That was before my time
And yes Biggus very obviously winning it once is better than never winning it.
Face it, with or without Wenger our chances of CL victory are minuscule as long as we have an owner and board who are only bothered about the revenue it brings as opposed to being seriously interested in winning it.

What man city, chelsea and even liverpool has shown us is spend at least around 60 million and you will win a trophy, any argument wenger puts just has to be shown this fact, he better Spend big this summer or we are better off sacking him now.

Wenger knows the facts Sam.
What we think we're better off doing is largely irrelevant to those who run the club.

Wenger won't be sacked and we won't spend £60m on buying players this summer.
How were you going to arrange to have him sacked anyway?

The same way avb and dalglish were sacked no room for sentiment

You think Kroenke and the boys are keeping Wenger around for sentimental reasons?

To a certain extent, the amount of coverage it would get would enormous and if it doesnt pay off they will be known as the "ones who sacked wenger" it seems easier to get rid of gaddafi than wenger

SamDaGooner wrote:

What man city, chelsea and even liverpool has shown us is spend at least around 60 million and you will win a trophy

What are you talking about?

Biggus wrote:

Gurgen wrote:

Neither do you apparently.

What are you talking about?
It's not me bleating about "outplayed" and "fluked".

That's true, you bleat the other same, tiresome nonsense.

Those three are the only teams to Spend over 60 mil in 2011 and all three have won a trophy... the correlation between spending big and winning is quite clear

Carling Cup is not a trophy.

Sure as hell isn't.

SamDaGooner wrote:

Those three are the only teams to Spend over 60 mil in 2011 and all three have won a trophy...

But that's an insane way of reasoning. You're ignoring years and years of investment. City, for instance, have spent around £500 million on players in the last few years, and that's ignoring what's probably the world's biggest wage bill at this point. Abramovich has spent billions at Chelsea since he took over. Those teams weren't assembled last summer.

Gurgen wrote:

Biggus wrote:

What are you talking about?
It's not me bleating about "outplayed" and "fluked".

That's true, you bleat the other same, tiresome nonsense.

Don't mind Biggus. When it's one of those tipi-tapi teams who rake home 47 trophies in a decade only seven or eight of them really count, and they're still only half as good as when Mourinho wins them.

A Google search on John Terry throws up

Add to that: pretends he played in CL final.

Klaus wrote:

Sure as hell isn't.

SamDaGooner wrote:

Those three are the only teams to Spend over 60 mil in 2011 and all three have won a trophy...

But that's an insane way of reasoning. You're ignoring years and years of investment. City, for instance, have spent around £500 million on players in the last few years, and that's ignoring what's probably the world's biggest wage bill at this point. Abramovich has spent billions at Chelsea since he took over. Those teams weren't assembled last summer.

I dunno, seems to be a strong correlation between spending loads of money and fucking up your league form too. Must be accurate.

The pattern is pretty obvious when you think about it. Liverpool spent £150 million or so and finished 8th. Chelsea spent a little less and finished 6th. Arsenal spent even less than that and finished 3rd. It's only logical to suspect that a team with a negative net spend will win Premier League next year. We're talking West Ham or Norwich in all likelihood. West Bromwich, perhaps. Odds will probably be around 1000/1. Time to get the season bets in early this year.

Or what about city Spend 100 million win the league. Put it like this if abramovic was not at chelsea would they have won the league in 05 and 09 or the cl or fa cup...

Exactly my point. Where are we going to get 100 million to spend, let alone
60? And that's talking transfers. Then there are wages.

biggus, you've gone bonkers. lumping bayern in with barca as a tippy tappy pussyball team? 6th place finisher in england the best team in europe? you're making no sense. take a little break from football. we know we're stuck with wenger and that he's not going to win anything - that doesn't mean every single event in football needs to shoehorned into your anti-wenger crusade, no matter how ridiculous they are on their face.

y va marquer wrote:

I wonder if in post Abromovich years to come people will be looking at a non event Chelsea and thinking jeez, did they really once win the CL - bit like Marseille or Villa or Forest.
Last night's victory being a one off never to be repeated result, the end of an era as opposed to the beginning.

