The past players and staff thread

[McCreadie]

19 minutes ago, Bison said:

I think Robben is a perfect example of young wingers being nearly as good as they'll be at their peak.

Still to this day one of my favourite goals:

 

Commo: 'He's quick, he's direct and as Chelsea have been telling us for a while: he's a star.'

Wonder how much he'd go for now if 60m today gets you Mudryk.

Titus Bramble wading through treacle there.

[paulw66]

57 minutes ago, Bison said:

1) I personally believe forwards and wingers (particularly explosive, tricky ones) generally tend to peak earlier than other players. The ones who have the long careers often reinvent themselves and play differently once their legs have gone.

 

Yes, agreed. The slight difference here is that Mudryk doesn't have a lot of miles in the tank. His body hasn't taken much punishment. Rooney was playing at 16, and at the top level was done by 30. Drogba was a late starter and was able to go much later. 

57 minutes ago, Bison said:

 

2) Yep, Robben got the football education you would expect a top country like the Netherlands to provide. That education plus his technical and athletic skills and you had a world beater at his age. Meanwhile Mudryk is an explosive athlete that plays like a 16 year old from a Cat 3 academy.

 

Yes, agreed , hence the "grace"

57 minutes ago, Bison said:

 

3) How much grace? He's 23 years old and has had a full calendar year to settle in.

I don't know, is the honest answer, but he hasn't exactly joined a well oiled ship either. I am curious to think how he would have done had he gone to Arsenal, who were / are in a much more stable position.

A similar situation that springs to mind is Ivanovic. Signed in January 2008, and made his first appearance in the league cup in September at Portsmouth, and didn't play in the PL until October. 

I think we need to see some more improvement by the end of this season, and thereafter, there are no more excuses. 

[chara]

Great clip of "Rockin' Robben..but a question.. for @JaneB...who is that bloke taking the FK?...can't seem to bring him to mind!

[Dwmh]

49 minutes ago, chara said:

Great clip of "Rockin' Robben..but a question.. for @JaneB...who is that bloke taking the FK?...can't seem to bring him to mind!

Paulo Ferreira (No 20).  The commentators faintly even mention his name.  Only the 9 seasons with us  🙂

But young, Latin and good looking - you were right to ask @JaneB

[chara]

16 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Paulo Ferreira (No 20).  The commentators faintly even mention his name.  Only the 9 seasons with us  🙂

But young, Latin and good looking - you were right to ask @JaneB

 

16 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Paulo Ferreira (No 20).  The commentators faintly even mention his name.  Only the 9 seasons with us  🙂

But young, Latin and good looking - you were right to ask @JaneB

Yeah..1 know...just wondered if Jane had any idea who it was !😉

[JaneB]

@chara @Dwmh

Oh stop it you two 🙄

[Bison]

Should be interesting but believe Cech will be too diplomatic to say much about the current state of affairs. 

[Dwmh]

7 minutes ago, Bison said:

Should be interesting but believe Cech will be too diplomatic to say much about the current state of affairs. 

I look forward to that - but it doesn't seem to be up yet.

[Bison]

19 hours ago, Dwmh said:

I look forward to that - but it doesn't seem to be up yet.

I'll post here once it's up.

In the meantime, here's some Drog:

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

Glenn Hoddle, for what it's worth, I believe played a positive role in the history of our club. He isn't the sole reason we had the success we have had, but he is definitely part of an era in which the club's approach was changing and he was an important cog in helping to make that happen, which in turn led to us improving on and off the pitch, winning trophies and ultimately becoming attractive enough to Roman, to make him want to buy us.

[RDCW]

16 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Glenn Hoddle, for what it's worth, I believe played a positive role in the history of our club. He isn't the sole reason we had the success we have had, but he is definitely part of an era in which the club's approach was changing and he was an important cog in helping to make that happen, which in turn led to us improving on and off the pitch, winning trophies and ultimately becoming attractive enough to Roman, to make him want to buy us.

Of course he was! Anyone suggesting otherwise is simply taking the piss and should be ignored as the attention-seeking muppet he is.

[Sciatika]

One thing Hoddle brought in was attention to the right diet.

[chrisb]

1 minute ago, Sciatika said:

One thing Hoddle brought in was attention to the right diet.

And fortunately he didn’t bring in his psychic medium until he took the England job!

