Daily Fail headline - Dani Alves didn't know Manchester City existed in 2009

[TCIB]

Hello All, Chelsea fan

There's something I want to say about Danny Alves in a moment, but first I'd like to respond to this comment if I may.

From a Chelsea fan perspective, City have been given a far easier ride after your takeover, than Chelsea have been following ours. Our view on this is that we were there first so a lot of the shots had been fired and were no longer so newsworthy a second time around. You are all familiar with the kind of accusations and jibes which generally get thrown so I won't list them but I do want to say something about one of the charges. The claim that Chelsea were nothing before Roman arrived. A charge which was believed then and, as evidenced by the comment to which I am replying, is still believed now.

In 2003 Chelsea were 5th best supported club in English football history, as measured by all time match attendances. This despite having been far less successful over the years than all of the clubs ahead of us in the rankings, and many of those behind us also. Despite too, a lost generation during the 70s and 80s when, in reaction to a rapidly changing demographic in Chelsea's prime catchment area, plenty of young white men were attracted to right wing agendas. Young men who had grown up Chelsea fans and attached themselves to the club.

The presence of these horrible people was pretty constant in number, but grew in percentage terms as more and more decent supporters were driven away. My own father would not take me to Stamford Bridge. Attendances all over the country were down during the hooligan era, but our club suffered more than most. In many seasons our average home gate fell below 20,000 and in one it fell below 14,000. Nevertheless, so strong had been our match going support in previous decades, that we maintained our 5th place through those difficult years.

On the pitch, in the ten seasons prior to Roman buying the club in 2003, we had: -

• Won 2 FA Cups
• Reached two further FA Cup Finals and another semi-final.
• Won 2 European trophies and reached two other European semi-finals
• Won a League Cup
• Reached a Champions League quarter-final in which we came within 12 minutes of beating Barcelona despite having had a man sent off, as so often seems to happen when sides are threatening to eliminate Barca at Camp Nou.
  
• Achieved a highest Premier League placing of second.

I hope you'll all agree that this adds up to something more than nothing.

As to Danny Alves, who cares what the must-get-a-click-no-matter-what brigade say? As long as he has something left to offer, and he's prepared to bust a gut to offer it for your club, then stuff 'em. They'll still have to print the table whether they like it or not.

And the table will look pretty good with City back up to second, don't you think? :) :)

Hello @OhForAGreavsie and welcome to the forum :-)

Going off your post someone has said chelsea are a 'nothing club'. My view is you have always been pretty big, at least i knew about you a lot when i was a kid and growing up. I often wonder what Ranieri would have done given another season to as you seemed well set just as he was given the boot.

I would rather fight for the title against you chaps for a thousand years as opposed to the others as it is purely sporting rivalry between us i think. Liverpool (thanks for that btw hehe) are annoying and i can't stand them, utd are meh and i hate them, arse are meh, spurs could be a hassle. On paper though it looks like us v you, however i am aware of how that can turn out, well, we both are hehe.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Hello All, Chelsea fan

There's something I want to say about Danny Alves in a moment, but first I'd like to respond to this comment if I may.

From a Chelsea fan perspective, City have been given a far easier ride after your takeover, than Chelsea have been following ours [I think you're sorely mistaken on that score. Whereas you copped your fair share of 'vulgarians buying the title' type barbs, the level of poison directed at us has been off the scale, if only for the simple reason that our emergence has actively resulted in one of the arrogant old guard - the rags, the dippers and the arse - missing out on Chimps League football every year for the last 7 years, and all the phenomenal wealth associated therewith, that they had come to regard as their own. The CL was pretty much expanded to accommodate Chelsea, but the rags and their mates have used UEFA to do everything in their power to ostracise us - the introduction of FFP, the 11th hour changing of the criteria to ensure we couldn't comply with it, the outrageous £50m fine, David Gill given carte blanche to oversee our accounts, the CL squad restrictions that came our way, the infamous letter signed by the rags, Spurs and the dippers on Arsenal headed paper demanding the powers that be 'do something about us'; it's a long list in itself, never mind the phenomenal growth of clickbait and the media's associated inclination to publish - frequently invented - negative stories about us that they know will appeal to the mindset of the biggest readership groups, ie armchair rags and dippers. This maxim also applies to the broadcast media and last year for probably the first time ever in English Sport we had a broadcaster actively and openly rooting for an English club - City - to lose in Europe. Rag pundits in the studio, rag co-commentators at the game, and an endless narrative of lack of soul, lack of history, empty seats, lack of atmosphere etc. BT's attitude to us was unprecedented and entirely born out of the belief that there would be more armchair rags, dippers and gooners out there in TV land hoping we'd lose, than there would be City fans hoping we'd win. I don't recall that EVER happening to another English club]. Our view on this is that we were there first so a lot of the shots had been fired and were no longer so newsworthy a second time around. You are all familiar with the kind of accusations and jibes which generally get thrown so I won't list them but I do want to say something about one of the charges. The claim that Chelsea were nothing before Roman arrived. A charge which was believed then and, as evidenced by the comment to which I am replying, is still believed now.

