OhForAGreavsie

P.S. The 2003 football rich list was calculated and published before Roman bought Chelsea. Its top ten already included four English sides. The Premier League was already big before Roman. Rank Club Income (€ million) Country 1. Manchester United 217.2 England 2. Juventus 173.5 Italy 3. Bayern Munich 173.2 Germany 4. Milan 164.6 Italy 5. Real Madrid 138.2 Spain 6. Liverpool 137.6 England 7. Lazio 125.4 Italy 8. Roma 123.8 Italy 9. Chelsea 118.4 England 10. Internazionale 112.8 Italy

Of course Roman has had an impact, and yes of course he acted as a trailblazer for other international investors in the Premier League. Those are not the points with which I disagreed however. You said. "Look at the bigger picture the reason that English football is so massive is indirectly because of Abramovich." My point is, and was, that the premier League was already massive before Roman and would be just as big as it is now with or without him. To repeat what I said earlier, Roman got into the premier League because it was massive, it didn't get massive because he got into it. The growth in the league's revenues since 2003 are to do with market forces and the changed nature of pay TV, not because Roman bought Chelsea. Indeed revenues had already grown massively between 1992 and 2003, before any of us had ever heard of Roman.

Charly flatters to deceive. Either Rogers was just giving it the big talk, or he was deceived himself.

It's not possible to stipulate that a player must play but we, like all clubs, do put the only practicable clauses in loan contracts. First, clubs are given the incentive that they pay us a lower loan fee if they use our players than if they do not. Second, loan contracts can be terminated unilaterally by Chelsea at the next window, or sooner by mutual consent, if the player does not accumulate a given percentage of possible minutes. Not much else that can be done contractually I think.

Hello Iggy, You’re suggesting that, because of Roman, the Premier League is much richer than it would have been without him. As I said in my first reply, I think that if this is true at all it is true to a marginal extent only. The factors I mentioned, along with the growth of pay TV, played a much, much bigger role. I see no evidence that Premier League revenues would be noticeably lower had Roman not bought Chelsea. Of course Chelsea might not be a power in the league if he hadn’t, but that’s a different conversation. My point re Brighton is that they earned their place in the Premier League and since they didn’t benefit from a greater revenue boost to get them there than any other team did, they would have been just as likely to make it even if revenues were lower. In any case, as above, I don’t think the revenue would be significantly different if there had been no Roman.

To a marginal extent only. It is more true to say that Roman is in English football because it was already big before he arrived. More true, but not wholly so because we must also factor in that Football Association rules and national legislation make it easier for overseas owners to buy in to our clubs than is the case in some other countries. Premier League revenue growth was already well underway before Roman arrived. My own view is that the long standing international popularity of England's top division, which predates the Premier League, is more to do with the emotional attachment people felt towards Man Utd after Munich, the fact that the1966 World Cup was the first to be televised with anything even approaching modern standards, that outside of the World Cup, The FA Cup Final was the only show-piece football occasion people saw around the world, that Liverpool's dominance during the 70's & early 80's made them a worldwide fascination, that the cultural ties between Britain and some of the world's biggest markets were strong, and most importantly there was a gap to be filled. Like The Beatles, English football was the right product at the right time. I don't see why not since it's all relative. Without the huge revenue injections they would certainly have had lesser budgets but so too would the teams they were competing with. In any case, during their rise to the top tier, they have regularly outperformed clubs with bigger resources than they could call on. Let's remember that many clubs have made the same climb before the Premier League came into being, including teams with even fewer resources than those you mention.

Our U19’s scraped past a very good Porto side in their UEFA Youth League semi-final played in Nyon this afternoon. The lads have therefore reached the final of this competition for a third time in four years. The tie was settled by three decisive penalty saves from keeper Jamie Cumming after a late Blues equaliser forced spot kicks. Porto held a deserved 2-1 lead with time winding down. The Portuguese side will feel hard done by, and Joe Edwards will feel that his team can, and must, play better in Monday’s final against Barcelona. Barça outlasted Manchester City to win a thrilling match 5-4. This despite leading 5-2 at half time against a Citizens side which had been reduced to 10 men after half an hour. Barcelona’s keeper needed to make three good stops late on to stave off a great fight back by the City kids.

First, you'd have to believe the story which claims the big clubs are interested. I don't.

Interesting read Thor. Thank you. Have to say that I completely disagree with you. From the first time I saw his highlight videos I thought, and posted to say, that Kennedy was not good enough. I felt, and still feel, that his technique was/is lacking. Clearly we are seeing the same stuff, we just assess it differently. As for the plaudits at Newcastle, my view is that it's hype just as I said, and say, that Charly Musonda's good reviews at Betis were hype.

Kids won 4-0 on the night, 7-0 on aggregate. Through to a 7th successive FA Youth Cup final. The two legged game will be against Arsenal or Blackpool who are level going in to the 2nd leg of their tie at The Emirates.

18s are currently playing the second leg of their FA Youth Cup semi-final with Birmingham. I know the question is always will any of them make it to first team level but these lads are good and are real fun to watch. I'm not easily pleased but there is no doubt in my mind that the overall quality of the U18 squad just keeps getting better. Several starters have been rested and of course Ethan Ampadu is out for the season but these kids are still playing the kind of football we'd love to see from the first XI. If you can get online the match is live on the club's facebook page. Give it a go. I think you'll enjoy it.

