2006-09-08 05:00:10 · 19 answers · asked by dan d 1 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ English Football
west ham are doing by his best mate
2006-09-08 05:02:36 · answer #1 · answered by Dean 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really. I would love my team to have more money, that´s for sure, but I wouldn´t want them to think that the best way of solving a problem is to throw money at it. The best and most successful teams, are the ones who build up slowly, developing the grass roots football first, so that they have dynasties of talented footballers for years to come.
Teams who are benefacted all of a sudden, run the risk of being built on sand. Look at Blackburn. Bankrolled by Jack Walker´s millions, Premiership champions in 1995, but what since? There followed a gradual decline and relegation which has only recently been arrested by Graeme Souness and Mark Hughes.
What will Chelsea be like once their Russian fairy godfather decides he has had enough, and packs it all in? Where will all these multi millionaire footballers go when there in no oligarch around to pay their huge wages?
Look to Middlesborough as a recent example. They threw lots of money at their team in the mid 90s and brought in a supposed galaxy of stars, who turned out to be a bunch of lazy duffers who couldn´t hack the rough and tumble of the English Premiership. When relegation and defeat in cup finals followed, they soon disappeared.
It´s no surprise to me that the fortunes of the club transcended when Steve McClaren became their manager. Then they saw sensible investment on players with the right attitude, and the emphasis placed firmly upon talented local lads - some of whom have made England squads. Consequently, the club won its first trophy, played in Europe for the first time ever, and reached a major European final. Now Gareth Southgate has a very healthy legacy and set up at his disposal.
Lesson for clubs. Have money and riches by all means, but invest them wisely and with a long term strategy in mind.
2006-09-08 09:36:31 · answer #2 · answered by The Global Geezer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you know, i would love for liverpool to have that kind of money, but then again you have to think about the situation...chelsea has earned that money to purchase those kinds of players that they have. that's what makes competition. if everyone had enough money to purchase players like ballack and shevchenko, there would be no glory, not loyalty, none of that which makes football so exciting to talk about, hear about, and even watch. the better team has what they earned, so we just need to get working with all those other teams so we can beat em out and put our teams into that position to become a world class team. GO POOL!
2006-09-08 07:03:50 · answer #3 · answered by sweetpanther08 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No i like seeing the Boro kids coming through the ranks not team thats only playing for money! Cattermole left the pitch in tears last season because of a bad match that was lost, full of passion for the team, will ashley cole or drogba ever be seen like that?
2006-09-08 07:16:17 · answer #4 · answered by Jamie S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It will be alright in the sense that it would mean the team can acquire players that will bring results. In Mordern football, money is now one of the biggest instruments that can be used to bring succcess to a club. Youth systems and Junior policies are stilll essential but that alone can never scale a club to greater heights in football. So i would say yes but at the same time the funds need to be spent wisely especially when trying to bring in new players.
2006-09-08 06:33:47 · answer #5 · answered by cliffy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - but being debt free and being able to compete on a level playing field in the transfer market would be nice.
What will happen when RA gets bored and takes his ball home?
What will happen when the authorities finally catch up with him after following the trail of his dodgy money?
2006-09-08 05:25:16 · answer #6 · answered by Sonny Walkman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While Sheff U could use some of that money, I wouldn't wish the stigma Chelsea earned when that russian's purse strings loosened.
2006-09-08 05:09:40 · answer #7 · answered by AngloCajun 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, arsenal are doing ok bringing their youngsters thro the ranks, the thing with chelsea is that so many of their players go for glory all the time or are "sticky" with the ball as we used to say
2006-09-08 05:03:57 · answer #8 · answered by emmamac14 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with my fellow blade, Lance C. I would rather struggle with no money, than become what Chelsea have. Loads of cash, but no class
2006-09-08 05:11:54 · answer #9 · answered by eckingtonblade 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it's nice to have money, just to keep your players around and not be a farm team like West Ham.
2006-09-08 05:01:59 · answer #10 · answered by Stylus Happenstance 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be nice for somebody to bail out the force that used to be Leeds utd! and get rid of Ken B
2006-09-08 05:03:57 · answer #11 · answered by Marsie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