That's how it seems to me.

Don't you reckon that's a bit optimistic? It's not like Roman's money is running out.

There are thousands and thousands of Chelsea fans celebrating in the streets.

I was hoping only hundreds hahaha!

I'm still at home. Just seen the pics on TV.

Don't do them myself, but people love a good parade.

How scared was Torres to take a penalty yesterday? Fearful.

Di Matteo was asking if he would take one and Torres was saying yes while walking away.

And Torres and Meireles leave Liverpool and win two major trophies at Chelsea. Their moves were justified and their transfer fees are worth it now.

One major trophy Tone. The FA cup died ages ago.

Not to all people but I understand your point.

Still FA Cup is what Liverpool couldn't win while Torres was there. They won the Carling which is even more insignificant.

HAHAHAHAHA! Did you hear the Chelsea staff shouting unlucky Tottenham through the mike?

Tony Montana wrote:

Their moves were justified and their transfer fees are worth it now.

No.

Tony Montana wrote:

There are thousands and thousands of Chelsea fans celebrating in the streets.

how were you all expected to get around?

That was after the parade mate.

I was watching it live on Sky Sports, ironically, on the same channel that you took those photos from. That's why I wrote they were thousands and thousands of Chelsea fans.

General Mirth wrote:

Tony Montana wrote:

Their moves were justified and their transfer fees are worth it now.

No.

A Champions League Trophy is priceless.

If we spent 50m quid on Torres and then won the CL would you not think it was worth it? Would you actually say,

'I'd rather we didn't spend that much and not win the best football tournament in world football for the first time in our history?'

Talk about taking financial prudence too far.

What does buying Torres have to do with winning the CL? They won the CL despite Torres.

Tony Montana wrote:

General Mirth wrote:

No.

A Champions League Trophy is priceless.

If we spent 50m quid on Torres and then won the CL would you not think it was worth it? Would you actually say,

'I'd rather we didn't spend that much and not win the best football tournament in world football for the first time in our history?'

Talk about taking financial prudence too far.

What's that thing they say about correlation and causation?

Gurgen wrote:

What does buying Torres have to do with winning the CL? They won the CL despite Torres.

They bought him in order to win it. Either that or the league (or both).

He's helped them do that.

General Mirth wrote:

Tony Montana wrote:

A Champions League Trophy is priceless.

If we spent 50m quid on Torres and then won the CL would you not think it was worth it? Would you actually say,

'I'd rather we didn't spend that much and not win the best football tournament in world football for the first time in our history?'

Talk about taking financial prudence too far.

What's that thing they say about correlation and causation?

I don't know, what do they say?

Tony Montana wrote:

General Mirth wrote:

What's that thing they say about correlation and causation?

I don't know, what do they say?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Just because Torres happened to be in the squad that won the trophies does not justify the 50m spent on him. Two separate issues.

Then, factually, the way Barcelona plays is the most effective way to play since they have won more trophies than any other team in decades.

You've said a million times that the best team in europe is the one who wins the champions league. Granted, it's mostly when you're licking Mourinho's arse and attemtping to lessen Barca's achievements. Don't try to back out of it now.

Tony Montana wrote:

Gurgen wrote:

What does buying Torres have to do with winning the CL? They won the CL despite Torres.

They bought him in order to win it. Either that or the league (or both).

He's helped them do that.

I don't think that argument holds up. Torres has been a terrible failure for them ever since he arrived. If they'd invested that money a bit better they would've been competing with United and City this season. Instead they had to rely on a knockout tournament to even qualify for Europe. It worked out in the end but you wouldn't have called him a good buy if Schweinsteiger's penalty last night had gone in off the post.

Crazy to bring Torres up. Bad enough that he was omitted from the starting XI for the final. Seems to me there are many other strikers they could've had for 50m who would've given them more, including in the crunch matches.