Are We Hypocrites?

[warnie_666 1,081]

And Giles Smith Agrees with me :

"Another difference: when Abramovich arrived (and this isn't often enough said), it continued a revival of Chelsea's fortunes on the pitch that had begun a decade earlier, in 1993, with the appointment as manager of Glenn Hoddle, and which had already seen the club, after a quarter of a century of abject potlessness, achieve consistent top six finishes in the league, some presence in the Champions League, and victories in the FA Cup and Cup Winners' Cup.

In other words, the club was undeniably transformed by new and unforeseen wealth in 2003, but (critical point here) there was already something in place that could be transformed.

Manchester City, by contrast, have spent the best part of 30 years now, dashing from one comical foot-shooting incident to another, leading a one-team campaign for the return of the days of good old music hall entertainment and generally boiling themselves in a bag, over and over again.

There's quite a lot of work to do, is all we're saying, and some of that is work which (whisper this bit) has nothing to do with money at all."

Source:CFC website

[.Cee 50]

Well..those fans were ignorant cunts who dint know that Roman enquired about their clubs and was told they werent for sale. So they can Fuck Off now. And after them we were the next best thing in the league according to the league standings. hence he came to us and we needed someone to buy us. Things fell in place eprfectly for both. A MAtch made in heaven

Yes, we were very lucky it was Roman who came around when we were in brink of bankruptcy. Even luckier those clubs rejected him for us. Thank God.

I don't particularly like their new owners either tbh, Chelsea had spent bloody months trying to get Robinho and they snuck in the back door, clearly without putting a lot of thought into it, and took him - that might well be just business as far as a lot of people are concerned but it definitely pissed me off, big time. And yeh, that is hypocritical because we did exactly the same when Roman arrived but I do feel bitter about that one deal in particular.

The other thing that really annoys me - and I agree with Warnie on this - is them being called 'the new Chelsea' and the question 'if Chelsea can go from 10th to 1st why cant City?' When Roman bought Chelsea, we were already winning trophies and we'd qualified for the Champions League, so we were hardly sitting around 10th. City have won sod all for 32 years, and definitely dont finish around the top 4, so the leap for them will be a lot bigger than Chelsea's ever was.

I couldn't give a toss if they achieve it, I just don't appreciate the direct comparisons as if Chelsea were a club languishing around 10th in the table before they had Roman's money, because that was never the case.

They're the new Chelsea in the sense that they suddenly had new owners with huge transfer funds, like Roman. Also, I think if Roman didn't come, we'd drop down a lot farther in the table because of our debt. Yes, we could have a new owner but what if he isn't even close to being like Roman? We'd have to sell our best players to cut down those debts.

Our honours are small compared to clubs like Man Utd and now some of our fans are saying City's honours are smaller than ours. We really didn't like it when those fans were comparing their bigger honours than ours, so we shouldn't do the same to City.

[terry26 6]

And Giles Smith Agrees with me :

"Another difference: when Abramovich arrived (and this isn't often enough said), it continued a revival of Chelsea's fortunes on the pitch that had begun a decade earlier, in 1993, with the appointment as manager of Glenn Hoddle, and which had already seen the club, after a quarter of a century of abject potlessness, achieve consistent top six finishes in the league, some presence in the Champions League, and victories in the FA Cup and Cup Winners' Cup.

In other words, the club was undeniably transformed by new and unforeseen wealth in 2003, but (critical point here) there was already something in place that could be transformed.

Manchester City, by contrast, have spent the best part of 30 years now, dashing from one comical foot-shooting incident to another, leading a one-team campaign for the return of the days of good old music hall entertainment and generally boiling themselves in a bag, over and over again.

There's quite a lot of work to do, is all we're saying, and some of that is work which (whisper this bit) has nothing to do with money at all."

Source:CFC website

i thought of your response the minute i read the midweek review yesterday

[.Cee 50]

Edit: never mind...

Edited September 4, 2008 by .Biru

[Guest Lampards Bitch]

Whoa!! what happening here?? Are you in denial then Warnie?? I certainly havent been hypocrtical about Man City.

I think the owners are being a bit too ambitious. I personally don't think Man City will have the quick success like we have had. For a start we had quality players any way before Roman came along.

On the whole Robinho saga................I personally couldnt care less. He wasnt going to be the be all and end all of our future success! And I doubt he will be the start of Man City's! He's a good player but nothing to cry over.