• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Slipperduke

The Camden Cad
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
4,333
Location
North London
It may be billed as 'the clash of the cash', but if anyone at Manchester City thinks that their sky-rocketing bank balance automatically gives them parity on the pitch with Chelsea, then tonight's game is going to be a really nasty wake-up call. When you sweep away the tabloid headlines and the crazy-money speculation, all City have done is to acquire two flair players while quietly letting one excellent defensive lynchpin, Vedran Corluka, slip out the back door.

Money, even when it comes in this quantity, is no guarantee of success. In fact, more often than not, it is the cause of bitter dispute. The knowledge that Mark Hughes can sign any footballer on the planet is not exactly a rallying call to his existing playing staff who have to carry the campaign until January. What motivates Michael Ball or Didi Hamman now that they know that they are certain to be discarded in the New Year?

The most worrying aspect of this takeover is Dr Al-Fahim's insistence that he can replicate the success of Roman Abramovich. If he knew even half as much about football as he claims, he would know that Chelsea's situation wasn't even vaguely similar to Manchester City's. The London side were European regulars when the Russian money started to pour in. They hadn't finished outside of the top ten since 1996 and the two most important players to their future success, Frank Lampard and John Terry, were already with the club. Chelsea were stable.

Manchester City, by comparison, haven't actually been stable in my lifetime. They are the designated disaster club of the English Premier League. If there is a conceivable problem, and if it hasn't already happened to their partners in farce, Newcastle United, then it will happen to City. It's their lot in life. Just over a year ago, they were perilously close to their third relegation from the Premier League. Sven Goran Eriksson rebuilt the team, but was sacked despite guiding them to the top ten. In short, they are a club in flux, devoid of structure, transitional and vulnerable. What they really need is time.

Sadly, time is one of the few resources that Dr Al-Fahim cannot purchase. His ramblings about signing Cristiano Ronaldo, along with everyone else on the World Player of the Year shortlist, don't exactly support the theory that he is happy to allow his manager to manage. Just like dear old Dr Thaksin, it's only a matter of time before he weighs in with an insane public pronouncement that undermines the club and sets back their progress by months.

Manchester City have a real opportunity to put themselves in the top bracket of European football, but they are in danger of squandering it. Real football isn't like a computer game, you can't just sign up all the best players and settle back to enjoy the view. Look at Real Madrid four years ago, look at Barcelona now, look at Inter Milan ten years ago, look at AC Milan now. Success, lasting success, requires strong leadership, an intricate balance of personalities and time.

This is not 'the clash of the cash.' This is, for the moment at least, a football match between the title challengers and a mid-table outfit. For the sake of his new plaything, Dr Al-Fahim would do well to remember that.
 

shrimpfan

Manager
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
1,022
Location
clifftown area
It may be billed as 'the clash of the cash', but if anyone at Manchester City thinks that their sky-rocketing bank balance automatically gives them parity on the pitch with Chelsea, then tonight's game is going to be a really nasty wake-up call. When you sweep away the tabloid headlines and the crazy-money speculation, all City have done is to acquire two flair players while quietly letting one excellent defensive lynchpin, Vedran Corluka, slip out the back door.

Money, even when it comes in this quantity, is no guarantee of success. In fact, more often than not, it is the cause of bitter dispute. The knowledge that Mark Hughes can sign any footballer on the planet is not exactly a rallying call to his existing playing staff who have to carry the campaign until January. What motivates Michael Ball or Didi Hamman now that they know that they are certain to be discarded in the New Year?

The most worrying aspect of this takeover is Dr Al-Fahim's insistence that he can replicate the success of Roman Abramovich. If he knew even half as much about football as he claims, he would know that Chelsea's situation wasn't even vaguely similar to Manchester City's. The London side were European regulars when the Russian money started to pour in. They hadn't finished outside of the top ten since 1996 and the two most important players to their future success, Frank Lampard and John Terry, were already with the club. Chelsea were stable.

Manchester City, by comparison, haven't actually been stable in my lifetime. They are the designated disaster club of the English Premier League. If there is a conceivable problem, and if it hasn't already happened to their partners in farce, Newcastle United, then it will happen to City. It's their lot in life. Just over a year ago, they were perilously close to their third relegation from the Premier League. Sven Goran Eriksson rebuilt the team, but was sacked despite guiding them to the top ten. In short, they are a club in flux, devoid of structure, transitional and vulnerable. What they really need is time.

Sadly, time is one of the few resources that Dr Al-Fahim cannot purchase. His ramblings about signing Cristiano Ronaldo, along with everyone else on the World Player of the Year shortlist, don't exactly support the theory that he is happy to allow his manager to manage. Just like dear old Dr Thaksin, it's only a matter of time before he weighs in with an insane public pronouncement that undermines the club and sets back their progress by months.

Manchester City have a real opportunity to put themselves in the top bracket of European football, but they are in danger of squandering it. Real football isn't like a computer game, you can't just sign up all the best players and settle back to enjoy the view. Look at Real Madrid four years ago, look at Barcelona now, look at Inter Milan ten years ago, look at AC Milan now. Success, lasting success, requires strong leadership, an intricate balance of personalities and time.

This is not 'the clash of the cash.' This is, for the moment at least, a football match between the title challengers and a mid-table outfit. For the sake of his new plaything, Dr Al-Fahim would do well to remember that.

good read. [in my lifetime]do tell us about[in my lifetime as you see it as a shrimper]should be a good read thanks .
 

shrimp to 11

Youth Team
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
158
Hang about slipperduke,Chelsea only got their success during the 90's because they were bank rolled by the mega wealthy,multi-millionaire Matthew Harding(and were still,even after he tragically died),before that during the 80's they were regularly getting crowds of 8000/9000.
Harding came along and changed all that,bringing in the likes of Vialli,Gullit etc and along with it came the johnny come lately bandwagon.
 

Davros

The Whippet
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
8,387
Despite hardings money, Chelsea were still the unpopular London team though... at least with the Essex lot.

When i was at secondary school (King John 1996-2001) there was just one Chelsea supporter in my whole year group.

I bet if you did the same survey today they would have a somewhat larger fanbase?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
364
I don't seem to remember too many Chelsea fans at school, maybe 1 or 2, and whilst I appreciate that there are plenty of lifelong fans out there, the "bandwaggon" jumpers must surely outweigh them.

Manchester City, on the other hand, have always maintained a very similar level of following, whether they be in the Premiership of playing in the third tier of English football, as they were a number of seasons ago.

I have much more respect for City as a club, than Chelsea, and this was reinforced even more by bumping into many of their fans down at the Hall at the Goat's farewell game a couple of seasons ago.
 
Top