Agree, there is a hierarchy and that hierarchy is personal. For me, all other things being equal, I'd rather see United win a game or a trophy in preference to Arsenal. Among others.

Indeed, I'd go further and say that City and Pep are good for the Premier League as a whole. They are by far the best Champions of recent years. The rest of us will have to improve if we intend to compete and heaven knows we here have been crying out for improvements for a long time.

Hello FB, The statement was that a United victory always conflicts with Chelsea's interests. Even your post makes it clear that this is not always the case. The statement is therefore self-evident nonsense. If we are competing with United for a trophy, or for league position, then no Chelsea fan will want them to win but when we are not there is room for other priorities.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop this conversation because you are now posting stupid things. If what you've written makes sense even to you I'd be surprised. There are many, many times when a victory for a Mourinho managed team does Chelsea no harm. On all of those occasions, but on no others, I want him to win.

In fact you are the one blinded by Jose. You mean you were not happy when United beat City at the weekend? Even members whose posts betray a hatred for Jose understood that a United win was good for us. That being so, your statement clearly is nonsense, as stated. Or do you mean you want Spurs to beat them in the semi-final? If you do then, as argued above, that amounts to treason in my eyes.

Your imagination, your knowledge, or both, are limited if you cannot visualise circumstances in which a United victory does not conflict with Chelsea's interest. "Mourinho will always conflict with Chelsea's interests"? Even if you inserted the condition 'at United', that statement would still be nonsense. The relationship between most Chelsea fans and Tottenham Hotspurs makes that rivalry a special case. Almost unbelievably I have read posts from members of this forum stating that the Tottenham rivalry does not matter to them. To me that is the equivalent of high treason. How a true Chelsea fan can say such a thing is utterly beyond me but, even so, I want Spuds to win on Saturday. Why? Because it is useful to Chelsea. Of course I then hope they get smashed in the semi-final. It's just a question of competing priorities. If Jose were at Spurs I would still want them to loose pretty much every game they play but, if they are to win a game under Poch or under Jose, then I'd hate it less if the won under The Special One. City are Champions in all but name. With or Without Jose I'd rather United win it than they do. With Jose, it's a no brainer for me. When United won the Europa league I was pleased for Jose, but more pleased for Chelsea because we benefit from England's coefficient ranking being bolstered albeit that United's victory cost us a small amount of money. It is never a simple choice between Chelsea and United when the honours are handed out. The preferences of Chelsea fans will always therefore be more nuanced than your post pretends they will be.

I like to keep my posts polite and respectful. Well, as polite and respectful as I can manage anyway. I’ve therefore adopted a policy of not responding to the general point of view expressed about Jose in this site because I’ve got not one polite or respectful thing to say about the blank bleeps and their blank wit opinions about JM.

Agree re our records. That’s precisely why I’m so happy City lost, and why I’m OK with Spurs winning next weekend. On the other hand, I hope City will triumph on Tuesday. City reaching the Champions League semifinal sets up the scenario down the line where they’ve won the league and can go to full rotation ahead of those games. If that happens then the chances of them dropping Premier League points can only increase. Completely disagree about Jose. Always happy for him to win, as long as it doesn’t conflict with Chelsea’s interests.

Don’t know about you, but I went crazy when we drew 2-2 with Spurs a couple of years ago. You set your goals according to what you can achieve and you are naturally very happy when you pull them off. When you manage to do it in such dramatic circumstances only a stone would fail to get excited. if I’m excited about United’s win today, and I’m over the moon about it, then of course United players and fans have a right to absolutely love it.

Bloody brilliant. Thank you Jose. Not actually watching. No idea of the merits of the score line, or the rights and wrongs of the penalty appeals. Pleased for Jose if he wins but only really care that City loose.

The 18s have just completed a 3-0 win away to Birmingham City if the first leg of this year's FA Youth Cup semi-final. The squad is bidding to reach its 7th successive final, and its 8th out of the last nine. The second leg is next Tuesday at Stamford Bridge. Good luck to the lads for the return tie.

How sad. As a schoolboy, I was in the away end at White Hart Lane watching an eighteen year old Butch Wilkins captain Chelsea in a crucial late season relegation four-pointer. (Two points for a win in those days.) Near the end he missed a chance which would probably have earned a point that could, perhaps, have seen us avoid the relegation which followed a couple of weeks later. Three and a half years after that, I stood opposite The Shelf and watched him dominate a game in which recent Word Cup winners Ossie Ardieles & Ricky Villa featured for Spurs. (Check out Brian Moore's post match comments in the video below.) In between I stood week after week in The Shed chanting, "Wilkins, Wilkins ... born is the king". He was our captain, our leader, a part of the furniture. So much so in fact that he married the Chairman's daughter. He was Mr. Chelsea, the true heir to Ossie's throne. In later years I was not always able to agree with his comments as a pundit but today, and forever more I hope, Chelsea fans will remember the club legend. Thank you Butch.

I don't know this player but I respect your honesty about Bakayoko, I also liked him as a target for the club. I agree with your analysis about the attributes we need in that position. If Ndombele offers those attributes then let the negotiations begin.

And how do you know we are not?