Who do you want to win the Premiership

[Jonesy 0]

I was just wondering, other than us ofcoure, who do you all want to win the league??? If for some freak reason we fail to lift the Premier league trophy I would like to see Liverpool win it. Just because Im sick of the ''top 3'' teams dominating & I have a bit of a soft spot for Liverpool! I didn''t like them much in the 80''s when they beat us & everyone else with ease all the time, but lets face it, they''ve not won the league for a long time now so I forgive them!

[AJ 1,218]

crystal palace! LMAO

[Jonzey 0]

I''d like Chelsea to almost win it, then 3 games b4 the end of the season the Russian Goverment finally catch up with Abramovich and arrest him for the amazingly vast array of crimes he has allegedly committed. His assets will then be frozen by law meaning Chelsea lose their final games.

[blacko 0]

Newcastle for their fans who are magnificent.

[Temp the Revelator 0]

Charlton - after all, it''s their model we are trying to follow!

[Jonzey 0]

I''d like to see Everton win, because if that happens it would mean absolutely anything is possible therefore I''d be in with a chance of pulling Jennifer Ellison!!

[susie b 0]

Anyone who beats ManUre and Chelski! The former I''ve always had a dislike of for too many reasons to mention and the latter I want to see fail in the end because of what that man''s money is doing to the game. Charlton would be great, or Newcastle (for my cousins who are part of the Toon Army), although I can''t quite see either making it.

[Mouse 0]

I wouldn''t mind seeing Arsenal winning it again. Although I agree with Susie B, anyone other than Man U or Chelsea!

[Zippers Left Foot 0]

Anyone but everton (1985 relegation - Coventry 4 Everton 0 still sticks in my throat!) or Manure (arrogant manager who has underperformed as much as Houllier over the last two years).

I wouldnt mind Bolton - smallish club, charismatic manager, some superb players (JJ) with a great team spirit - as an alternative to Charlton.

OTBC

[Strappy 0]

Middlesborough, simply because they''ve been a sleeper side for a couple of years now and given the signings they''re making over the summer I think they''ll prove to be a force to be reckoned with.

[listen (formerly MG7) 0]

May I ask why you have such a loathing for Mr. Abramovich Susie?

When you say that you want to see them ''fail in the end because of what that man''s money is doing to the game'', what do you mean?

I think what he''s doing is great, his money has made a huge difference to English football already, and not only in turning the Premiership from a two horse- to a three horse-race (though this alone surely makes things more exciting and watchable?).

Also, he is bringing some of the best players in the world over to this country, which adds to the profile and marketability of the league they are competing in (which, incidentally, is the same league that we are competing in, and is directly and indirectly providing us with the money that has all but secured our long term future).

And although he is bringing in all these players, Chelsea have also bought good, young English players (Johnson, Parker, Bridge, Joe Cole), and have given them the chance to play Champions League football. Surely this too can only be good for the English game and English national team?

For all the money they have spent, which has at the very least boosted what was becoming an increasingly depressed transfer market, Chelsea have also spent millions (admittedly not this summer) on players from other English clubs:

£17m to Blackburn (for Duff)
£10m to Charlton (Parker)
£7m to Southampton (Bridge)
£6m to West Ham (Johnson)
£6m(?) to West Ham (Cole)

These fees have been more than fair, and have allowed the selling clubs to reinvest that money in players from lower leagues (Blackburn''s - £1m to Huddersfield (for Stead) is just one example), thus meaning that ''that man''s'' money is trickling right down the English football pyramid.

I understand that you may not agree with ''buying success'', but they are simply buying the best players they can afford, in much the same way as we are doing (Huckerby, Helveg).

We were never going to compete with the top two before, the only difference is that now it''s the top three. If another ''Abramovich'' comes and takes over Newcastle or Liverpool, it could be the top four. The Premiership thus gets more exciting for the neutral, and attracts higher bids for tv rights, etc. All of which, effectvely, could help our own club.

I know that you may say ''it would be better if all 20 clubs had a chance of winning the Premiership, and not just the top three'', but I''m afraid football isn''t like that any more. Not that it''s Mr. Abramovich''s fault, of course, because Arsenal and Man. Utd have ruled the roost in the top flight for years anyway. He''s just trying to make another team competitive, and capable of winning trophies.

Now I''m no Chelsea fan, and I know it sounds like I''m his PR man or something, but I genuinely can''t see how him investing so much money in English football, and English youngsters, can possibly be bad for the game.

