The English Premier League 2004-2005

[archt_marj14]

My dream signing to replace Keane would be Gerrard. Imagine Stevie G. in Man U?

Stevie will be crucified by the Anfield Faithful if that happens.

Chelski's just appointed Jose Mourinho as new manager.

[theblaze]

Chandler D: I beg to disagree on the Becks issue. I still think he needed to go and I think it was a sound decision. I can't imagine Old Trafford suffering from his fidelity issues alongside the Rio Ferdinand drug scandal. He's in Madrid now and he is crap. But let's not dwell our discussion on that. I have no time for any real player.

Guess what? Forlan scored for Uruguay again. I still remember his missed header in his last match for United. Unbelievable miss. His style is just not fit for United.

No way in hell Stevie G. should be in United uniform. No way in hell.

It is so tough to find a replacement for Keane. He's a legend. You can't replace legends. Those are huge shoes to fill in.


Cheers fellow Red Devil!
Glory Glory Man United!

[Chandler D.]

Chelsea fans:

I'm sure you're aware that its not as simple as buying all the good players you can think of, sticking 11 of them on the pitch, and expecting them to win a championship. As proof - see Real Madrid 2003-2004. There's a difference between forming a team and creating a dynasty. You've got to get young players working together and learning each other's games for a long period of time.

I'd rather have players like Fletcher, O'Shea, Wes Brown etc. than a bunch of mercenaries who come to a club with no history or prestige just for a big payday. Chelsea may have all of Roman's billions but they can't buy a legacy like United's.

Say what you want about Ferguson, he's got the medals to back himself up. Anyway, I remember the last time he nurtured a group of certain young players named Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, G. Neville, etc., I seem to remember that they won a couple of trophies.

Good luck! You may win the League or even the Champions League next year but the true test will be where you are in 5-10 years.

[ale828]

i thought it was chelsea who was interested in getting steven gerrard?

but gerrard is a good replacment for roy keane in manU if ever liverpool lets him go.

[bludwid]

Viduka has opened talks with Middlesborough
Paul Dickov to sign for Blackburn Rovers
Ranieri will sign for Valencia

Arsene's Spanish shopping spree is not over yet; Arsenal are looking at hot prospect Carlos Carmona of Real Mallorca

It seems Fergie is at it again. PSG have said Man U are in danger of missing out on the Gabriel Heinze transfer unless they stump up the 6 million asking price.

Kanu to sign for newly-promoted West Bromwich.

Liverpool will never let Gerrard go, because losing him means Owen will ask for a transfer - and this applies vice versa


Probable Chelsea Ins and Outs (courtesy of the London Metro):

In:

Jorge Andrade - Desailly replacement
Costinha
Morientes - Opened talks
Trezeguet - Chelsea have inquired. Dunno what they're going to do with six strikers.

Out:

Babayaro - Failed to snatch a regular team place
Petit - Past his best. Will go to France
Stanic - Failed to be a first team regular
Hasselbaink
Makelele - Did not impress

[theblaze]

CQ is coming home.

IMO, this is Fergie's best signing this summer. I heard Fergie also signed another youngster named Pique. Haven't heard anything about this kid though.

United is still being linked to Dutch youngster Van Der Vaart. But no talks has been announced.

bludwid: The latest news is, PSG have agreed to the 8.5 million offer of Man Utd. So I think Heinze is in the bag now.

After Mourinho's statement, looks like your 'OUT' list is about to increase. Remember, Chelsea has 7 goalkeepers. So I expect at least 2 to go.


Muzzy Izzet signs for Birmingham from Leicester on a free transfer.

[bludwid]

Blaze:

Yea, I just didn't put in the more obvious ones like Melchiot and Gronkjaer, hence the word probable. Heinze IS going to Man U for 8.5 million, but not without PSG threatening to pull the plug. good player, though.

Chandler:

Of course I know that you can't just put 11 highly-priced players of your choice on the pitch and expect to win the trophy. That's not a good enough reason to "hate" or "despise" a team, though.

But if you know your English Football history (you have got to at least read up on this a bit to sound credible with your arguments, yknow), Chelsea never really enjoyed the same stature as Manchester and Real. I've said it before, it would be a bit silly to compare what's happening with the club now with the two giants. I mean, Real's always had the money, Man U's always had the money, why can't Chelsea? Chelsea used to be such a poor team, Ken Bates bought it for a pound just so we won't go bankrupt. Building a youth academy is very expensive and very long-term. Chelsea never had the resources to maintain a world-class one (until now). It's a catch-22 situation. Man U were rich in the first place, since they only have Man City to compete again in terms of fan base, so money was quick to earn. We had to put up with Arsenal, Tottenham, West Ham, Queen's Park, Charlton, and Crystal Palace. Our stadium was the smallest of the big London clubs. Had Arsenal not been bought by David Dein and his cohorts, they wouldn't have been able to establish a world class youth team. It was only Graham and Wenger who were given the money to build a youth team, and it hasn't even paid off just yet. There are no players in the Arsenal roster that came from their youth team. Not yet, anyway but they've got Clichy, Pennant, Aliadiere waiting in the wings.