In 2003 Chelsea were 5th best supported club in English football history, as measured by all time match attendances [I did some research into this on here once and I think City were 7th, with barely any difference between Chelsea and City]. This despite having been far less successful over the years than all of the clubs ahead of us in the rankings, and many of those behind us also. Despite too, a lost generation during the 70s and 80s when, in reaction to a rapidly changing demographic in Chelsea's prime catchment area, plenty of young white men were attracted to right wing agendas. Young men who had grown up Chelsea fans and attached themselves to the club.

The presence of these horrible people was pretty constant in number, but grew in percentage terms as more and more decent supporters were driven away. My own father would not take me to Stamford Bridge. Attendances all over the country were down during the hooligan era, but our club suffered more than most. In many seasons our average home gate fell below 20,000 and in one it fell below 14,000. Nevertheless, so strong had been our match going support in previous decades, that we maintained our 5th place through those difficult years.

On the pitch, in the ten seasons prior to Roman buying the club in 2003, we had: -

• Won 2 FA Cups
• Reached two further FA Cup Finals and another semi-final.
• Won 2 European trophies and reached two other European semi-finals
• Won a League Cup
• Reached a Champions League quarter-final in which we came within 12 minutes of beating Barcelona despite having had a man sent off, as so often seems to happen when sides are threatening to eliminate Barca at Camp Nou.
  
• Achieved a highest Premier League placing of second.

I hope you'll all agree that this adds up to something more than nothing. [That has to be viewed in the context that Roman Abramovitch was immediately preceded by Matthew Harding, who injected what were then huge sums of cash into the Chelsea coffers. Pretty much all of the trophies you list above were accumulated as the result of that investment. Prior to Harding you'd won 1 x title, 1 x FA Cup, 1 x LC and 1 x ECWC in your entire history].

As to Danny Alves, who cares what the must-get-a-click-no-matter-what brigade say? As long as he has something left to offer, and he's prepared to bust a gut to offer it for your club, then stuff 'em. They'll still have to print the table whether they like it or not.

And the table will look pretty good with City back up to second, don't you think? :) :) [Well, we'll see. I wouldn't want to predict next season, other than to speculate that it'll be between City, Spurs and yourselves, and personally speaking if it isn't us, then I'd rather it be you than any of the other 'rivals'. I loathe the rags for obvious reasons, my dislike of the deluded denizens of Tottenham isn't far behind, and Liverpool and Arsenal have redefined bitterness since our take over.]

 

[VOOMER]

Yes, of course that's right. I joined Bluemoon in 2005 because I hate City. I wrote an article for this site, because i hate City. You're a little bit mental...sniff, sniff.

This is an admission?

 

[OhForAGreavsie]

I think you're sorely mistaken on that score. Whereas you copped your fair share of 'vulgarians buying the title' type barbs, the level of poison directed at us has been off the scale, if only for the simple reason that our emergence has actively resulted in one of the arrogant old guard - the rags, the dippers and the arse - missing out on Chimps League football every year for the last 7 years, and all the phenomenal wealth associated therewith, that they had come to regard as their own.

Well different perspectives I suppose. Maybe we see things too much through glasses of our own shades of blue. Perhaps it would take the views of fans of other clubs to get a more objective take, so let's not argue. I do though have a different take on some of the examples you cite. Apologies if any of the impressions I'm about to relate are factually incorrect. If that is so, then I'd welcome being corrected of course.