OTBC

[jobian 0]

The problems with Mr Abramovich are clear, he is a corrupt businessman who is running a football club in a horrible, cynical way. I know they'';re not the only ones, but the way Chelsea do business is horrible.

They attempt to poach players, chief executives, managers from both other clubs and their country. They also buy lots of young players intending to loan them out straight away in order to stop other competing clubs getting their hands on them. They sacked their manager after one season when he finished second in the Premiership, and got to the Champions League semi final, considering their standing before this is stupid. Ranieri had spent loads of money, but even more reason to give him time to form a team. It is common knowledge in footballl that the best team wins the league, not the best eleven players. Remember how long it took Ferguson to get it right.

As for helping English football, I cannot see how buying up Englands best two young midfielders Scott Parker and Joe Cole, and giving them bit part roles, used mostly as substitutes is helpful. These players are in their early 20''s and should be playing week in week out for a premiership side, not warming the bench for overpaid Argentinians, Parker and Cole at their age should be still developing at Charlton and West Ham into players good enough to command a place at a huge club. They''re being wasted by Chelsea.

I know that Abramovich is not the problem merely a consequence of the game''s modernisation, but him and Kenyon really wind me up. A genuine football fan would have bought his hometown club or someone they supported all their lives, neither Kenyon or Abramovich actually support Chelsea, At least people like Jack Walker had a genuine love for their club.

[susie b 0]

Some good points, jobian - you beat me to it! In my opinion it simply isn''t healthy for the game to have the gulf between the haves and the have-nots made even wider by Abramovich''s billions. It won''t be too long before the so-called ''big three'' are asking for a transfer to a European Superleague where they can at least get some competition. I know it never was and never will be a level playing field, but, as the slope for clubs like Norwich gets ever steeper I fail to see how that is good for football in general. The only Chelsea fan I know is happy to bask in the sunshine now but is very, very wary of the future when he fears their benefactor will grow bored of his ''toy'' and move on to other things. He''s convinced it will happen - it''s just a case of ''when?''

[Mello Yello 2,289]

US!.....although it is unlikely at this present time! Personally, I would like to see Newcastle or Boro "snatch it" from one of the "Suvvern" sides on the last day of the season. Abramovich, Kenyon and their "very over-confident" manager, are in for quite a shock this season. Jobian is correct in saying that talented young players are wasted on the bench. I just think that Chelsea are going to fall short again this season, and Arsenal & Man U will once again chase it to the wire. Anyway, it is most definately going to be an interesting and exciting season. Remember which unfancied 1st Div club won the league last season? Anything is possible with a "Greek" attitude eh!

"Money?" "Pah!" Who needs it! Now passion, there''s another thing! OTBC ;~)

[listen (formerly MG7) 0]

I agree with some of your points jobian and susie, but you still haven''t adressed many of my points.

I agree that Chelsea don''t do business in the best possible way, ''poaching'' players and chief executives, but tell me, if another company offered you the chance to work for them on double your salary, you would do it. Nobody here would not. Don''t be so hypocritical, having a pop at others (footballers or not), when in the same position you would do exactly the same thing.

''They also buy lots of young players intending to loan them out straight away in order to stop other competing clubs getting their hands on them''. I can only think of Alexi Smertin (who is now back), and Bolo Zenden (who was bought before the Abramovich era) as examples of players who have been bought and then loaned out, but I would be happy to be proved wrong here (NB Carlton Cole has come through the academy there, and Mourinho has said he sees a future for him at Stamford Bridge).

It''s true that Scott Parker has not got the chance of regular football as he would have had at Charlton, but ask Wayne Bridge, Glenn Johnson, Joe Cole (who Mourinho has said will play a much bigger role this season) whether moving to Chelsea has been a good move for their careers and international ambitions or not.

Ask Mr. Eriksson whether he would rather have players such as these (not to mention John Terry - the new Chelsea captain, and Frank Lampard) playing Champions League football with Chelsea or not.

Indeed, ask Lampard and Terry whether playing alongside such good players in training every day is good for their careers or not.

I appreciate, though, that Abramovich would have bought his hometown club if he was a ''genuine'' fan. Maybe he''s not a genuine fan though, and is just looking at this as an interest. Of course, it will be easier for him to walk away from the club if he loses interest, but I can''t see it happening for a few years yet.

When Chelsea played Lazio away in the Champions League last season, Abramovich watched them train in the Olympic Stadium the night before the match. He had no bodyguards with him, or ''flunkies'', he just sat on the bench and watched in awe. He may not have a ''love'' Chelsea in the same way we all do for Norwich, but he surely does have a love for the game.