And when you say youth team, you had better know what you're talking about. We've got Lampard, Terry, Forssell, Carlton Cole, Glen Johnson, Wayne Bridge, Damien Duff, Joe Cole and Scott Parker. We're scouting for the best youngsters, and are close to signing Farfan.

And don't worry about what Chelsea will be in 5 years' time. You're a Man U fan, stick to your own backyard. You'll never catch me giving a hoot about Man U's future plans. I think just like me, you should just enjoy what Chelsea have to offer at the moment, which is more excitement and competition at the EPL.

Also remember that Man U almost got bought by the owner of the Green Bay Packers last year. And the way football works out nowadays, someone might just buy Man U for a billion pounds, and have more money than Chelsea. Let's see how you eat your words then.

[Dru_Jones]

i'm a red devils fan myself, but what i would give to have vieira or gerrard on our side... don't care if they're playing for rival teams...

and for me, the one signing that would make sense would be joaquin... this would give united a young pair of wingers with excellent dribbling skills which in turn would open up things in the middle of the pitch... and forget heinze, they should be gunning after christian chivu or philippe mexes...

just my two cents...

p.s. any of you guys play champ man 03/04?

[gakutokamui]

jacques santini is going to sp*rs. the french national team wont sign a new contract with him.

Had Arsenal not been bought by David Dein and his cohorts, they wouldn't have been able to establish a world class youth team.

the hill-wood family still own arsenal. dein is just an executive albeit being a very influential one much like kenyon was to united (and now chelsea). i heard (not sure if its true) that abramovich wanted to snatch dein from arsenal before... but dein refused.

It was only Graham and Wenger who were given the money to build a youth team, and it hasn't even paid off just yet.

actually, more of wenger. the youth set up is now run by liam brady who was an arsenal legend. the youth system back in graham's time was far from impressive and arsenal was stuck with a very old squad. it was arsene wenger's idea and first priority to bring it up to standard (along with getting rid of the drinking culture). dein and the board backed him all the way.

There are no players in the Arsenal roster that came from their youth team. Not yet, anyway but they've got Clichy, Pennant, Aliadiere waiting in the wings.

in the first team there is ashley cole. penant might get a shot if he stops his drinking and driving exploits and stops coming late to practice. hopefully his stint at leeds has given him some good experience. another arsenal youth player david bentley is going on loan for a full season to norwich. hopefully he too can get good experience and unlike penant before i hear his attitude is top class. others who came up the system but didn't quite make it to the team are matthew upson (birmingham) and moritz volz (fulham) and both have been impressive for their teams.

And when you say youth team, you had better know what you're talking about. We've got Lampard, Terry, Forssell, Carlton Cole, Glen Johnson, Wayne Bridge, Damien Duff, Joe Cole and Scott Parker. We're scouting for the best youngsters, and are close to signing Farfan.

sorry but most of those are already developed stars when you got them. bridge (southampton), duff (blackburn), lampard (west ham, but yes, his best development is in chelsea), cole (west ham), parker (charlton). not sure about terry though, i think he was chelsea from the start.

now before the mancs here mouth off about how good their youth system is i'll say it right now that you wont get an argument from me. your youth system is probably the most developed in england. it takes money and time to do that. most of the teams in the prem coming up will naturally buy their talent... obviously because they want to stay in the top flight. it takes money to maintain and develop a youth academy and unlike man utd not many clubs have that kind of financial power. but yes, most prem clubs like villa and boro have been getting good results at their youth level tournaments. the rest of the prem isn't doing badly in trying to develop from inside. no doubt chelsea will want to do the same so no surprise there.

[Chandler D.]

sorry but most of those are already developed stars when you got them. bridge (southampton), duff (blackburn), lampard (west ham, but yes, his best development is in chelsea), cole (west ham), parker (charlton). not sure about terry though, i think he was chelsea from the start.

[bludwid]

Originally posted by Chandler D.
sorry but most of those are already developed stars when you got them. bridge (southampton), duff (blackburn), lampard (west ham, but yes, his best development is in chelsea), cole (west ham), parker (charlton). not sure about terry though, i think he was chelsea from the start.

Terry was in the West Ham youth team but went to Chelsea very early. I agree that they're stars already when Chelsea bought them, but it moreover shows how serious we are at buying young talented players, and not mostly mercenaries, as you say. If you look at it, we've got more English-born first team players now than both Man U and Arsenal. We've got more players in the national team pool than both Man U and Arsenal, too. So the argument that Chelsea only buy overpaid foreign mercenaries still don't hold water as far as I'm concerned.