The CL was pretty much expanded to accommodate Chelsea

This is not my recollection. There were 32 teams in the group stage of the CL this first time we entered the competition in 1999-2000, and there are still 32 now. No expansion to accommodate us post Roman. England's 4th CL spot is a function of the relative success of English sides and was not a policy decision to benefit Chelsea or otherwise. Chelsea had been refused membership of the G14 so our voice was not heard or considered by the most powerful clubs.

the rags and their mates have used UEFA to do everything in their power to ostracise us - the introduction of FFP

They certainly did everything to restrict the spending of owner funded clubs but these plans were mooted and put in train as a reaction to Roman's funding and would have happened regardless of your takeover. As it turns out, they affect Chelsea more than they affect you (sort of), albeit that many non-City fans still think you are permitted to get away with more than you should. Those people include me, although I am not unhappy about it. I remember posting the opinion that I hoped City & PSG would drive a coach and horses through FFP because it stinks. It does stink, to high heaven. I'll say more below on what I mean by this.

the 11th hour changing of the criteria to ensure we couldn't comply with it, the outrageous £50m fine, David Gill given carte blanche to oversee our accounts, the CL squad restrictions that came our way

I'm not aware of any 11th hour change to the regulations but, again, please put me straight if I am wrong about this. As far as I'm aware the regulations, including those changes made in respect of 'related entities', were written and agreed by clubs in a timely way. The fine & squad restrictions imposed were in accordance with those regulations. They were applied as a consequence of having been found to be in breach of the rules, and not for any other reason.

the infamous letter signed by the rags, Spurs and the dippers on Arsenal headed paper demanding the powers that be 'do something about us'

The letter does not mention any club by name, nor does it include the phrase, 'do something about', in relation to City or any other club.

The signatories didn't demand anything. They made an open proposal, to be voted on by all 20 Premier League clubs, that the Premier League's own FFP regulations should be brought in line with uefa's. This was 5 years after the City takeover and so was not a reaction to that. The proposal was aimed just as much at Chelsea as it was at City. To see it differently is a case of those light blue tinteds again I think. :)

The reason I say FFP restricts Chelsea more than City is because you have been able to get uefa agreement that, what looks to many people like related party sponsorships, are in compliance with the rules. This allows you to report far higher commercial income and therefore funds a higher FFP budget. I don't have a problem with that. As far as I'm concerned, either everybody has the same budget, or nobody has any spending restrictions.

We all know that the FFP regulations simply serve to keep the existing group of power clubs locked into that poosition for ever more. I'm sorry to tell you that my own club are enthusiastic supporters of FFP. Appalling. It's one thing seeing Usain Bolt in a high-tech, meaga expensive pair of running shoes that the young kid in lane 8 just can't afford. It's another thing however, a disgusting thing, to say that no one is allowed to give the kid a pair of good shoes so he can compete on a level playing field.

Of course the 'old money' clubs would argue that it wouldn't be a level playing field if the petro-clubs could spend whatever they want. This is why I favour a fixed, maximum budget for everybody.

never mind the phenomenal growth of clickbait and the media's associated inclination to publish - frequently invented - negative stories about us that they know will appeal to the mindset of the biggest readership groups

If the internet had been as widely used in 2003 as it is now, anti-Chelsea activities would have broken it.

These types of stories are published about every club but clubs which are high profile suffer most. It was ever thus. City & Chelsea have a profile.

and last year for probably the first time ever in English Sport we had a broadcaster actively and openly rooting for an English club - City - to lose in Europe. Rag pundits in the studio, rag co-commentators at the game, and an endless narrative of lack of soul, lack of history, empty seats, lack of atmosphere etc. BT's attitude to us was unprecedented and entirely born out of the belief that there would be more armchair rags, dippers and gooners out there in TV land hoping we'd lose, than there would be City fans hoping we'd win. I don't recall that EVER happening to another English club

I suggest that you wouldn't remember, and that you might not even notice in the first place. Let me explain.

Not long ago your ladies team and Chelsea's development team were playing at the same time and both games were being broadcast. I was watching our game, and reading comments in this site about the City match. There were so many comments about how biased the commentators were against City that I felt I had to check it out for myself so I switched channels. I honestly could not see what all those fans had been talking about. The observations about 'biased' commentary went on as I watched so it couldn't be just that it had stopped before I tuned in. Now, let's be generous and say that the bias was there but I just didn't notice it. Well, if I didn't notice bias against a team which wasn't my own, would you concede that you might not notice it happening to a team that you don't support?

