Liverpool FC Forum

The big positive right now is that Chelsea have major problems with their defensive personnel

Babayaro,was sold in January, Ferreira and Bridge will miss the rest of the season, and Mourinho has found out that Glen Johnson is overrated and unreliable.

That leaves them with 4 centre backs to call upon. Gallas is playing left back for the rest of the season and Terry's place at centre back is secure. So that means that either Huth or Carvalho will have to play at right back if Mourinho decides that he doesn’t trust Glen Johnson.

One more injury to a defender and they would be seriously weak at the back.

I think I will play Riise as LB because if we have Finnan and Riise in both R and L, at least we have a better chance against Robben and Duff. If we play traore, I'm sure both Robben and Duff will torn him apart. I will have Garcia playing left midfield and Nunez on right.

stmichael wrote:Good article from today's Guardian.

The millionaires' club

Success finally beckons for silverware-starved Chelsea, but can left-leaning fans march in Roman's legion?

Steve Busfield
Wednesday April 20, 2005
The Guardian

Chelsea play Arsenal tonight, and a victory for the former will seal a transfer of footballing power from last season's champions. Even if they lose, Chelsea look certain to become England's top club. The west London Blues are also preparing to join Europe's elite, with a semi-final of the European Champions League next week against Liverpool, whom they've already beaten three times this season. Not so long ago such glory and silverware were but dreams for Chelsea's players and fans.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But even the most die-hard Blues fan must have spared a moment to contemplate how the league has been won: it has been bought. The transformation has been wrought by Roman Abramovich, the billionaire Russian oligarch who reaped the rewards of the mass fire sale of national assets after the end of communism. Industries that had been bequeathed to Russia's workers were privatised at a fraction of their real value. Abramovich and Boris Berezovksy bought the oil company Sibneft for £67m. Abramovich is today worth in the region of £3.5bn. The average Russian oil worker earns less than £2 an hour.
Occasional investigations into the Abramovich empire have failed to unearth that he has committed any illegalities. However, can it be right that in post-communist Russia some young men have emerged with more money than they know what to do with, while millions are on the breadline?

Football fans often plead for justice from referees (albeit a blinkered, give-us-a-penalty kind of justice); but social justice is not something they are often associated with, so we can't expect football supporters to worry that their silverware has been paid for by the blood, sweat, tears and oil of Russia's workers. What chance is there, with Chelsea on the verge of greatness, of the club's supporters throwing it over and chanting "We don't want your money"?

Certainly not the Johnny-come-latelys attracted by the money, glamour and glory down at Stamford Bridge. These are the sort who can easily afford the exorbitant ticket prices and enjoy the burgeoning corporate hospitality. It's equally unlikely that the hardcore fans - the boys who used to stand in the Shed and hurl racist abuse - will be distressed.

Many fans elsewhere, though, would vote for years of misery over glory. Why else do so many other teams, from Plymouth to Carlisle, continue to attract crowds? Fans watch these teams for years knowing that the greatest reward on offer may be a promotion here or a derby win there. Certainly not championships or European cups. Not everyone is in this game for the precious metals. One banner at the Liverpool-Chelsea League Cup final earlier in the season proclaimed: "Money can't buy history, heart, soul." It clearly can, however, buy success.

This may be the point to concede the possibility that the anti-Chelsea sentiment that has grown in England is fuelled by jealousy. Rival supporters hate a team that always wins. Until recently, Manchester United were probably the nation's most disliked team, but even they find sympathy when Chelsea are seen to be waving their wedge around, allegedly trying to poach players. Sympathy for Chelsea's new victims is tempered, however. Arsenal and Manchester United still have more loot and silverware than most league clubs put together.

So, having written off the glory hunters and (former) skinheads, what about socialists and liberals who happen to support Chelsea? Can they be persuaded to abandon the club? However, most clubs, like Chelsea's "lowly" neighbours Fulham, are also owned by multimillionaires. So should the Guardian-reading fan just desert football altogether?

Sit-ins and post-match protests have been known to force changes in football club management, but usually at clubs with little money or hope of silverware.

Juventus supporters exhibited their anger with Liverpool (20 years after the Heysel stadium disaster) by turning their backs on their opponents' goodwill gesture.

Chelsea fans who don't want to give up on a potential Premiership-winning team could join the legions of Cockney Reds (London-based Manchester United fans). United are in the midst of their own brush with an outsider who wishes to own the club. The American property tycoon Malcolm Glazer is, however, unwanted by many supporters. Hardcore United fans have threatened physical violence. Others have suggested boycotting matches and hitting the club's finances.

For Chelsea's reds, switching allegiance to Manchester's Reds could thus be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. In order to prove ultra-loyalty to their new club, would they be forced to renounce their support if the club fell into the hands of the multimillionaire American?

Perhaps the Blues fans' most optimistic option is the supporter-backed takeover of the club. The key problem here is that the ordinary fans don't have enough money. Even if the supporters did manage to become the owners, would they then find themselves unwilling to spend quite so much on the players' wages?