OhForAGreavsie

To non-Chelsea fans the thought of Chelsea supporters being unhappy at another club’s spending would seem funny or maybe even hypocritical. They’d just laugh at us.

The ladies currently lie second in the WSL 1 table, two points behind a Manchester City Women side who have won every game they have played this season. That includes domestic and European matches. City visit Chelsea this Thursday evening in what, even this early, could be a title decider. This is a must win fixture for the Blues. Defeat would see us fall five points behind a team which just doesn't look like it's going to drop 5 points all season. Even a draw would, realistically, leave us needing to win at City later in the season to retain any title hopes. If you're free on Thursday night and able to get down to Kingsmeadow to back the girls they could use your support. Tickets cost £6 adults, £3 children and concessions and can be bought from the box office from 5:30pm on the night. Kick off is at 7:00pm. There is free car parking at the stadium. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42853197 Kingsmeadow Stadium Details

OK then.

I would only change one word of the post I’m replying to. I’d take out thought, and insert hoped.

No, talking about the original comment to which I replied. The one wondering why Roman was just sitting back and not sacking the board who are making these decisions. In the end, the board is doing Roman’s bidding. If they didn’t, then they would certainly be out.

Whatever Roman!s plan is, he has reasons for it and it makes sense to him. He will certainly be aware of the potentially negative consequences of some decisions but if he believes the plan is necessary, then he has to follow it. We’re not able to speculate too much because we don’t know the whys and wherefores of the blueprint, but it’s only common sense that a boss shouldn’t start sacking people when all they are doing is carrying out the instructions they’ve been given.

Looks like Emenalo leaving has made no difference at all You’re right, it hasn’t. Instead of stopping and thinking, people have just taken to stupidly demonising someone else. People who once cast Michael Emenalo as the most useless person on the planet, now assign that role to some other lad, or more likely, lass. I’d say some people need fewer devices on which to interact with the internet, and more mirrors in which to take a long hard look at themselves.

When was the last time someone sacked themself? It has happened but not often. We don’t know the plan but there is one. We might not agree with that plan if we did know it, but Roman does. Indeed, even if he did not originate the plan he certainly signed off on it. He’s the person setting the policies and making the final decisions. Whatever is being done is what he wants done.

We have a way of making players, and teams, look good. When we’re in “can’t keep the ball mode”, as we were that night, the ball keeps coming at us. It comes at unexpected times, and from unexpected angles. This turns our game into a shambles which allows even ordinary opponents to perform at their best. I’m not saying Dzeko is an ordinary player. I’m just saying that it can be a mistake to give too much weight to performances against Chelsea.

Deleted. Point already made by another poster.

We only know what the report says. We can’t know that it’s any part of the truth, never mind the whole of it. For example, it might be that Antonio was given a shortlist of ‘affordable’ options and he selected from among those. It would then be accurate to say he ‘chose’ those players, but that wouldn’t be the whole story. Obviously this is a speculation. I’m just saying we can’t necessarily read too much into the report, even if it’s true in the first place.

I think Wenger has made it clear that getting nothing for either for their big stars isn't an issue. Agreed, and he might mean it, but that’s also exactly what he’d say if he secretly intended to take the money. All fun and games.

They want Eden?

Or walking away is a negotiating tactic because they know the player is only interested in joining them and will not move elsewhere. Arsenal are therefore left to chew over the choice between what City will stretch to now, or nothing in the summer.

Hello yuvala, It's obviously a thing that just gets to me. A lot of members do it and I confess it irritates me. As I would see it, if you don't mean it don't 'say' it. I've made comments like this myself but I'd usually put it something like, "If we're not in the market for this bloke then I'd be interested to know why. Putting it as you did plays in to the widespread condemnation of the board (Roman in reality), which is a point of view I don't share. People here have no idea of the background, have no idea whether, given the same circumstances. they'd be making exactly the same decisions. I accept of course, and accept completely, that people are free to read the runes differently to the way i do and decide that 'the board' are hugely at fault but, if that's so, then there are enough real things they do that they can be criticised for, without inventing things they have not done.

And allegedly 'fixed' Fulham games in order to aid Woolwich.

You are right of course but this is the problem. It's precisely because we lack the effective approach play that we end up having to rely on Marcos's goals. Those goals are, in effect, papering over the cracks. If we fix the underlying issue, then they become a luxury, rather than the necessity they are currently. All true but, leaving cost aside for a moment, to become the team we want to be, we need such players at every position. We need players who are the complete package. It's a reality that they are in great demand by the big clubs and are therefore hard to get, but recruiting such players must be our aim. To aim but fail is potentially understandable, to fail to aim at all would be unforgivable.

As the old joke goes, "Poor old Fulham. They aren't even the best team in Fulham." For those who may not know, Stamford Bridge is in Fulham and was redeveloped as a football stadium with the intention that it would be used by the team of that name. Chelsea Football club was founded only after the Cottagers balked at the price and refused to move to the ‘new’ stadium. They therefore repeated the same mistake Everton had made when they refused to pay the increased rent for Anfield and moved out. That forced the stadium owners to create a new team, Liverpool FC, to avoid their venue going to waste. I bet both Fulham and Everton wish they could revisit those decisions.

My point is that, yet again, a poster makes up what he believes the club is, or is not, doing and blames them for it. Quote, "Why the hell aren't we after him ?" We can all make a guess as to who we think the club is, or is not, interested in signing but but we do not know. I'd love the club to be chasing Arthur and Malcolm, not that I think we'd get either of them, but It would be ridiculous for me to blame the club for not being in the market for those players when, for all I know, they might be. For what it's worth, I imagine that if Arthur comes to England it will be to City. He seems to me to be exactly the player Guardiola will want and City are building an attractiveness to talented players that we just can't match.

How do we know that the club is not after Sanchez?

Ultimately, I think they will be good for English football. For the first time in a long time there is a genuinely good team in the Premier League. The rest will either have to up their game or get used to watching City trophy parades. Self interest suggests they will bust a gut trying to do the former.

Your post didn’t offend me, it irritated me. There is an awful lot of stuff that you don’t see happen. Are you suggesting that it beats you why none of that takes place either? You have not seen me ennobled yet you seem able to believe that I’d choose to be known by the stupidest title you can think of. Not so likely. Look, I’m sorry if I’ve offended you. I genuinely mean that, but there are dozens of posts in which people assume something has not happened when they can’t possibly know whether it has or not. That unsupportable assumption invalidates whatever point they are making, or any criticism they are offering. On a subject we’re less likely to fall out over, I’d be interested to read your opinion on Malcolm when you do watch him.

Reminds me more of Shaqiri; a player i don't think too much of.

It it me? This type of post irritates me. We don't know if anyone has tried to lure him or not so we can't make assumptions about that. Personally, I would not try to lure him. I prefer Malcolm. Much prefer.

Roman’s arrival in 2003 excited a lot of interest. Anything about him, or about Chelsea was fascinating to the media. Back then I was posting on the now defunct BBC fans forums. They invited Chelsea fans to apply to write an opinion piece about the club. My application was selected. Among the thoughts I submitted was the hope that Roman’s spending would threaten the established clubs to such a degree that they’d be forced to accept an American style spending cap. Of course I reckoned without the pathetic weakness of Michael Platini. I always felt he wasn’t bright enough to be head of European football. Something he proved by being easily manipulated into the horrible FFP nonsense which, of course, is the exact opposite of ‘fair’. Maybe one day we’ll get something better but I’m not holding my breath.