Spike

I googled imaged "lineswoman", she is literally the only result.

Such a solid performance from every single player save for Torres.

Even Wikipedia if necessary...

OH GOD WHY DID I CLICK ON THIS TOPIC?

It might be an anachorism on my part. Maybe people only started referring to Blackburn's 'credit card' thing recently.

Really? That's what I was told. I'll take your word for it.

Whenever someone says that they think Hazards will move to Real Madrid or whatever cock club they can think of I snap the neck of a cute little kitten. So let's just say that the RSPCA have me blacklisted. If it's said for Hazard it may as well be said for Oscar, Mata, Azpilicueta, Luiz, De Bruyne, Courtois, et al. Why is it only Hazard people carry on about leaving? Why don't they get paranoid about Oscar leaving?

I didn't say it was realistic...

It doesn't mean as much to me because I'm not English but I want the club do have a core of at least 5 or 6 English players. I think it gives clubs more of an identity when they have lots of players from their home nation.

I'd love it if this guy broke through. With him and my man César the Right flank would be secure for a solid decade.

His hair is bit too wild for a sportsman. I'd be going insane with locks like that bouncing around everywhere. Look at how bloody long his hair is now juxtaposed to when he joined.

Make it a big packet of Samboy BBQ and you have a deal.

In the 90s Blackburn was the first club to win the Premiership after a serious money injection. They called it "winning with a credit card". Credit cards are made out of plastic therefore Blackburn fans were called "plastics". Fast foward a decade and Chelsea are cahsed up and the term had evolved since Rover's glory days. The term is now used to refer to glory hunting fans that only support the club after winning trophies and would probably stop being fans once the club stopped being succesful. It has nothing to do with slating the blonde goal assassin. We as fans have every right to call this bastard out for not performing, we are the ones that pay £50 on matchday, $50 a month for cable television, get the trains to away games, put in hours of traveling to get to England, wake up at ungodly hours to watch on the TV, just to watch an apathetic blond millionare meander around a pitch for 90 mins . He cost £50 million pounds initially. He cost £175,000 p/w. He has been here for just under two years and that equal a mighty some of £18.2 million in those two years. Almost £70 million for a guy that has scored an almight 26 goals for the club; that's almost £2.5 million per goal. That's more money that me you will ever see put together. All this money for a guy that obviously doesn't give two fucks about this club or it's supporters. For the longest time he received an incredible amount of support even more support than a lot of great serving players received. And for what? Over 400 players have scored for Chelsea. Torres is the most expensive of them and he is ranked 88th...You might think that's not too bad but here look at the list: http://thechels.info/wiki/All-time_goalscorers This guy wheres the same number as Osgood and Dixon. Players you can be proud of.

Hopefully McEachran and Chalobah start in tonight's match.

He was really phoning it in the last few months... I think he even said afterwards that by the last few weeks he didn't care if he was sacked, he was sick of football and needed time off.

Looks kind of really photoshopped.

People often say that Guivarc'h was the worst player striker to win the World Cup. But I disagree he had a very specific role in France's '98 triomphe. He was a defensive foward and a target man, he would hold the ball up for a better player (Zidane). And he would tire out defences, so Thierry Henry could be subbed into matches late on. You may be asking "What the fuck does Guivarc'h have to with this topic Spike, you dickhead?". Well I'll answer that, you fuckers.

"Mr Balotelli will see you know." http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/jan/10/manchester-city-mario-balotelli-milan

I think it more means that they'd rather rely on a player that is owned by the club rather than a loanee that will just leave in a few months. And a club can't cut a profit from a loanee. I hate loans. Stupid concept.

I couldn't give two flying tosses about what they've done in the Championship. Loans, loans, loans it's all nonsense. Either give them a run in the first team or tell them to piss off. The only way they'll ever make it at Chelsea is if they are given games here not at clubs like Boro and Watford. Premier League clubs can't be trusted either, look at what happened with McEachran and Kakuta, they just rotted on the bench. All those minutes at Swansea for Josh would have been better here at Chelsea. Throw them in the deep end or throw them out. That's my philosophy. Fucking muppets running this club.

rant /rant

I've got an idea! How about youth players are just thrown into the deep end and given minutes in the first team? Like the good old days when half the sport consisted of kicking kneecaps instead if balls. It doesn't matter what a loanee achieves at another club. Their first Chelsea match is still their first Chelsea match. They could have the worst or greatest loan spells but none if that matters when they put on the royal blue. They either play well or they don't. Jack Cork could have turned out twice as talented if he was given games here instead of Southampton in the League One. But that's just hypothetical...

The profits are all I care about. But in all seriosness, who decides who replaces the board? Are people within the club promoted? What would happen?

Two multiplied by zero is is still zero.... But the profits!

SeB would be the greatest manager in the world. At least twice as good as Wenger. Ryan Davidson, SeB, Spike Spiegel 4 life. Represent.