[Dwmh]

[from the Villa thread]

43 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

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?

I'm talking about Bates's quotes on Gullit and his wages, not the media.  In the club program if I remember rightly.

45 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

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

So one 33 year old from abroad on a free contract who was after money.   And a 31 year old from Man U.  Best player in the team was still Wisey.
Other PL players from Holland in 95/96 were a fella called Bergkamp, a tall guy called Monkou, some geezer called Brian Roy, Regi Blinker, Marco Boogers and some  keeper called Hans Segers.
 

Bates signed Gullit.  Money attracted him.  He was 33 and expensive.  More money followed - Bates, Hutchinson, Harding.  Nothing to do with Hoddle at all.  More money meant more expensive players.  Not particularly Gullit, not Hoddle at all.  But money money money and the business plan of importing foreign players (where we were hardly the only club).


Ranieri signed Maka but no one particularly credits Ranieri for that (for getting us a CL place in 2003 absolutely - Ranieri is measured on performances, not what happened later with RA's money).

3 minutes ago, chrisb said:

And fortunately he didn’t bring in his psychic medium until he took the England job!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/03/3
As a manager, he brought her in to help players at Swindon and Chelsea and then, at £75 a session, in the England squad. Some "17 or 18" of the World Cup squad were helped by her, said Hoddle.

[martin1905]

26 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

[from the Villa thread]

I'm talking about Bates's quotes on Gullit and his wages, not the media.  In the club program if I remember rightly.

Must have an outrageous memory then.

Either way you believe him yet constantly tell people not to believe what they hear or read, mostly calling it PR. You've literally dismissed what Gullit said about Hoddle as PR yet base your entire argument on what Bates said or didn't say in a program 30 years ago.

At least play by the same rules you insist otheres play by.

26 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

So one 33 year old from abroad on a free contract who was after money.   And a 31 year old from Man U.  Best player in the team was still Wisey.
Other PL players from Holland in 95/96 were a fella called Bergkamp, a tall guy called Monkou, some geezer called Brian Roy, Regi Blinker, Marco Boogers and some  keeper called Hans Segers.

Yes. One 33 year old from abroad. Called Ruud Gullit. One of the biggest starts of his generation and one of the greatest in the world. 

Signed for Chelsea Football Club. 

Because of Glenn Hoddle.  He said so himself but you choose only to believe what suits yiur agenda.

26 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Bates signed Gullit.  Money attracted him.  He was 33 and expensive.  More money followed - Bates, Hutchinson, Harding.  Nothing to do with Hoddle at all.  More money meant more expensive players.  Not particularly Gullit, not Hoddle at all.  But money money money and the business plan of importing foreign players (where we were hardly the only club).

Yes we paid him big money. He's a footballer, it's his job. Every football team in the world pays players wages but even with our money then we couldn't compete with the top clubs. 

I bet you think he didn't have equal or better offers elsewhere.  Ruud Gullit, on a free. Could have gone literally anywhere.

26 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Ranieri signed Maka but no one particularly credits Ranieri for that (for getting us a CL place in 2003 absolutely - Ranieri is measured on performances, not what happened later with RA's money).

 

No ones dismissing Ranieri. Very strange comparison.

Edited February 11 by martin1905

[boratsbrother]

44 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

 

 

Bates signed Gullit.  Money attracted him.  He was 33 and expensive.  More money followed - Bates, Hutchinson, Harding.  Nothing to do with Hoddle at all.  More money meant more expensive players.  Not particularly Gullit, not Hoddle at all.  But money money money and the business plan of importing foreign players (where we were hardly the only club).


 

Of course Bates singed Gullit because  It's the role of all chairman's to actually sign the players. We are talking about who influenced Rudd to come here and that was Hoddle! That is unless you believe Rudd was flat out lying? 

 

[My Blood Is Blue]

 

[Dwmh]

1 hour ago, martin1905 said:

No ones dismissing Ranieri. Very strange comparison.

No one credits him for starting a revolution.  They just accept that was RA's money.  Hoddle is for some reason an exception, somehow influential for the next 7 years while doing nothing in the 3 years he was here.

1 hour ago, boratsbrother said:

Of course Bates singed Gullit because  It's the role of all chairman's to actually sign the players. We are talking about who influenced Rudd to come here and that was Hoddle! That is unless you believe Rudd was flat out lying? 

Have you ever read a press interview where they said they came for the money.