A few rotten apples do not spoil the whole basket, as the old saying goes.

Gakutokamui:

My mistake, Ashley Cole did come from the youth team. My point still stands, I think, that the most significant players from Arsenal didn't come from their youth team, but give it a few years and it will. But who's saying it won't happen to Chelsea either? They're building a world class youth academy/training centre at present. 5 to 10 years from now, provided Abramovich doesn't get tired of his new "toy", Chelsea should be up there for the long term.

The Hill-Wood family still owns Arsenal, so my bad for the misinfo. I doubt if they still cast any influence over operations and how the club is run, though. Name aside, Dein is Arsenal.

[ale828]

veron was just loaned by chelsea to inter milan, and rumors are that Crespo is also going to be loaned to an italian club.
it may be true what mourinhio said about having only 21 first team players on his squad.

[theblaze]

Bottomline is Man Utd built everything from the ground up. Chelsea shortcuts by buying everything.

I don't give a f*ck if they buy the whole Real Madrid squad, it would be no walkover if they play us. No reason to be envious and to worry, I support Manchester United. No amount of money can buy tradition and history anyways.

As the Reds go marching..ON! ON! ON!

p.s. Veron goes on loan to AC Milan for a year.

[gakutokamui]

But who's saying it won't happen to Chelsea either? They're building a world class youth academy/training centre at present.

am not contesting that. any club with ambition aims to set standards with their youth. chelsea is no different, albeit just starting.

5 to 10 years from now, provided Abramovich doesn't get tired of his new "toy", Chelsea should be up there for the long term.

this i think is one of the biggest misconceptions people associate with abramovich's takeover at chelsea. should he "tire" of chelsea what will he do? naturally he'll sell it to someone else. its not like he can "take out" his money from chelsea like its a piggy bank to leave it dry. besides, with that kind of money spent? i doubt any businessman would stand for losing it all. and remember, unlike the likes of leeds chelsea will NEVER go into debt. if abramovich does leave they will surely be left in a very strong financial position free of debt.

Bottomline is Man Utd built everything from the ground up. Chelsea shortcuts by buying everything.

what do you mean everything? chelsea is not doing anything new that man utd has not done before. a lot of your players are big name purchases too. yes, you have a good youth academy and some outstanding alumni, but you are still dependent on transfers for a lot of your stars. just scroll up to your posts above... most of it has to do with "buying this and buying that". that hardly constitutes "everything".

also on the money front, you talk about chelsea like its so different from what utd have done by going plc. you can say that chelsea sold its club's soul to a russian who doesn't really care for the club, but what do you have to say for yourselves knowing that one of your major stockholders is an arsenal fan?

you're not that different you know.

[bludwid]

what do you mean everything? chelsea is not doing anything new that man utd has not done before. a lot of your players are big name purchases too. yes, you have a good youth academy and some outstanding alumni, but you are still dependent on transfers for a lot of your stars. just scroll up to your posts above... most of it has to do with "buying this and buying that". that hardly constitutes "everything".

also on the money front, you talk about chelsea like its so different from what utd have done by going plc. you can say that chelsea sold its club's soul to a russian who doesn't really care for the club, but what do you have to say for yourselves knowing that one of your major stockholders is an arsenal fan?

you're not that different you know.

I was just gonna say this Don't forget that one of their biggest shareholders also are two Irish gangsters and horse racing tycoons. Come to think of it, Man U has so many shareholders! At least Chelsea sold out to only one person.

Manchester didn't build from the ground up. Just because you saw Beckham, Giggs, the Nevilles and Scholes grow up at the same time during the mid-90's doesn't mean they've been doing that for the past 60 years or so. That's just one generation of Man U, and that doesn't even make up half the team.

Don't brag that Man U prioritizes their youth. In this present scenario of wheeling-dealing, Man U are one of the biggest buyers and sellers. Apart from O'Shea, Brown (who you might remember was bought when he was 17), and Darren Fletcher, who else has Ferguson fielded in?

Man U have a world class youth academy, but that's about it. A world class youth academy at best will produce two first team players every 4 years. You think Man U would've won the league just by promoting young players through the ranks? You'd be stupid to believe that.

You want an example? Look at West Ham. They've got the best young people coming out during the late 90's/early 2000 and they sold everybody, because developing these youngsters cost too much in the long run, they had to sell the players to get a return of investment. Happened to Leeds too.

Veron to Milan. Good riddance. too bad it's just for a year.

[archt_marj14]

Santini to Spurs
-Thank goodness Spurs has finally found the replacement for the much-ballyhooed Glen(da) Hoddler. Had GH remained as our manager he would have had a new friend in the EPL pool of managers.

With Santini in, looks like Ranieri would be making a comeback as Valencia manager.

