Aston Villa 1 Chelsea 3

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, martin1905 said:

ROTG says its because of free transfers.

 No because of Bosman. 
The offered Guillit £3m for two seasons. Because he was free on a Bosman
fook me the previous season the club paid £3.5m for Paul Furlong. 
 

Dan Pertrescu cost sweet GA so did Zola,  Vialli. 
Casaraghi was probably one of the best signing the club could have done at the time and the team may have won the league. Shame he career was finished after 10 games, although seeing casaraghi make Phil Babbs meet with a goal post always bring a smile and wince at the same time 😀
 

 

Edited February 11 by ROTG

[chara]

2 hours ago, jasonb said:

Good to call out Harding.

On Hoddle re Gullit, I went to Spain in 96 in-between jobs, flight delayed so missed the last bus and got a cab 

Talking in beginners Spanish mentioned I was a Chelsea fan and no reaction, mentioned the players and instantly when he heard Gullit then he knew who Chelsea were, the penny had dropped.

 

Interesting...my experience in Spain years before that were somewhat different...one of my most embarrassing moments in the game was hearing my name on the radio with a claim that I had played for Chelsea...no false claim from me but sourced from a friend fudging my well known Chelsea "fandom'"to a local media hack...my protest to him fell on empty ears as he said it would make him look foolish to offer up a rebuttal!...make no mistake even then Chelsea as an entity was well known in that part of the Spain at least.....Don't forget beating RM in the Cup Winners Cup was a big deal way back then even though it was a while earlier...just saying.

Hoddle?...I was out of the country during his time but my perception was of raising the then perception of Chelsea.

Again...Just saying.

[boratsbrother]

2 hours ago, jasonb said:

Good to call out Harding.

On Hoddle re Gullit, I went to Spain in 96 in-between jobs, flight delayed so missed the last bus and got a cab 

Talking in beginners Spanish mentioned I was a Chelsea fan and no reaction, mentioned the players and instantly when he heard Gullit then he knew who Chelsea were, the penny had dropped.

 

Yes, a massively important signing for us!

The glamour days of 60's 70's Chelsea had long since faded. We became a bit of a nothing club outside of its own fanbase and I guess there are some fans who don't like hearing or being reminded of that.  Heck, not only with the things I listed in my previous post, but also the fact that we didn't even own our own stadium or even have a training complex. How embarrassing for a club in the wealthiest borough in the country.  96 is where Bates and his boards long-term plan really started to take off.

Btw. In Fergues first season at Utd they finished 11th. In his third season they also finished 11th. It shows that it took years for even the greatest PL manager to turn the club around.  

 

[chara]

@boratsbrother;;;I am OG enough to remember SAF's early days at Manure...very unsettling, unpromising start to his tenure and a lot of speculation as to his long term future..I think the difference in expectations back then probably helped keep him employed,,,not the hot house pressure of todays game..... and although I hate to say it allowed his rise in the game to the heights he acheived...but I see no such potential greatness (in The Poch or many/most of today's ruling coaches.

[thevelourfog]

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

The only non-English club player to join Chelsea under Hoddle was 33 years old and on a big whack.

Sure. But we won't have been the only game in town, and Gullit being here was key to people like Vialli and Lebeouf joining. Ergo, Hoddle was significant.

Don't get me wrong, I think other people were far more important in what we became (I did say whoever brought Hoddle here deserved the credit, that's where the ball started to roll) and don't think there was some inexorable, inevitable climb the moment he came in. We were instantly better when he left. 

There's usual a kernel of truth to myths. It isn't as plain as either/or. 

[Dwmh]

1 minute ago, thevelourfog said:

Sure. But we won't have been the only game in town, and Gullit being here was key to people like Vialli and Lebeouf joining. Ergo, Hoddle was significant.

 Gullitt (33) came for money and left because he still wanted the playing wage, not the manager wage to be kept up.  The scientific analysis would be does the coming for money theory predict his press interview claiming he was attracted by Hoddle as well as the theory that he only came for Hoddle?  Well yes it does - that is exactly what he would say no matter what his real reasons were.  

Even Vialli(32) and Le Boeuf (27 and a different kind of investment) came for money.  They all have agents, and agents all know who is willing to pay good money for player contracts.  You and I might like to see a manager talking big, but agents all know this stuff.