I could certainly give many examples I consider to be the equivalent of those you've given.

I did some research into this on here once and I think City were 7th, with barely any difference between Chelsea and City

Ah, good. That's interesting to know. Of course I didn't bring up that table of average attendances to suggest that Chelsea are better or 'bigger' than City, or anybody else. I just wanted to counter the oft repeated barb that we were a nothing club with no fans before Roman's money. My original post acknowledges that we had not been a hugely successful club pre-Roman, but points out that we were nevertheless one of the best supported clubs in England. Glory hunters we are not.

That has to be viewed in the context that Roman Abramovitch was immediately preceded by Matthew Harding, who injected what were then huge sums of cash into the Chelsea coffers. Pretty much all of the trophies you list above were accumulated as the result of that investment. Prior to Harding you'd won 1 x title, 1 x FA Cup, 1 x LC and 1 x ECWC in your entire history

Mathew Harding's injection totalled £26.5m. Even in those days that was not a lot of money. Not enough to cover the cost of recruiting Chris Sutton and Jimmy Floyd Hasslebaink. In any case much of Mathew's cash was a loan. His widow Ruth, despite having a lot to work through following Mattew's death, was kind enough to delay selling her shares until Roman came on the scene. She did reclaim the loan however. She is very popular at Stamford Bridge.

Well, we'll see. I wouldn't want to predict next season, other than to speculate that it'll be between City, Spurs and yourselves, and personally speaking if it isn't us, then I'd rather it be you than any of the other 'rivals'. I loathe the rags for obvious reasons, my dislike of the deluded denizens of Tottenham isn't far behind, and Liverpool and Arsenal have redefined bitterness since our take over.

This was just a bit of banter really. Unless we strengthen very significantly over the summer, I can see us struggling to stay ahead of the pack, never mind keeping up with Spurs or, especially, your lot.

 

[Ballet On Ice]

Hi Greavsie

Not going to get into an argument here over my cars better than yours or my dads bigger than yours, we both look at it from our own clubs side.

But most City fans I know don’t have any problem with Chelsea, most quite like you, we compete against you, try to beat you but if you end up winning the league its not the end of the world. You got a lot of crap when you started spending the money, buying the league etc but at least you didn’t take away from the “big three” it just became the big four as far as sky were concerned. There were four CL positions so Arsenal Liverpool and United were still in it.

When we gate crashed the party then there was a big problem and backlash as we were taking one of the entitled three’s position with our dirty money. The press fans and pundits didn’t like the fact that one of that three were going to lose out. Have you noticed just how many pundits have an Arsenal Liverpool or United connection?

So we get stick like you did but for a much more serious reason you only stopped them winning the league. We are stopping them doing that and knocking one of them out of the CL.

Oh and when it comes to doing it the right way spending what you earn a few years ago during the big four period teams got around £45 million from the prem, those three were getting another £22 million just for getting through the group stages of the CL and possibly as much again with the commercial benefits. So they were spending money that no one else could get near with their spending power and attraction for the best players to stay at the top. They weren’t spending what they earn’t they were spending what no one else could earn.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Well different perspectives I suppose. Maybe we see things too much through glasses of our own shades of blue. Perhaps it would take the views of fans of other clubs to get a more objective take, so let's not argue. I do though have a different take on some of the examples you cite. Apologies if any of the impressions I'm about to relate are factually incorrect. If that is so, then I'd welcome being corrected of course.


This is not my recollection. There were 32 teams in the group stage of the CL this first time we entered the competition in 1999-2000, and there are still 32 now. No expansion to accommodate us post Roman. England's 4th CL spot is a function of the relative success of English sides and was not a policy decision to benefit Chelsea or otherwise. Chelsea had been refused membership of the G14 so our voice was not heard or considered by the most powerful clubs. [Fair enough. I didn't check!]


They certainly did everything to restrict the spending of owner funded clubs but these plans were mooted and put in train as a reaction to Roman's funding and would have happened regardless of your takeover. As it turns out, they affect Chelsea more than they affect you (sort of), albeit that many non-City fans still think you are permitted to get away with more than you should. Those people include me, although I am not unhappy about it. I remember posting the opinion that I hoped City & PSG would drive a coach and horses through FFP because it stinks. It does stink, to high heaven. I'll say more below on what I mean by this. [The plans that were put in place originally by UEFA were designed to tackle debt. However, then along came Sheikh Mansour and the focus of FFP moved very quickly to 'living within one's means', with the debt angle, which would of course have affected the rags, quietly shelved.]


