in glass houses and all that).

Then the bit that makes me really laugh and wonder what the point of the article was in the first place(unless its the start of the CC final banter/mind games) he say's we are lucky to have the advantage of a benefactor and that if he had one he'd gladly use it? What a

[Nibs]

C3, whilst I agree with most of that, at the same time, I do have a lot of time for Wenger.

And I do admit, that whilst at first, I was all for the Roman era - especially as we had a heck of a lot of catch up to do in terms of getting a squad and coach that would enable us to compete at the very top, now, I really do feel that it's gone too far. When we can afford to lay out ?21m on the likes of Wright Phillips and ?30m on a player whose best days are clearly behind him, never mind paying ?100k a week to players like Ballack you have to question it. It can't be right that we can afford to lose ?140m last year and ?80m this year and yet that has no bearing on the day to day running of the club and we can still go out and spend another ?30m on one player without a blink of an eye.

I know the powers are saying this will be changing going forward and as far as I'm concerned the sooner the better, as whilst we have this totally unlevel playing field we will NEVER get the credit we deserve for any success.

[ethicalstrategy]

C3, whilst I agree with most of that, at the same time, I do have a lot of time for Wenger.

And I do admit, that whilst at first, I was all for the Roman era - especially as we had a heck of a lot of catch up to do in terms of getting a squad and coach that would enable us to compete at the very top, now, I really do feel that it's gone too far. When we can afford to lay out ?21m on the likes of Wright Phillips and ?30m on a player whose best days are clearly behind him, never mind paying ?100k a week to players like Ballack you have to question it. It can't be right that we can afford to lose ?140m last year and ?80m this year and yet that has no bearing on the day to day running of the club and we can still go out and spend another ?30m on one player without a blink of an eye.

I know the powers are saying this will be changing going forward and as far as I'm concerned the sooner the better, as whilst we have this totally unlevel playing field we will NEVER get the credit we deserve for any success.

There has always been an unlevel playing field and there always will be.

At the moment we have the benefit of an owner who can afford to invest in the club in order to bring it to a point where it can compete at both a domestic and global level. I don't see that as being any different to how Liverpool or Man U were able to establish themselves as dominant forces in previous decades.

The people moaning the loudest are the one's most threatened.

Imagine you saw a property that you liked and which you felt could be just what you wanted, but that it was in a poor state of repair. You buy it at a relatively cheap price recognising that to start with you will have to pump a fair amount of money in to get it to how you want it. After that your costs get less as you only need to maintain it.

I'm sure that some people will be happy for you with your nice new house, but there will be some neighbours who resent the fact that yours is now better than theirs!

[Nibs]

I would argue about there always being an unlevel playing field. Sure there will always be big clubs and smaller clubs but no way has it ever been as bad as it is now.

In the 70's & 80's Liverpool dominated but you still had plenty of other clubs that were always in with a shout of winning the league. And the FA cup was regularly won by different teams as opposed to one of the big four like it has been for more than a decade. Sure Liverpool and the other big clubs would attract the best players but that didn't make it unlevel as it is now.

I'm not saying that is anything to do with us and Roman's money, because if Roman had not come along it would be back to Man Utd & Arsenal battling it out. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather we were competing like we are now than be a no hope club who know even before a ball is kicked in August that the best they can hope for is mid table respectability. But now we have caught up with the "big boys", I want to see us do things the right way and for me that doesn't consist of what we got involved in last summer.

[Backbiter]

Just for a bit of historical perspective.

I'm reading ' A Serious Case of The Blues - Chelsea in the 80s', by Clive batty, which is in fact a detailed look at the period from 1975 to 1989. Between 1975 and 1979 we bought NO players. Spent nothing. Zilch. And got relegated twice and promoted once. Nearly went out of business.

All because we spent ?3.4m redeveloping the East stand. Just like Arsenal spending ?500m on a new ground, but not quite as extravagant.

[Englishman]

If Wenger is concerned about wealthy benefactors and out-spending your rivals, I suggest he and all those self-righteouss Gooners read up on some of Arsenal's history. In particular a wealthy (and very corrupt) businessman named Henry Norris who saved them from extinction and then hired the best manager of his era for a record salary. Not for nothing were they known as the 'Bank of England' club during the 1930s.

[Chippy]

Do you think Arsene is developing an unhealthy interest in Chelsea?