Now I also agree that the way Chelsea treated Ranieri was awful, but I''m sure the rumoured £6m payoff will have helped soften the blow, as will having taken over the La Liga champions almost straight away. Also, surely a new owner has the right to choose his manager? I think Ranieri was given a season to see what he could do, but as Mourinho said in his press conference, ''what has Ranieri EVER won? I''ve won the Champions League, UEFA Cup and two Portugese Championships in the last two years, with hardly any money to spend.''

I''m interested to know what your views are on my other points:

- Chelsea''s buying of some of the world''s best players increasing the marketability of the league WE are competing in. The league whose money has all but secured our long term future.

- Making the Premiership more watchable from a neutral point of view, making Chelsea competitive and avoiding the two-horse race we have been used to in recent years.

- Much of his money being spent in England, and trickling down the football pyramid (Charlton''s £10m from the Parker sale has enabled them to afford di Canio for another year, and a rumoured extra striker - where does that leave Johansson? Also Blackburn having £1m of the money from the Duff sale to give to a Third Division club in return for Stead?).

- His money lifting an increasingly depressed transfer market.

OTBC

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Are you sure you aren''t a closet Chelsea fan MG7?.....I like to think I''m not a hypocrite, I surrendered a healthy wage to pursue another rewarding career, and with it a substantial drop in income. I now work to live, instead of living to work, and enjoy it immensely (not everyone is money orientated). I know Hucks must have taken a drop in his wages to grace the semi-artificial turf of Carra Rud, (although I appreciate he is probably now earning well after our promotion). You say that Chelsea have bought some of the best players in the world, are these some of the same players who under-achieved and performed pretty sub-standard in Euro 04? John Terry I felt had a poor tournament, and it didn''t stop there! as other nations internationals didn''t cut the mustard either, some of whom will adorn the blue shirts of Chelski this season. Money-men and marketability have pumped substantial income into the Premiership, and realistically, not because they love the 4-4-2, but they see £££££s (soon to be Euro''s!) to stuff into their large hamster pouches, and achieve their ultimate aim and insatiable desire to become "incredibly richer than anybody else!"

Yeah, I remember Chelsea in the 70-80s, with Stamford Bridge like it wouldn''t have looked out of place during the blitz! Well done Chelsea! and nice to see business is on a good footing. Although it''s Sky that has given footie an exceptionally huge boost, with it''s ability to export matches worldwide (thanx Mr Murdoch!). I''m pretty certain we wouldn''t have been given the amount of cash with promotion if it wasn''t for ''good-ole'' Sky, and that we also feature quite heavily on Sky in our first few games (yippee!). We must secure our long term future with success in the Prem, and then stability and cash will be forthcoming. Wolves, Leicester and Leeds, will certainly miss the profile and cash having to play in the old 1st Division, but no sympathy there.

Watching the Premiership from a neutral point of view? Not this season! I will be concentrating on one Club and one Club only! I may deflect on the odd occasion to see how other club''s results may determine our future in the Premiership, but, as I mentioned earlier, a North East team to win the Championship would be most acceptable. I sincerely hope it will not be a 2 horse race either, as Boro have invested well, and the Geordies will be there or thereabouts come May next year. Man U? they''re 5th bottom this season I reckon!.....

Nope, sorry MG, Abramovich don''t do anything for me I''m afraid (or Chelsea). He is welcome to pump his wealth into his "beloved & adopted London-club" but Premiership football was chugging along quite steadily before his intervention, and will merrily chug along after his interest has waned, Pyramid or not. It''s all peaks and troughs in this world (and society). Once the mighty Liverpool were impregnable, now they are average. Footie has changed immensely in the last decade, mediocre sides are now the ''worms that have turned''. Not only in domestic football, but also on the international scene. For the future > Go Greek! "Now that''s the way forward!"

What an inspirational & refreshing change! Bring on the underdogs "Woof Woof". ;~) Y''army!

[listen (formerly MG7) 0]

Applaud the fact that you took a wage drop to persue a different career, Mello Yello. But the noteable difference is that these players are persuing the SAME career, only on a higher wage. Now I obviously don''t know your situation, but are you really telling me that you wouldn''t move to a different company (in the same industry as you are in now, doing the same job you are doing now) for double the money?

Also, yes some of the Chelsea players had poor Euro 2004s, but they weren''t the only club whose players suffered. Players from Liverpool (Gerrard), Man. Utd (Scholes, Silvestre), Arsenal (Vieira, Pires) Real Madrid (Beckham, Raul) all had poor tournaments too. It''s nothing that Chelsea have done to make their players play badly.