I'm not aware of any 11th hour change to the regulations but, again, please put me straight if I am wrong about this. As far as I'm aware the regulations, including those changes made in respect of 'related entities', were written and agreed by clubs in a timely way. The fine & squad restrictions imposed were in accordance with those regulations. They were applied as a consequence of having been found to be in breach of the rules, and not for any other reason. [The 11th hour change was that - and bear with me cos I'm doing this from memory - clubs were given 2 years or so to get their deficits down below about £85m (I think), at which point numerous additional things would become deductible, such as money spent on youth infrastructure and development. Clubs could also write off the cost of the wages of any player signed prior to 2010 to help them get below the £85m mark. City spent 2 years running every aspect of our accounting past UEFA and courtesy of the pre-2010 wages exemption we were on course to come in under the £85m pass mark, so with barely 8 weeks to deadline day UEFA, with no prior notification whatsoever and in full knowledge that it would torpedo us, decided to change the wages exemption parameters. It left us no time to rectify the situation and was utterly deliberate in its intent. Sabotage, plain and simple. City duly posted around £100m, which of course meant we were not then permitted to deduct our youth investment, which in turn meant we 'failed' FFP, which in turn meant UEFA could fine us a ridiculous £50m for a breach that they calculatingly orchestrated. To Joe Public, who seldom look beyond the headline when it's not their club, of course it just looked like City were guilty. We weren't. They stitched us up. It's part of why we hate the bastards so much and boo their fucking anthem.]


The letter does not mention any club by name, nor does it include the phrase, 'do something about', in relation to City or any other club. [I've attached a link to the letter. Alright it doesn't mention City by name, but it's pretty obvious who it's about. If I wrote a letter about banning politicians from making false promises about building border walls, I wouldn't have to use the words 'Donald' or 'Trump' for you to know who it was aimed at, would I?...... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2262027/Manchester-United-Liverpool-Arsenal-Spurs-join-forces-shackle-spending-Man-City-Chelsea.html ]

The signatories didn't demand anything. They made an open proposal, to be voted on by all 20 Premier League clubs, that the Premier League's own FFP regulations should be brought in line with uefa's. This was 5 years after the City takeover and so was not a reaction to that. The proposal was aimed just as much at Chelsea as it was at City. To see it differently is a case of those light blue tinteds again I think. :)

The reason I say FFP restricts Chelsea more than City is because you have been able to get uefa agreement that, what looks to many people like related party sponsorships, are in compliance with the rules. This allows you to report far higher commercial income and therefore funds a higher FFP budget. I don't have a problem with that. As far as I'm concerned, either everybody has the same budget, or nobody has any spending restrictions. [We haven't "been able to get UEFA to agree" to anything, and the fact that idiot followers - not you I hasten to add - of our immediate rivals choose to believe that we are "up to something dodgy", because that suits a well worn narrative, isn't something City have any control over. International Accountancy Standards were rigorously applied to City's sponsorship deals and they were found not to meet the criteria for related party transactions. It's as simple as that. Do you really believe David Gill, with Bayern, Madrid, Milan behind him as well as the rags and the dippers, would knowingly let City get away with anything? If so I refer you back to the FFP shenanigans described above. And for the record, City's deal with Etihad is worth £40m a year and includes shirt sponsorship, stadium naming rights and Youth Academy sponsorship. It's far from the largest deal in the Premiership and in terms of alleged nepotism wasn't even as lucrative as Liverpool's 2012 deal with Warrior Sports - owned by J.W.Henry - which netted the Scousers £25m a year for shirt sponsorship alone without anyone batting an eyelid. All of that notwithstanding, the Etihad deal is small beer compared to the TV money, PL prize money and the part sale of the club in 2016 to a Chinese media company, anyway, and I'm not sure how anyone could view it as affording some massive FFP edge over Chelsea.]

We all know that the FFP regulations simply serve to keep the existing group of power clubs locked into that position for ever more. I'm sorry to tell you that my own club are enthusiastic supporters of FFP. Appalling. It's one thing seeing Usain Bolt in a high-tech, meaga expensive pair of running shoes that the young kid in lane 8 just can't afford. It's another thing however, a disgusting thing, to say that no one is allowed to give the kid a pair of good shoes so he can compete on a level playing field.

