Samir Nasri's dig at Chelsea and Manchester City.
Yet again the same old argument has been thrown at Chelsea this time by Samir Nasri. Nasri has been quoted speaking about what Arsenal hav...
https://www.chelseadaft.org/2010/10/samir-nasris-dig-at-chelsea-and.html
Yet again the same old argument has been thrown at Chelsea this time by Samir Nasri. Nasri has been quoted speaking about what Arsenal have been trying to do under Arsene Wenger compared to what Chelsea have achieved and what City are trying to do. He said:
"It is annoying. The work we do is not getting the credit it deserves because we are not winning silverware. It's unfair because we have more merit as a club than those who have built their teams with millions.Pretty much par for the course and the same old comments that we as Chelsea fans have had thrown in our faces for six years now. Manchester City fans are only just getting used to it and will have to face the stick for years to come.
Arsenal have brought in young footballers, who have come here to play a certain kind of football and who have developed."
I am sure there are Arsenal fans that would want Arsene Wenger to spend the money he has available in abundance to add that little extra something to their side to make a real push for the title, but by doing that you need to spend big to attract the players that can do that.
Manchester City fans, for how many years have you watched City with no real chance of silverware and how long would you have settled for that?. Are you happy that your club has been taken over and you have been able to sign the players you have or do you feel guilty by doing so?
The thing that people need to rememeber is when you have the investment we have had, there comes additional expectations and requirements from the owner. The Managers and players simply HAVE TO deliver more or less as soon as possible or changes will be made (ask Mark Hughes). It comes down to who you buy to gel together and the players getting the job done on the pitch week in week out.
I think it's fair to say that City are learning that this is what has hurt them last season and in a few games this season (apart from beating us). Arsenal have had the same problems and these problems have cost them for years.
So to everyone reading this and no matter what club you support I am asking the question(s)
If your club had the opportunity for investment or monies available to spend to take you to the next level would you spend it like Chelsea and City have or settle for developing from within without being successful?.
KTBFFH
I hate this kid with a passion, i only like his "i am in pain" appearance! Apt for being a goner!
ReplyDeleteGooners! and yeah give me monies!" lool
ReplyDeleteDidnt Nasri cost £12m+ ? Not exactly small spuds at the time either !
ReplyDeleteIf the eventual cost of that take ova results in my club ending up in the mess that Liverpool are in, or what the Glaziers have done to United then no thanks. What happens to Chelsea if your "Sugar Daddy" dies tomorrow??? A club should last longer than any individual.
ReplyDeleteShut it Nasri you Lemon you won't win fuck all.
ReplyDeleteCity or Chelsea for the title.
hi all,
ReplyDeleteI am a city fan and absolutely love the fact that we have wads of cash and everybody hates us with the possible exception of Chelsea. The club and team will be using this fact to help them gel. We have great players coming into the team.
Makes me laugh that we get stick from Blackburn fans because as we all know they had a rich (for the time) benefactor. They spent 15 mill on Shearer which was astronomical at the time. Utd have spent 20-30 million on players for years, but they didn't,m or don't get any stick for that.
Slightly off topic, but DeJong is getting all this flak because City are wadded. I seem to remember a certain Roy Keane end the career of Haaland, but nothing much was said in the media.
No I am loving it. We are getting noticed. :O)
It must really irk you that such a fantastic team will never be held in the same regard as dominant teams of the past. The fact you've got all defensive here merely proves that point.
ReplyDeleteIf you could choose your current side or that of Ferguson's home-grown dominators or Wenger's unbeatables which would you choose?
It would be interesting to compare what Chelsea have spent the past 3 seasons with what Arsenal have spent. I think that the result would be a bit of a surprise for Little Sami et al who are convinced that Arsenal grow their players in an Islington allotment whereas Chelsea throw money around at anyone and everyone.
ReplyDelete@Anon
ReplyDeleteWell if you put it like that and I do point out that both sides spent money, then you have to hand it to Fergie as the side with the Kids was a more home grown side that Arsenal's was, as the gooners spent money on the likes of Viera, Pires, Henry, Bergkamp etc. United promoted from within, Scholes, Butt, Neville(s), Giggs and Beckham.
Arsenal will continue with their pretty football. But it takes for than that to win and sustain a title challenge. So the trophy cabinet at Ashburton Grove will remain bare for years to come.
ReplyDeleteWe are only setup defensively due to our injuries. We have had a lot of injuries to attacking players. That will change when they are fully fit.