Theory 1.  He came for the money.  Prediction he will say he came because of the only person he might credibly have heard of.
Theory 2.  He came for the love of Hoddle.   Prediction he will say he came because of the only person he might credibly have heard of.

How does that prove anything?
MRD applies.

2 hours ago, martin1905 said:

Must have an outrageous memory then.

Might not have been the program.  Pretty sure Bates said something and related it to wanting player wages for a managers job.  But here it is Hutchinson talking:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/football-chelsea-claim-gullit-wanted-pounds-3-3m-a-year-1144766.html

Note - actual quotes with money mentioned were very rare even in the 90s.  They are much rarer now.  If TB or Winstanley said "we have just offered xxx £yyy a year then of course we would all accept that.  But it doesn't get said (and i suspect there are now contract confidentiality clauses on both sides).

1 hour ago, martin1905 said:

I bet you think he didn't have equal or better offers elsewhere.  Ruud Gullit, on a free. Could have gone literally anywhere.

At 33 I doubt he did.  Not on a multi year contract. There is no such thing as a free for an older player.  You buy the player from the club or you pay him direct.  Same set of buyers competing,  same price, just split differently between club and player and no sell on value.
Effectively he stopped playing the next season and coincidentally the team got better.

34 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

 

MRD also applies.

Edited February 11 by Dwmh

[martin1905]

22 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

No one credits him for starting a revolution.  They just accept that was RA's money.  Hoddle is for some reason an exception, somehow influential for the next 7 years while doing nothing in the 3 years he was here.

You are literally making things up now. 

No one, apart from you again conveniently, has put any time frame on it.

You cant argue by just pretending people have said something and peddling it as fact.

They two situations you are talking about are completely and utterly different and nobody is mentioning it, apart from you. Again

22 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Have you ever read a press interview where they said they came for the money.

You weren't asking me but no I haven't although this very much seems a case of you bending your own rules to suit your agenda.

You are very vocal about not listening to what players, managers, owners say yet now it suits your argument its fine.

22 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Theory 1.  He came for the money.  Prediction he will say he came because of the only person he might credibly have heard of.
Theory 2.  He came for the love of Hoddle.   Prediction he will say he came because of the only person he might credibly have heard of.

How does that prove anything?
MRD applies.

Might not have been the program.  Pretty sure Bates said something and related it to wanting player wages for a managers job.  But here it is Hutchinson talking:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/football-chelsea-claim-gullit-wanted-pounds-3-3m-a-year-1144766.html

Note - actual quotes with money mentioned were very rare even in the 90s.  They are much rarer now.  If TB or Winstanley said "we have just offered xxx £yyy a year then of course we would all accept that.  But it doesn't get said (and i suspect there are now contract confidentiality clauses on both sides).

I don't believe anything people say, unless I personally know them and trust them and take what people say with a pinch of salt, maybe you should try that, oh wait.......... that's exactly what you preach, until it suits your agenda not to.

22 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

At 33 I doubt he did.  Not on a multi year contract. There is no such thing as a free for an older player.  You buy the player from the club or you pay him direct.  Same set of buyers competing,  same price, just split differently between club and player and no sell on value.

Yes, yes we all know this but he was a free transfer however you want to spin it.

So you have absolutely no idea what was offered by us or anyone else, weekly wage, length of contract, anything. Yet you know he came here for the money. Brilliant. 

22 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Effectively he stopped playing the next season and coincidentally the team got better.

MRD also applies.

Probably because we signed Zola, Di Matteo, Vialli and Leboeuf.  Funny that.

[boratsbrother]

29 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

  Hoddle is for some reason an exception, somehow influential for the next 7 years while doing nothing in the 3 years he was here.

 

For the upteenth time, all people are saying is that Hoddle, along with several  others, played an important part in  the transformation of the club. 

The rise of the club did accelerate after Hoddle left and Rudd took over, nobody is denying that!Just that Hoddle started a job which others took over from and improved upon as the years lead up to Roman arriving. I would also agree that Ranieri's role is somewhat underappreciated by some (I thought he did a great job and wanted him to stay) but that's a different argument. 

[Dwmh]

13 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

You are very vocal about not listening to what players, managers, owners say yet now it suits your argument its fine.

