Chelsea

Fagan · April 30, 2006

Does anyone else think that Chelsea?s Russian revolution have actually been good for us? There is certainly an argument to be made that they have given us the kick up the backside we needed. If abramovich had not arrived on the scene then it?s not unreasonable to say that united and arsenal would still be the top 2 teams and we might still have Houllier in charge and our hand may not have been forced to go out and get Benitez at the time when we did. We could have actually ended up with Mourinho possibly.

Its much harder to improve when your at the v top like Chelsea and for us I can only see us striving and achieving to get the level of domestic dominance that Chelsea enjoy, that sort of standard would not have happened had it not been for Chelsea I think. As much as I hate Chelsea and think all their money is horribly bad for the game, the money had already ruined it long before they came on the scene.

But they have the raised the bar and we as a result have a manager who is far more capable than fergie or wenger of closing the gap. We now, when bringing in new players, have to bring in quality and class that can immediately make an improved impact into the first team, and we have also seen the massive benefits of having a strong bench like Chelsea and as a result we have a much improved squad.

Would we have made such dramatic improvements had it not been for Chelsea? Would we have got rid of Houllier that summer? Would we be desperately seeking investment in order to invest heavily in the team?

Kvarme Ate My Food · April 30, 2006

This post is not viewable to guests.

You can sign in to your account at the login page here