ReplyDeleteNot being defensive - just stating facts.
Great time to be a City fan, so bring on the banter.
The fact of the matter is this. It doesn't matter how successful clubs like Chelsea and City are at this moment in time. The fact is they are only as stable as their current owner. They are only as rich as their current owner allows them to be. Who will take over Chelsea when RA decides to retire and sell? His family? Well they aren't nearly as rich as him. Will he sell to another owner? Its sad because Chelsea fans and now City fans cannot grab the concept of how bad this situation is for them. Nice that they can win titles now and compete at the top level, but lets see what happens in ten or twenty years from now.
ReplyDeleteNo way, It would be a disaster for me if Arsenal were taken over by Mr Moneybags. Silverware is nice, and the ultimate goal of playing football at any level. But I much prefer seeing a team like Arsenal develop a squad of players rather than a Chelsea or City assemble one through throwing money at it. Although it is very interesting seeing the two different styles up against each other. Will be even more interesting when the financial rules come into play how some teams adjust if, as it seems, they will have to.
ReplyDeleteYou can't really argue with what he's saying though can you? I mean you'd never have won anything without that influx of cash.
ReplyDeleteSmall club who won the lottery
@chelseadaft
ReplyDeleteAnd now United promoted the likes of Oshea & Evans .. oh , he also bought Berba for 30mils ?
The difference between what has happened at Chelsea and now Man City and what happened when Man Utd, Arsenal and others built successful teams in the past is that the latter financed any purchases on the back of revenue generated by the club. What Wenger has always referred to as "Financial Doping" has now been picked up by FIFA. Effectively clubs bankrolled by a rich benefactor are not reliant on the successful running of all aspects of the club, (fiscal, scouting, academy etc) and are therefore likened to an athlete who takes performance enhancing drugs to perform above his means. The current situation is bad for all clubs, spectators and football in general in the long run and the sooner the rules are changed the better.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not spending money that’s the issue. There is nothing wrong with buying players. What’s frustrating is seeing Chelsea and Man City distort the transfer Market and league table with a superficial position. If Chelsea had revenue to justify their wage bill and previous transfer budgets no one could argue. To some extent Man U has been there, however, for Man Cit to have a wage bill that exceeds its income is cheating. I can see no other way of explaining it.
ReplyDeleteHow can Arsene compete with a £400m team? How close did Chelsea get to titles before Roman turned up? And Arsenal and Man U and Liverpool didn’t spend fortunes Chelsea just couldn’t compete. That is the grievance not spending. The only way for football to move forward is to have a % of income rule like UEFA are trying to introduce.
COME ON THE GUNNERS
arsenal have spent just as much money as city and chelsea do you think they built their stadium for nothing.
ReplyDeleteAs a city fan, i'd like to say I'm loving it. I remember when arsenal used to come and thrash us every time we played and pat us on the head patronisingly. Now we expect to beat them every time we play them.
ReplyDeleteNasri seems to think this certain way of playing is more virtuous than others, but I remember watching their fans leaving in droves as they were put to the sword by a more functional and effective united team in the EC semi's the other year. I am pretty sure those fans (well the ones who were left after 60 mins) would have swapped some fancy one touch stuff in their own half, for a forward who was willing to run at defences or a midfielder who was willing to tackle as if his life depended on it.
It all looks pretty when you are hammering blackpools and the like by a goal glut, but when you meet teams who are willing to stand up and not let you pass through them it's a different story.
Long may arsenal's holier than though and barren spell continue... they seem to go hand in hand.
As an Arsenal fan I don't blame anyone for spending money. United have been the biggest club in the country for 20 years and they've spent big all the time. The thing is they had millions worth of talent accumulated over time, so each summer they would only need to spend £15-25million on one player to strengthen that already great side.
ReplyDeleteWhen Chelsea / City came into money they had only a few players who were that good, so they had to spend £15-25million per player 4 times per seasons rather than United's once, I don't see how that is less moral it's just quicker.
The thing I don't understand is Arsenal are not special. When Wenger came along it was an average club finishing between 2nd and 12th on average, with an average stadium and a good but not outstanding level of support (probably because of all the other clubs in London). But now it is one of Europe's top clubs with absolutely no money put into it.