So I fear you are drifting from the point somewhat, which was that Abramovich was ''ruining the game''.

Also interesting that you didn''t answer the points regarding

- Whether players such as Cole, Bridge, Johnson thought it was a bad career move going to Chelsea.

- Whether it is good or bad for the national team to have young English players regularly playing Champions League football.

- Whether the English players will improve by training day in, day out with such high quality teammates.

- How Abramovich spending much of his money in England (trickling down the pyramid) can possibly be bad for the game.

I appreciate that the Sky money makes up the biggest slice of the promotion pie, but do you think the payments would be nearly as high if the big name players of your Man Utds, Arsenals and Chelseas weren''t playing in this country?

Of course, Sky have done well to market the product to all corners of the globe, but you have to admit that the product is pretty good, which must help?

And it is exactly because of the big name players of the top clubs that the money is there in the first place to secure our long term future.

I don''t for one minute deny that the game has changed, and that there are now leagues within the league, but that''s modern football for you. And yes, many people (players and non-players) are investing in the hope of a return, but do you really think Abramovich thinks he will make back the £190 million he''s invested in transfer fees, plus a profit? No, me neither. He clearly isn''t in it for the money.

I think (with respect, as I like lively debate on here), that your points have drifted from the original post, by susie b, that Abramovich''s money is ruining our game.

Would be intersted to hear what your opinions are on the questions I''ve raised here.

OTBC

[ncfcrooferman 0]

lets make the premiership a levelish playin field?

squads of 23 players only 5 forigners +5 ENGLISH born youth team players

players must be sold before new players can be brought in

cap what clubs can pay on wages within in the whole of the club ie:

managment players as well as the tea boy/girls at half time

maybe the so called top clubs would not win the european cup
but at least the premiership would be competative and just maybe in 5
or 6 years time England may stand a great chance of winnin the world cup

what does everybody else think

Liverpool to win the league
Norwich to finnish 12

on the ball city

[susie b 0]

I just want to say that three years ago I was earning what I thought was a very decent wage doing an incredibly stressful job, MG7. If they had offered me double the money to have even less of a life than I already had then I would have told them where to shove it! My response to facing the rest of my working life having quite a bit of dosh and no life was to get out, retrain and get a job with a lot less money. Surprise, surprise...I have survived, in fact flourished! I have a life, new interests and new friends. What I''m trying to say nicely is that there are some of us who are not money-orientated, who value other things above their bank balances, and who, for various reasons, have other priorities. (Well done Mello Yello - I''ll bet you feel better like I do!) As for the ''Russian billions good or bad?'' debate, we''ll just have to agree to differ. I''m afraid there aren''t any arguments on this one that will convince me his money will be good for the game ultimately, but I guess time will be the judge on that one.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Excellent debate guys with some very good rebuttal points by susie b and Mello Yello but, ultimately, leaving me more persuaded by MG7. Late input by ncfcrooferman is obviously operating under the communist flag ( let''s have it level for everyone, more rules and regulations ). It didn''t work politically and it won''t work here.

[Green&Yellow Fan 0]

Norwich City!!!
Huckerby going to get 17 Goal this Season
Mckenzie 16 Goals
Svensson 21 Goals
#9 ? But going to get the Barclay card Golden Boot

That my prediction , PLEASE , PLEASE , PLEASE GOD MAKE THIS COME TRUE

[listen (formerly MG7) 0]

Again Susie, there is one major difference between you and the players in question here. You didn''t like your job, whereas they do.

I''m not saying that being money-orientated is the way everyone should be (I''m a skint student though, so maybe that''s why I''m a little more concerned than others!), and indeed even though I''m only 22, I''ve had enough experience to know that I would much rather be happy than rich.

I think I''m right in saying you''re a teacher? All I''m saying is that if someone offered you another teaching job (a job that you like, by your own admission), doing the same things for double the salary, would you turn them down?