No I am very vocal about understanding the context of what players managers and owners say, and moreso the context in which hacks claim they have said things.  'Hutchinson sais"xxxxxx"' is a very different context from Spotrac has him on XXXXX a week.

16 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

I don't believe anything people say, unless I personally know them and trust them and take what people say with a pinch of salt, maybe you should try that, oh wait.......... that's exactly what you preach, until it suits your agenda not to.

Again context.  Hutchinson's comments were libellous if untrue.  Gullit's words about Hoddle could never be libellous even if true.

 

18 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Probably because we signed Zola, Di Matteo, Vialli and Leboeuf.  Funny that.

Indeed.  So Gullit's signing was the start of the trend to spending a lot more money on players which continued for the next few years irrespective of who the manager was.  Thank you for underlining the point.

8 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

For the upteenth time, all people are saying is that Hoddle, along with several  others, played an important part in  the transformation of the club. 

Well if we are all walking back our points to much weaker starting places, I'll return to my actual start.

Hoddle may have been a great PR professional who talked his way into the England job and as that has an important role in the history of the club.  But the transformation was the result of Bates money and Hoddle, during his time when Chelsea trod water from 11th to 11th,  was a rubbish manager.

There no longer seems to be any point of dispute.

[paulw66]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52904670

[Ham]

3 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52904670

I already shared the direct quotes with him two days ago.  Made no difference. 

Bloke's not right. 

[RDCW]

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

No one credits him for starting a revolution.  They just accept that was RA's money.  Hoddle is for some reason an exception, somehow influential for the next 7 years while doing nothing in the 3 years he was here.

Have you ever read a press interview where they said they came for the money.

Theory 1.  He came for the money.  Prediction he will say he came because of the only person he might credibly have heard of.
Theory 2.  He came for the love of Hoddle.   Prediction he will say he came because of the only person he might credibly have heard of.

How does that prove anything?
MRD applies.

Might not have been the program.  Pretty sure Bates said something and related it to wanting player wages for a managers job.  But here it is Hutchinson talking:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/football-chelsea-claim-gullit-wanted-pounds-3-3m-a-year-1144766.html

Note - actual quotes with money mentioned were very rare even in the 90s.  They are much rarer now.  If TB or Winstanley said "we have just offered xxx £yyy a year then of course we would all accept that.  But it doesn't get said (and i suspect there are now contract confidentiality clauses on both sides).

At 33 I doubt he did.  Not on a multi year contract. There is no such thing as a free for an older player.  You buy the player from the club or you pay him direct.  Same set of buyers competing,  same price, just split differently between club and player and no sell on value.
Effectively he stopped playing the next season and coincidentally the team got better.

MRD also applies.

Yawn. You utter dullard.

[Dwmh]

25 minutes ago, Ham said:

I already shared the direct quotes with him two days ago.  Made no difference. 

Bloke's not right. 

You are a funny lot.
 

Quote

Looking back, that summer was probably the time the Premier League really began to change into the competition it is now, and it had to. Italy was the king then - all the best players were there. English football was very basic in comparison, and the English wanted to have people from outside so they could try to get their game back again to the highest European level.

Dennis Bergkamp, David Ginola, Juninho. They all came at the same time as me. The way I saw it, it was an adventure. Personally and professionally, I needed to leave Italy after eight years with AC Milan and Sampdoria and, with the Premier League taking off, England just seemed the right place for a fresh start, at the right time for me to do something new.

I was 32, nearly 33, I had been at the top for a long time and had won a lot too. Some people probably thought my legs had gone and I was coming here for the ride - to take the money and just get ready to retire. They were wrong.

  Dutch forward Dennis Bergkamp also joined the Premier League scene in 1995, signing for Arsenal from Inter Milan

Nobody I spoke to that summer understood why I chose Chelsea. I must say I didn't know much about the club or even that part of town when I went there - it was just because Glenn Hoddle was manager, that's what persuaded me to go.

 

2 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Theory 1.  He came for the money.  Prediction he will say he came because of the only person he might credibly have heard of.
Theory 2.  He came for the love of Hoddle.   Prediction he will say he came because of the only person he might credibly have heard of.

How does that prove anything?
MRD applies.

Theory 3.  He came for the money.  Prediction: a lot more players would come when Hoddle left.
Theory 4.  He came for the love of Hoddle.   Prediction: fewer players would come when Hoddle left.  

25 years on he believes his own bullshit and still is unable to say it was the money.