2 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

There's usual a kernel of truth to myths. 

Always a kernel, sure.  Often a lie though.  Hoddle was great at handling the press, to his own advantage (which is a genuine positive IMO).  He left a trail of stories behind him and got the ultimate PR job, Manager of England followed by years and years and far too many years on TV.
 

8 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

It isn't as plain as either/or. 

It is a complex history but the club trod water while he was here and advanced rapidly in many of the years before and afterwards.  PR aside, and the first of a dozen or so Bates/Hutchinson/Harding deals coinciding with his presence, it is hard to see what he did.
 

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

[My Blood Is Blue]

At the very least can you take the discussion about Hoddle to this topic where it's at least relevant?

The discussion has gone so far away from the point of this topic and is now 3 and a half pages of people debating the impact Hoddle had on our club... I use the word 'debate' very loosely as well.

[martin1905]

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

17 goals in 103 appearances.  I'll stick with Jackson.

The only non-English club player to join Chelsea under Hoddle was 33 years old and on a big whack.

So what? Genuinely what's your point?

He signed Gullit and Mark Hughes. Two players that were levels above anything we had ever signed. Also Dan Petrescu.

Those signings elevated the club allowing us to bring in players like Vialli, Zola, Di Matteo and Leboeuf the following year.

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

But certainly there was a long period of improvement going back to John Neal, Campbell, Porterfield and beyond.  And a few key figures that were here far longer than any 3 or 4 managers.
 

Yes money + free transfers with high wages = success.  1996/7 onwards.  Started when Hoddle put his hand in his pocket to sign Gullitt.

For someone that never believes what the media or anyone else claim about wages it's very convenient that you are now using it as your only argument.

You know how much we paid Gullit do you? You suddenly believe the media stories from 1995?

Please, tell me who all these free transfers on high wages were, must have been a whole squad of them.

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

Quite.  so you have to find a reason why Hoddle and not Porterfield and Campbell was  a significant factor.
Otherwise it is just mythology.
It wasn't results and he only signed one player from abroad.

 

Think it's pretty obvious why Hoddle was a significant factor and not Porterfield or Campbell, it's the whole debate. Did either of those sign Ruud Gullit? Mark Hughes?

Do you think we would have signed Zola, Di Matteo, Vialli  and Leboeuf, all in one season,  if Hoddle hadn't come in and  started what he did?

[chrisb]

1 hour ago, chara said:

@boratsbrother;;;I am OG enough to remember SAF's early days at Manure...very unsettling, unpromising start to his tenure and a lot of speculation as to his long term future..I think the difference in expectations back then probably helped keep him employed,,,not the hot house pressure of todays game..... and although I hate to say it allowed his rise in the game to the heights he acheived...but I see no such potential greatness (in The Poch or many/most of today's ruling coaches.

If I remember rightly (I’m sure a certain someone will point it out if I’m not) he was going to be sacked if they lost a league cup game. Someone scored for them, they won and the rest as they say is history 

[chara]

1 minute ago, chrisb said:

If I remember rightly (I’m sure a certain someone will point it out if I’m not) he was going to be sacked if they lost a league cup game. Someone scored for them, they won and the rest as they say is history 

Seems about right....maybe FA cup but certainly my faulty memory nodded as I read your post Chris... but again..if we are wrong no doubt someone will point it out!

[Sciatika]

It was Forest in the FA Cup. Mark Robins goal won them the game.(I had to look up the name).

[jasonb]

17 hours ago, chara said:

@boratsbrother;;;I am OG enough to remember SAF's early days at Manure...very unsettling, unpromising start to his tenure and a lot of speculation as to his long term future..I think the difference in expectations back then probably helped keep him employed,,,not the hot house pressure of todays game..... and although I hate to say it allowed his rise in the game to the heights he acheived...but I see no such potential greatness (in The Poch or many/most of today's ruling coaches.

I can remember them coming to the Bridge in Feb 1990 and seeing Gareth Hall score a scrappy  winning goal for us in a hard fought match. We were singing. 'You're going with down with West Ham.'

This was Fergie's third season and they were just above the relegation zone, looking back they think Mark Robbins goal away at Forest in the 3rd round of the FA Cup turned thier season around and they went on to win the FA cup.

Next season 1990-1991 they finished 6th.