[susie b 0]

Wrong, MG7. I really liked the job I left and I also currently like my job. Proof is that I taught children, now I teach adults and I have a life, which I didn''t before! See - I actually liked and still like teaching.
Your point about if I was offered another teaching job for double the money, etc. just cannot be answered because I still teach! I simply repeat that there are those of us for whom the lord and master called money is not the major consideration. I''m one of a growing number, I think. (It sounds like you are on the road to thinking that way too). What more can I say to prove it? Anyway, I thought we had agreed to differ about the Chelsea stuff as nothing would make me think NOW that a billionaire''s money will ultimately be good for the game as a whole. History may prove me wrong of course, but until then I cannot think otherwise. (Before you make the point that I cannot have taken a big pay cut as I''m doing the same thing but in a different type of institution, the pay rates in FE are quite a bit lower than in schools, and I had a position of some responsibility in the school I left. That brought with it more money, but one hell of a lot more work).
One thought I have had is that there are always going to be some players for whom money is the prime motivator and they will almost always opt to join monied clubs above those where they might be first-team regulars on less money. Equally, there will be some who would simply rather be playing regularly in perhaps a less pressured environment, for whom money is a consideration but not the be all and end all, so perhaps the unlevel playing field means that it''s horses for courses and all can be satisfied somewhere along the line. (There''s a new discussion point if anyone wants to take it further!)

[cheekyg<EM><H2 align=center><HR><H2><H2 align=center>G.D.G.S<H2><H2 align=center><STRIKE><HR><STRIKE><EM><H2> 0]

Norwich - lol!

[listen (formerly MG7) 0]

I agree that we''re going to have to agree to disagree susie...!

My point was (and remains) that your job has changed, there was a lot more work and stress involved in doing your previous job, compared to what your current job is.

If everything were to remain the same though (and I''m talking about teaching adults still, with the same level of responsibility, same number of hours worked, etc.), but your pay were simply to double (as is the case for the footballers), then surely, surely you wouldn''t turn it down?

In your situation, circumstances have changed.

Not that I''m trying to make this debate personal, not at all, please don''t think I''m attacking your career choices or anything else (teachers at any level deserve the upmost respect in my book, by the way), I''m simply trying to make the point that with footballers, nothing changes, their job is exactly the same regardless of where they are. Your jobs sound markedly different, in terms of number of hours worked, stress, enjoyment, etc. Theirs will not change, and that is where my point lies.

I completely agree with all you said about ''some players for whom money is the prime motivator and they will almost always opt to join monied clubs above those where they might be first-team regulars on less money. Equally, there will be some who would simply rather be playing regularly in perhaps a less pressured environment, for whom money is a consideration but not the be all and end all, so perhaps the unlevel playing field means that it''s horses for courses and all can be satisfied somewhere along the line'' though.

I think we both have a point and the real truth of it all is somewhere in the middle!

OTBC

[listen (formerly MG7) 0]

And I have just read what I posted to Mello Yello earlier on in the thread, about drifting from the main point...

Seems I need to take my own advice!

Again, no harm or offence intended susie, just trying to illustrate my point of view :)

OTBC

(And just in case there''s any doubt, I hope we spank Chelsea home and away this season!)

[susie b 0]

Ditto MG7 - no harm or offence meant or taken. For a minute there it sounded like you knew me better than myself, and that was spooky. Wholeheartedly agree with the Chelsea spanking wish. At the end of the day (much overused cliche) we''ll be there on the same side, and although I don''t like what they''re doing at the Bridge I don''t really care about them. It''s City I should be focusing my attentions on, so onward and upward!!!

[GenerationA47 751]

This isn''t the first time you''ve confessed to a spanking wish, Susie B. I''m still mentally smarting from your last threatened assault on my posterior! (see previous thread)

I''d quite like Southampton to win it though it''s not going to happen. Similar spirit to our own club, though obviously more established at the (middle of the) top level than us.

Chelsea have the theoretical potential to be one of the all-time great teams, and it would be good to see a legendary English team in my lifetime (that''s not Man U), especially as their annoying hanger-on celebrity fans are no longer a factor (Major, Mellor, etc.).

[susie b 0]

I wish to hastily assure you. GenerationA47, that I am the most gentle of souls and would not attack a fly''s nether regions, let alone those of your good self! You can sleep safely in your bed tonight and not have that dreadful nightmare you keep having!

[jobian 0]

I honestly don''t think it is helping Cole and Parker playing for Chelsea, if they''re playing week in week out it will, but they weren''t ready. They needed two more years or so to develop. Players with their talent should be showing the world as much wonderful football in their short careers as possible. It would be great if they only moved to huge clubs when they were guaranteed first team football. But I understand how this would leave them on the scrap heap as Chelski would go out an buy somebody from abroad instead.

As for the pay rise issue. Football is a job and a business, but it survives on peoples loyalty to a team. If football was just watched by neutrals it would go bust. Other jobs do not demand such a high level of representation. People love football because of the feeling of "our lads" and most fans have deep (perhaps unhealthy) attachments to certain players. I personally couldn''t ever look at Ian Crook in quite the same shining light after his day long scummers switch.