Dont know if this has been posted before but cant find it,

Wenger questions PSV-Blues link

By Graeme Bailey - Created on 20 Feb 2007

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has questioned the relationship between PSV Eindhoven and Chelsea. Wenger's men tackle PSV in the last 16 of the UEFA Champions League with the first leg at The Philips Stadion on Tuesday. Ahead of the clash, Wenger has taken the opportunity to launch a thinly-veiled dig at The Gunners' London rivals. "You have to know the bottom of things to know what the connection [between the clubs] really is," Wenger said. "There seems to be one, but I don't know what kind of connection exists legally."

Chelsea's connection with PSV is not a straightforward co-operation. On more than one occasion, The Blues have helped finance a deal for a player - normally South American or one which cannot obtain a work-permit for England - with PSV who use the player, but in return Chelsea have the option to take him in the future. The most well known of these deals thus far has been for Brazilian defender Alex - who is now one of PSV's star performers and was linked with a move to Stamford Bridge in January.

Although Arsenal themselves have co-operation deals all over the world, Wenger insists that Chelsea's deal is not so simple. "We had a connection with Beveren [of Belgium] with one difference - that they do not play in the Champions League. Eindhoven don't play in the same league as Chelsea, but they play in the same [Champions League] competition. It's very difficult to control, that's why the ownership of the players has to be clear."

http://home.skysports.com/list.aspx?hli ... &channel=&

[dkw]

its ridiculous isnt it. beveren dont play in the champions league. but they could, couldnt they? if they won there league. the mans an idiot

[Nibs]

Just for a bit of historical perspective.

I'm reading ' A Serious Case of The Blues - Chelsea in the 80s', by Clive batty, which is in fact a detailed look at the period from 1975 to 1989. Between 1975 and 1979 we bought NO players. Spent nothing. Zilch. And got relegated twice and promoted once. Nearly went out of business.

That really is quite amazing when you think about it. I know it's well documented how we nearly went out of business but I would never have thought that during a 4 year period we did not buy a single player. Blimey, how things have changed.

Will have to try and get hold of a copy of that book - sounds a good & interesting read (although let's not forget we are Chelsea and we don't have a history )

[Backbiter]

Here's the link (goes via the CSR2 link at the bottom ofthe page, so the site takes a cut!):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Serious-Case-Bl ... F8&s=books

Have just finished the chapter about all the off-field incidents, at Millwall, Charlton etc. and how our fans turned up in huge numbers even when banned (I did a few times - never a problem getting tickets).

Highly recommended!

[Scott]

The Special One put's Wenger in his place.

For all the other matters on Mourinho?s mind as Chelsea chase four trophies, Wenger?s perceived obsession with the club continues to needle, which should add further spice to Sunday?s Carling Cup final.

The Arsenal manager?s observation on Monday that Roman Abramovich should not be allowed to bankroll their ?80 million losses has not gone down well at Stamford Bridge, with Mourinho responding with the old-fashioned cry of ?show us your medals?. As usual the Portuguese was speaking from a position of strength, with his Uefa Cup and Champions League double with Porto contrasting favourably with Wenger?s unwanted hat-trick of final defeats in the European Cup Winners? Cup, Uefa Cup and Champions League with Monaco and Arsenal.

?If you judge my Chelsea career on whether I win the Champions League, you have to judge all the other coaches in the Champions League who have never won it,? Mourinho said. ?I have already done it once so I am in front of a lot of them. If I have pressure, imagine what the other managers in the world feel.

?Many great managers in the world have never done it. The big example is not far from us. Ars?ne Wenger is a top manager in the world and he never did it. Don?t laugh, I?m serious! So when I did it once, I can thank God I?ve had that privilege.?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/foo...icle1415399.ece

[BLUENUT]

Ars?ne Wenger is a top manager in the world and he never did it. Don?t laugh, I?m serious!

JM=

[Fansince65]

This really should be posted on the jokes thread, but I think here is more apt. the scene is JM's office at the bridge, he is sharing a bottle of the finest claret with Fergie after Chelsea have played United, they are discussing managers past and present, suddenly they decide to compare them to various types of birds, Fergie asks "How would you describe the great sir Matt Busby?

JM.."Like a phoenix, rising from the ashes and achieving greatness & immortality! how would you describe Bill Shankley ?" asks JM.

Fergie.. "like the owl, wise and crafty, what about our mutual friend Arsene Wenger? which bird would you compare him to Jose?"

JM.. " A Thrush"

Fergie.."eh ?"

JM.. "an irritating c**t"!............