In my opinion though Chelsea are finished. Not now, you're still the finest team in the world in my opinion and will be for 2 years at least, but when you've got players like Drogba and Lampard, worth probably a combined £100million at least in their prime about to retire for no fee at all, if Abramovich isn't putting any more money in then how are you going to replace that level of extreme quality? I was a massive fan of Carvalho, but Mourinho would've paid £20+ million to take him to Madrid 2-3 years ago instead of what, 6mil?
A similar thing happened at Arsenal. We lost players like Henry, Pires, Bergkamp who were up there with the best in the world, and there just aren't the players available to replace them so our team suffered a big decline in quality over the pat 4 years. When Drogba goes, how do you replace the best striker in the world? Only a few players could come close and apart from Torres they're all untouchable.
Oh and for the gunner who said the only fair thing is to restrict transfer activity to a % of income, wouldn't the effect of that be to basically set in stone the league standings as they are now - minus city and chelsea ? ie the big four stay the big four as they have had the benefit of being a top team at the time sky / cl money came pouring in. If the only way to break the current cash monopoly and make the league more interesting is to have a rich benefactor what is the problem with that ?
ReplyDeletesurely in 10 years time chelsea and city would be self sufficient and if you wanted the rule introducing then you may suffer from it after 15 years without a trophy.
Who is to say the current placings should be fixed, the cl money divvied up between a top 4 who have been the most successful (only for the last 20 years). A very blinkered view in my opinion.
I bet the royal engineers or proud preston weren't trying to lock in their profits when they were at their peaks.
Don't fear change, it may bring the best out of you and who knows you might actually win something.
To Anon at 12.23......Arsenal's stadium was financed by Arsenal not a rich Russian or Arab, that is the whole point of this debate. Liverpool and Man U are suffering from bad ownership, Chelsea have so far been fortunate, Mr Abramovich has stayed around and seems genuinely interested, he will not be around for ever though. Still wait and see time at City, frankly none of their players seem happy to me, Tevez wants away Rob has gone, Ade will go. Only a matter of time before they get smacked by Arsenal and the likes again.
ReplyDeleteANON- you cannot look at the last 3 years as its not truely representative is it? Roman splashes X amount of hundred Mill over the first 3 to get you to that point.
ReplyDeletei live in Munster road (new kings rd end) and am a Gooner and lets be honest. I have lived in fulham and chelsea for 12 years (am 29) and the endless question is "where were you when you were shit'
eduardo
Change is a good thing, I just don't think the way some clubs are financed is. Well run clubs occasionally do climb the tree on the back of their own resources, Wigan, Blackpool are doing really well currently, Forest and Derby are good past examples.
ReplyDeleteall these arguments are infantile success comes and goes over a period of years and to say chelsea are finished is ridiclous how come arsenal had to wait 46 years to win their first trophy.arsenal will win again and for that matter so will liverpool.its just that for whatever reason chelsea just have the best team at preasant.
ReplyDeleteso funny! Chelsea fans.."you might win something" ha!
ReplyDelete13 league titles to your paltry 3 and 12 pots to your 9....
forever in our shadow..like the spuds : )
to anon at 12:35 : 3-0, 4-2, 3-0, 0-0 (it's not a maths test, city on left arsenal on the right, last four games) - now thats a series of smackings, don't expect it change anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAt the very least until Mr Wenger realises your defence is gash. For me Wenger is a much better version of keegan. Great football to watch when things are going well, but you know you are going to lose against stoke on a wet saturday as he doesn't think defending is important.
City...beating doth not a league title make...win something then you can crowe..till then its just a very expensive experiment
ReplyDeleteAnyone who thinks that we've spent anywhere near the amount of money as Chelsea/City is retarded. Since 2004 we've actually MADE money on transfers.
ReplyDeleteNo particular digg here but UEFA's new finance rules mean:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/organisation/executivecommittee/news/newsid=886803.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1282136/Manchester-City-United-Chelsea-Liverpool-maybe-Europe-Real-Madrid-Just-UEFAs-new-finance-rules-mean.html
to anon 2 October 2010 13:11
ReplyDeleteWhoever said spengin money was just about transfers. How much did that new stadium of yours cost and who bought that.
Anon at 13.28......you have not read all the posts and are missing the point. Arsenal financed the stadium themselves. It's called running a business, bigger stadium, more revenue. They did not rely on some fat cat to pay for it which is the whole subject of this exchange.......get with the program!
