So we're talking about the overall debt now, are we... not the money spent on players for the manager to manage. What shall we discuss next, your favourite colour? As I said, if we're talking about overall debt then ManU and a few others are almost certainly higher. In terms of spending on players these figures were up to Sept 2007 by which time we'd spent most of the money we have spent. http://www.chelseafootballclub.net/transfernews.htm That's about £340m but doesn't include later years but, as we had about the same coming in as we had going out I don't think it makes much difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_F.C._2007-2008#Transfers To this you have to add the cost of the clubs debts of around £80m when Abramovich took over. However this still leaves us a long, LONG way below the £800m the Glazers paid for ManU and that was just for club, not players available to the manager. In case you've forgotten, (again!), that's the subject of this thread.
Your initial link does not include the summer of 2003 when Abramovic first arrived and initially spent around £120 million on players. As you said it also does not include later years.
Pep is still totally unproven. Wait until Barca hit a rough patch and see how he can respond. About the only thing we know at this point is that he's a heck of a lot better than Rijkaard!
No, we are talking about money spent on players. That include transfer fees and salary expenses. I'd say £500m is about right.
.but barca is playing great and they have the same team as last year (minus deco and rona)....i said barca is playing great not just the midget
1) Messi has been healthy. 2) Messi has been healthy. 3) Eto'o has been healthy. He's already played in more league matches than he did all of last season. 4) Henry is past the adjustment phase of adapting to a new league 5) Dani Alves has been amazing. Better than Ronaldinho, Deco and Zambrotta combined. He wasn't there last year. 6) Messi has been healthy.
Oh, we're back talking about that now, are we. So it wasn't you that said... Raising the issue of the overall amount spent? That must be another Duck Manson then. Presumably it wasn't you that also said... Leaving aside the obvious point, (that lots of clubs spend money and they can't ALL win the Champions league), it also ignores the fact that Mourinho DID win the CL at Porto without spending hardly anything. Personally, despite him being Chelsea manager at one point and being successful I never really liked the guy but that doesn't mean he wasn't a good manager because he clearly is. For instance, let's have a look at the league table where he manages now. Serie A Club GD Points Inter 19 46 Juventus 19 43 Man, what sort of numpty halfwit supports a team like Juventus, eh? They must be all bitter and twisted about the current situation such that they keep banging on about the manager of other teams that have got feck-all to do with them
OK I understand that you're pretty stupid, that's like, obvious, and ain't able to talk about more then one thing at a time. I said they (Chelsea) probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho. I can repeat that again just for you little stupid boy; they (that's Chelsea, not Man United, just so you don't get that mixed up) probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho (who was the manager of Chelsea, not Man United). Again, just for your benefit; they (Chelsea) probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho (while he was the coach of course). Then I asked a question about their total debt now. Which of course threw you totally off since talking about two things at once is impossible. First I said; they probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho, then I said, Chelseas total debt now is probably £800m-£1b, which would of course include the year or so since Mourinho was sacked. That wasn't a direct quote by the way, just a sum of what I meant. That's two things. First; they probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho, then; Chelseas total debt currently is probably £800m-£1b. The last thing (Chelseas total debt is probably £800m-£1b) has nothing to do with the first thing (they probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho). Did you get that kiddo? If not, here you go once more, but this time get your little sister to read it out loud to you and then explain what it means: OK I understand that you're pretty stupid, that's like, obvious, and ain't able to talk about more then one thing at a time. I said they (Chelsea) probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho. I can repeat that again just for you little stupid boy; they (that's Chelsea, not Man United, just so you don't get that mixed up) probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho (who was the manager of Chelsea, not Man United). Again, just for your benefit; they (Chelsea) probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho (while he was the coach of course). Then I asked a question about their total debt now. Which of course threw you totally off since talking about two things at once is impossible. First I said; they probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho, then I said, Chelseas total debt now is probably £800m-£1b, which would of course include the year or so since Mourinho was sacked. That wasn't a direct quote by the way, just a sum of what I meant. That's two things. First; they probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho, then; Chelseas total debt currently is probably £800m-£1b. The last thing (Chelseas total debt is probably £800m-£1b) has nothing to do with the first thing (they probably spent £500m on players under Mourinho). If there is anything else you need me to explain to you, feel free to ask. Just don't ask about anything complicated because there are size limits on posts on BigSoccer.
OK! There's something I'm still confused and I wonder if you can help. You say that Chelsea spent £500m when Mourinho was there but he was only there from 2004-2007 so wasn't there when we spent the money under a fella called..... er.... what was it now??? Oh, yes, Claudio Ranieri**... that was it. He was the manager when Abramovich first arrived and spent more Mourinho did in any of the years he was manager. He also wasn't there for the past couple of years so, my question is... HOW much did Chelsea spend under Mourinho??? I mean, you've said it was £500m but, I don't know... maybe I've become confused again HEY! Maybe this will help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_F.C._2004-2005#Transfers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_F.C._2005-2006#Transfers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_F.C._2006-2007#Transfers No! I'm good, thanks ** For the benefit of others that might be reading, (not Manson, he's too much of an hysterical moron), I was never a big fan of Mourinho and, personally, I much preferred Ranieri. I think if Ranieri had more time he could have done as well as Mourinho and could possibly have got us as far as Mourinho did in the CL as well. As things stand I hope Ranieri manages to overturn the lead Mourinho has over him in SerieA and win it. Nothing would please me more, tbh, as I think Mourinho is a pretty sorry excuse for a human being... but none of that alters the fact that he's a good manager.
The figures are on those links I gave. It's about £185-190m. Mind you, he also had the benefit of the players bought by Ranieri so that's about another £117m, IIRC. Like I say, I hope your lot under Claudio manage to beat them in the Italian league but the fact is the fellas a decent manager Nothing will change that.
Fair enough. Then add about £50 mil per season in added salary expenses. Should end up at around £500m. I never said Mourinho wasn't a decent manager. Just that what he did at Chelsea doesn't impress anyone.
£50m a year, (£1m a week), ON TOP of what other clubs spend on wages? Come on!!! Well, not you, obviously but with what he did at Porto makes him a top flight manager in most peoples book. As I've already made clear, I don't think it's possible to pick out one 'top manager'. The phrase just doesn't mean a great deal.
Why does it have to be on top of what other clubs spend? If you spend 100m then you spend 100m. Not 40m because another club spent 60m. That makes no sense. As impressive as that was, he can't live on that the rest of his career.
When we're comparing how good one manager is in relation to another we have to compare how good the players are, don't we? Isn't that the point of saying, 'He spent... blah, blah, blah". If all the other managers have players on equally high wages, (although I'm not saying they do), then, logically, we have to compare the difference in pay between the squads. I'd suggest that Chelsea are probably about the same as teams like ManU and a few others. There may be a bit in it but not a huge amount. Certainly not the £50m a year you mention.
To me your argument is flawed. There is only one thing that matter in football and that’s winning. Who cares how much money you spend.
Alright. I don't know what the average salary for Chelsea and Man United is. I'd bet it's atleast 25% more at Chelsea. Let's say €3.5m at Man United and €4.5m at Chelsea. Before Mourinho I'd bet Chelsea had half the salary budget United did.
Alright. I don't know what the average salary for Chelsea and Man United is. I'd bet it's atleast 25% more at Chelsea. Let's say €3.5m at Man United and €4.5m at Chelsea. Before Mourinho I'd bet Chelsea had half the salary budget United did. This were the numbers for 2006 Chelsea £114,002,000 Manchester United £85,389,000
Those were totals. Can't be bothered to figure out the averages since that would mean actual research. I did a search and the first page were from 2006.