Of course the 'old money' clubs would argue that it wouldn't be a level playing field if the petro-clubs could spend whatever they want. This is why I favour a fixed, maximum budget for everybody.


If the internet had been as widely used in 2003 as it is now, anti-Chelsea activities would have broken it.

These types of stories are published about every club but clubs which are high profile suffer most. It was ever thus. City & Chelsea have a profile.


I suggest that you wouldn't remember, and that you might not even notice in the first place. Let me explain.

Not long ago your ladies team and Chelsea's development team were playing at the same time and both games were being broadcast. I was watching our game, and reading comments in this site about the City match. There were so many comments about how biased the commentators were against City that I felt I had to check it out for myself so I switched channels. I honestly could not see what all those fans had been talking about. The observations about 'biased' commentary went on as I watched so it couldn't be just that it had stopped before I tuned in. Now, let's be generous and say that the bias was there but I just didn't notice it. Well, if I didn't notice bias against a team which wasn't my own, would you concede that you might not notice it happening to a team that you don't support? [Possibly, yes. There are always a paranoid few on here who would see bias in a tin of red paint. That in no way diminishes my point about BT's coverage of City in the 2015/2016 Champions League however. Camelgob and the Ginger Pig spitting bile in the studio, ikkle Mickey plugging the 'no atmosphere, no history, empty seats' narrative from the commentary gantry. It was a disgrace.]

I could certainly give many examples I consider to be the equivalent of those you've given.


Ah, good. That's interesting to know. Of course I didn't bring up that table of average attendances to suggest that Chelsea are better or 'bigger' than City, or anybody else. I just wanted to counter the oft repeated barb that we were a nothing club with no fans before Roman's money. My original post acknowledges that we had not been a hugely successful club pre-Roman, but points out that we were nevertheless one of the best supported clubs in England. Glory hunters we are not.

Mathew Harding's injection totalled £26.5m. Even in those days that was not a lot of money [I would dispute that. It was a considerable sum in 1994. Zola and Di Matteo only cost £5m each 3 years later, and United paid Newcastle £7m for Andy Cole in 1995 to break the record of £5.5m set in 1992 when Lazio bought Gazza]. Not enough to cover the cost of recruiting Chris Sutton and Jimmy Floyd Hasslebaink. In any case much of Mathew's cash was a loan. His widow Ruth, despite having a lot to work through following Mattew's death, was kind enough to delay selling her shares until Roman came on the scene. She did reclaim the loan however. She is very popular at Stamford Bridge.


This was just a bit of banter really. Unless we strengthen very significantly over the summer, I can see us struggling to stay ahead of the pack, never mind keeping up with Spurs or, especially, your lot. [You'll be fine. As per this year if we don't win it, I hope you do. Good luck.]

 

[Ladybarn Blue .]

I bet he knows our club exists know .

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Greavsie,
I generally had the impression that the change in qualifying for the CL was in part to ensure that the favoured sons still qualified, and with Chelsea smashing their way in, that required a change to be made to benefit others.

Exeter Blue's comment on the rules change seems pretty well backed up: submit accounts and then have UEFA change the rules you have to meet after you've done so!
I'm pretty certain that was why the club were so annoyed about the whole thing and attendant bad publicity which is still quoted today, although there was also City's accounting move which they didn't know what to do with/value at (some of the staff costs went to a CFG groupwide company rather than to the club, with the club then paying them for services, but essentially spreading some of the scouting costs to NYCFC, etc); I think they changed the rules over that as well so all of those group-shared companies count in FFP too, and that one seems very clearly targeted at City.

I think City and Chelsea were viewed as equally evil by Spurs, Utd, Liverpool, and Arsenal (that FFP letter ignored Chelsea as Chelsea were never going to agree, just like City), but Chelsea got through the UEFA FFP trapdoor before it slammed shut (on City's fingers) so UEFA don't have so many problems with them. Now the odious little eyegouger has left, there's less to dislike anyway!

Commentaries - listening to the youth cup finals coverage (could you please stop winning them) is excruciating! Mind you, Gullit is almost always an embarrassment when he appears for a Chelsea match as he gets very agitated at the slightest negative slant.