ReplyDeleteto anon 12 October 2010 13:36
ReplyDeleteNow now be nice. What I am saying is that the stadium had to be bought with money - yes. Whether it is from a benefactor or from income generated from the business. To say that Arsenal has not spent as much money as Chelsea, or city is ridiculous.
If the post said that Arsenal has not spent as much money as Chelsea, or city on players and especially in such a short space of time I would completely agree and would be unable to disagree. My response was to reply to THAT comment.
Truth be told I completely respect the approach Wenger and Arsenal has taken, but are you telling me that some of the money that Arsenal spent on the stadium (as good as it is) couldn't be spent on players to make a push for the league, because as it is they never will. Winning the league equals getting more income. Winning the CL equals even more income.
Anon at 12.53, 3-0, 4-2, 3-0, 0-0 Citys last four results against Arsenal.......thats convenient of you choosing to quote 2 seasons results when you got wiped off the park the previous 30 years, stop crowing till youve got the credentials.
ReplyDeleteHe's saying the same thing you would have blogged about prior to the appearance of the russian at the bridge. Nothing to get wound up over, nothing to take the mick out of, just something to ignore.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 13.44 this is Anon at 13.36 ;-) lol
ReplyDeleteI did not write the post re not spending money. But with Arsenal, the stadium project was a real investment and will remain so for many years. There is a lot of debate on Arsenal blogs with many saying that more money should be spent on top talent so Arsenal can win something, but there is no guarantee of that. Wenger and the board are focused on the longevity of the club and are waiting for the focus on youth to repay with trophies. They may not be that far away but more experience is needed. As for having to win trophies to grow revenue, Arsenal seem to be doing pretty well having not won anything for 5 years. http://www.theoffside.com/world-football/top-20-richest-football-clubs-in-the-world.html
One thing is for sure, money doesnt buy you class. Instead of being ignorant retards, you are now rich ignorant retards. With an unsustainable wage bill once the sugar daddies get bored. I'd take the Arsenal way any day. Cheerio :)
ReplyDeleteto anon 12 October 2010 14:02
ReplyDeleteI have to say I completely agree with your last post. Arsenal do not have the benefit of a rich benefactor and are going about things in (I think) the right way. You are right in the fact that you don't have to win trophies to grow revenue - I think they annouce £50 plus million profits for last year, but you grow revenue quicker if you do.
What I am saying is that with rich benefactors being introduced to football all the time, and the new FIFA rules are understood more and more, there will be work arounds to the financial "problems" that some clubs may find.
If you take my club (City). You don't think the owners got rich by luck do you. They know how to make a business make money. Yes we have spent a lot of money in a short space of time, but what people seem to think is that that is the way City will continue to operate. Obviously this in not the case. City will become self financing soon enough. We are still only at the start of the larger project to grow the club brand globally and to improve the surrounding areas of the club. Great debate btw
Nasri £12m, Walcott £12m (lol) and Arshavin £17m, two new centerbacks at £10m each, shows that Arsenal are committed to improving the team and spending money. It wasn't that long ago that Chelsea missed out on one Terry Henry because we couldn't pay the £11m Juve wented for him. Pretty sure Reyes cost upwards of £17m too. So they do spend money, but admittedly recoup a lot too.
ReplyDeleteWithout RA Chelsea would still be there, or thereabouts, as they were before he took over (if we didn't go into administration that is).
There is nothing better than celebrating a trophy at the end of the season (it's what it is ALL about). Playing fantastic football, as Chelsea have done for the last two seasons, is just an added bonus.
To be honest, I get a little bored watching Arsenal play the ball around on the halfway line. I like my football with a little more thunder!
So Nasri can complain all he wants, but it starts with your own performances Sami, and you persistently gave Chelsea players the ball last week. Despite your very best efforts, you lost, were brushed aside, live with it.
Is this the same Arsenal that outspend WBA every season but still got spanked by them at the Effeminates?
ReplyDeletefootball is about winning trophies. fans of teams who don't win trophies seem to be obsessed with making the argument about other things. transfer spending, loud fans, "history", diving, players libidos, good football etc etc. if you're arguing about irrelevencies; it's probably cos your trophy cabinet is full of moths.
ReplyDeletearsenal are a big club. they became a big club when a wealthy benefactor waved a huge wad of cash in their face to get them to move from woolwich to north london. they were literally given acres of prime real estate...including a ground with marble halls (who else had marble halls?). then there was then a massive investment in the football side of things. arsenal's spending had them labelled "the bank of england club". success was guaranteed by the money spent on them...which was considered outrageous at the time. success bred a big fanbase. hence arsenal are now a big club.