Liverpool will never let Gerrard go, because losing him means Owen will ask for a transfer - and this applies vice versa

Gerrard and Owen has been the best players that the Liverpool Youth Academy has developed, so you bet that the board will try to hold on to them like a barnacle. However, the two are still young and very ambitious, and if Liverpool fail to become serious title challengers during the next couple of years, their departure is a strong possibility.

In my opinion though, the Scouser pair would only leave Anfield for a foreign club.

Re: Youth Academies
Aside from Man U, Liverpool, and West Ham, another club who has developed notable players happened to be Southampton. It's too bad though that the number of players from the youth system to break through in the EPL has dwindled of recent.

[bludwid]

Aside from Man U, Liverpool, and West Ham, another club who has developed notable players happened to be Southampton. It's too bad though that the number of players from the youth system to break through in the EPL has dwindled of recent.

It's not just Chelsea. It's the whole transfer policy going on in the EPL for the past few years. It's caused a lot of furor and endless debates.

Almost all the Premier League teams' rosters are made up of at least 50 percent foreign players. The biggest teams have on average 3 English-born players starting regularly.

Why? Because English players cost too much. A typical comparison would be paying £10 million pounds for Heskey, and paying a little over that for Thierry Henry. Wenger has to be commended for perfecting the art of combing for young talent and buying them on the cheap from abroad. Vieira was bought for 3 million I think. Redknapp cost more than him. Most of Wenger's young talent at the moment have been bought for less than a million. It's affecting the national team as well.

If you look at the French League, most of the players are French. In Spain, too. Of all the 1st division clubs, England's got the most foreign players. I read that somewhere last year.

[gakutokamui]

no. the most foreign player to local ratio is in the bundesliga. i read that in the champions league magazine (the one with the vieri cover).

at the very least, the academy system being nurtured by the teams in the top flight can help stem this by promoting players to the first team. its a slow process, but it is taking place. for the time being, every team will first and foremost want to stay in the top flight and thus getting established or more developed players abroad is a necessity. good english talent is very expensive and most clubs just cant afford them.

anyway it looks like things are looking up for the prem this coming season. the difference with the prem to most other leagues in terms of finances is that most prem clubs are actually solvent. compare that to the likes of serie a and la liga where a great number of clubs are in serious financial trouble. hopefully the influx of some of europe's most notable managers to the prem can elevate it further. already it is fast becoming the destination for some of the best talents in the world.

[bludwid]

Originally posted by gakutokamui
no. the most foreign player to local ratio is in the bundesliga. i read that in the champions league magazine (the one with the vieri cover).

at the very least, the academy system being nurtured by the teams in the top flight can help stem this by promoting players to the first team. its a slow process, but it is taking place. for the time being, every team will first and foremost want to stay in the top flight and thus getting established or more developed players abroad is a necessity. good english talent is very expensive and most clubs just cant afford them.

anyway it looks like things are looking up for the prem this coming season. the difference with the prem to most other leagues in terms of finances is that most prem clubs are actually solvent. compare that to the likes of serie a and la liga where a great number of clubs are in serious financial trouble. hopefully the influx of some of europe's most notable managers to the prem can elevate it further. already it is fast becoming the destination for some of the best talents in the world.

The problem with the EPL at present, although most of the clubs are not in financial trouble, is the gap between the big teams and the small teams. last year for example, the points gap between the top three and the rest of the league is so wide that you can't be bothered to watch the other matches. the games are so predictable. and with the lack of local talent, other teams have had to search abroad to fill their lineups. It's a catch-22 situation. Do the teams wait until they get enough young players promoted to the first team, or do they buy cheap foreign talent? The former would mean that a team will lose a lot of games in the process, and relegation will be a big possibility. Ferguson managed to do this, but he spent a few losing seasons trying to bring beckham and co. in. He was lucky the Man U board thought the same way he did, but that's not the case at present. buying cheap talent abroad will keep them alive for the season, but for how long? It's kind of a difficult situation ain't it? The big teams don't have a problem with this, as they can afford to buy big foreign talent without compromising their youth academy. The problem is, as the gap grows bigger, the matches will get boring, and eventually interest will dwindle, profits will go down and the teams get stuck with the players' high wages. this is what happened with Serie A and Primera Liga. It's too early to say that the EPL won't suffer the same fate. English clubs never really brought in foreign players a lot until the late 90's. Hope it doesn't happen though, and I hope they find a solution to this really quickly.

[archt_marj14]

I've read somewhere that a player is not considered 'foreign' in EPL unless his country of origin is not a member of the European Union.

Can someone verify or nullify this?

Liverpool's Dietmar Hamann says he would "think very seriously" if offered a chance to return to Bayern Munich (The Independent).

I think Hamann only has about a year left in his Liverpool contract. I do hope the board tables a decent contract renewal for Didi. He's v. important to our midfield.