ReplyDeleteso in 20 years when chelsea & city are still big clubs...they will have done it exactly how arsenal did. every big club is a big club because of investment made in them. people need to deal with it.
re: anon 12 October 2010 16:16
ReplyDelete"so in 20 years when chelsea & city are still big clubs..."
Just a little point. City have been a big club for a long time - we just haven't been successful for a long time ;o)
The fact is that money talks, in both football and the so called "real world". All these debates and name calling stems out of jealously. I was guilty of it when RA took over at Chelsea spouting out things like they bought the league etc, but winning the league takes more than just money alone as the contant snipes at my club state.
Every single fan would want their football club to be able to spend 20,30,40+ million on a player and if they say they didn't then they are telling porkies.
So is Nasri playing for free? Also Chelsea/ City players don't put effort is it?
ReplyDelete"football is about winning trophies" by anon 12 October 2010 16:01.
ReplyDeleteThis is the type of ignorant glory boy hunting that makes people think what a bunch of spoiled classless supporters you lot are, so the other 18 clubs who dont win anything , their fans have nothing to look forward to to or enjoy as the chelsea boy says football is all about winning - so how did you feel about your team pre 2004 when they hardly won anything - were you supporting another 'trophy' winning team?
love the glory boys!!!
Arsenal are looking at it on a long term business plan-that is not hard to understand. spending money does not mean you automatically win things, real madrid??
ReplyDeletei believe the money flying around is way too much, im a gooner-i want to us to win things badly, every gooner does-but if in 10 years the club is messed up i'd prefer to watch them progress with a different approach(coaching)-if these guys like chelsea and man-city wanna do it the spending way then fiar enough, we have to prove that in our system can work and our club survive. nasri was just asked a question and thats his honest response-personally i dont need dumb pundits to tell me our failings-our failings are football related, not because we dont spend a certain amount. maybe some gooners are jealous-i aint met 1!! eventually we will win-by playing the style we like, the style that makes neutrals watch our game. to be honest chelsea play some good stuff now-better that when big mouth was in charge and snoop drog is the best front man in the world now.i am convinced we will be back up there very very soon.
chelsea are now working towards being self sufficient so when RA does decide his time is up as boss, as long as its not in the next couple of years, chelsea will survive. in my opinion chelsea have timed their spending and more importantly their reduced spending to perfection. and the guarantee that RA won't retire in the next few years? why would he have signed off all of chelsea's debts to himself if he was planning to leave? chelsea are now going to invest in the young and they will still be rich, they will be an incredibly frightening force in the future (as if they aren't right now!)
ReplyDeleteQuite honestly who gives a damn about the rich owner. I'm quite sure with a small push and a shove things could be fixed so we did fall into the hands of a rich owner. We are now above Chelsea with regards to that fact:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tribalfootball.com/man-city-owner-heads-football-rich-list-1163851
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1318115/Manchester-City-owner-Sheikh-Mansour-tops-footballs-rich-list.html
Arsenal would appear to have a bigger picture in mind and that is to be sustainable without the sugar daddy crap. Somewhere and not so far in the near future, due to the new financial rules the likes of Chelsea Man city etc will have to do balance the books and without their owners help. Quite simply if they are not balancing their books and being sustainable without the aid of their owners they will be penalized..and o yes what's term that's being used more to describe such activities "cheating" I do believe.
AM NOT SURPRISED! nasri is displaying a fate of a drowning man...hahahahahaaaaa.keep ur money in your pocket and get kick with a misile shot 4rm Alex...AN ENDLESS TROPHLESS YEARS AWAIT U,well emirate cup is there for you.
ReplyDeleteSays the man who was bought by Arsenal for 12.5 MILLION
ReplyDeleteThe reason he cost 12.5 mil is because your muggy artificial club over inflated the market.
ReplyDeleteYou dont have the fan base for the revenue needed to keep the ChequeBook XI going. That is why the KGB never built a new stadium - cant fill it so stick with your prewar shed.
ReplyDeleteRemember your Champs Lg attendance?
18th Sep 2007
Att: 24,973
Arsenal getter bigger gates for youth team.
March 14 2007
38,187
What happens when sugar daddy gets bored and decides he wants another project to impress peroxide teenage east euro girlfriend?
Back to the Makita Cup.