Which would you choose

[Vermilion]

Fascinating results to this poll.

I wonder what the numbers would have been if the same question was asked 12 months ago?

Do the results show a little short termism/desperation in the general view of fans?

A sort of...win the title and worry about the rest later, even though the later could end up being mid table humiliation for the forseeable future, maybe being so skint that we MUST sell players, because as i saw the poll it was that G&H stayed on long term after 1 title, regardless of what they might do...no get out clause with a sale to anyone else, we would be stuck with them.

I'm not sure people have really considered this, and the possible consequences.

Delay the Scum for one season is what it amounts to imo, then be stuck with funding lower than Spurs, Newcastle, City, Scum, Chavs, QPR Villa for years to come, with no hope of a takeover.

[dom9]

If we don't qualify for the CL every season then it's selling our best players on the menu. The alternative would be administration.

I don't know what you call a situation like that. I call it very bad ownership because it's a high risk gamble.

I would say that applies to all the top 4, but not after one season. I think they could scrape by with one season outside the CL, as Arsenal will prove next year. Their debt is also huge, don't forget, as is Uniteds. Abramovich is not propping up Chelsea any more.

We are not really any different to any other club, so no point singling us out.

[Craig_H]

I would say that applies to all the top 4, but not after one season. I think they could scrape by with one season outside the CL, as Arsenal will prove next year. Their debt is also huge, don't forget, as is Uniteds. Abramovich is not propping up Chelsea any more.

We are not really any different to any other club, so no point singling us out.

Erm - the difference with United and Arsenal is that there hasnt been any active signs that they could struggle to repay.

Without the 6 month extension, G&H would be required to repay the loan - and they would not be capable of doing so.

[Vermilion]

I would say that applies to all the top 4, but not after one season. I think they could scrape by with one season outside the CL, as Arsenal will prove next year. Their debt is also huge, don't forget, as is Uniteds. Abramovich is not propping up Chelsea any more.

We are not really any different to any other club, so no point singling us out.

I don't believe for one second that Chelsea wont spend on quality players over the coming years, they just won't be advertising that they'll pay top wack imo.

I still believe there will be a huge gap in what we spend over the next few years compared to what Chelsea, Scum, City will be spending if we are still owned by H&G.

However, it took me an age to decide which option to vote for, as i am as desperate as any to see LFC lift the Title again, i nearly said 'lift the title..'once more' then, is that what this would amount to if we were to take it this season then be stuck with our present ownership.

I actually fear the results, what extra stupidity a title win would arm Hicks with, what he would do off the back of such a glorious occasion worries me, with a new found confidence of being a 'fans favourite'.

I honestly do fear Hicks's business methods.

[AFII]

I would say that applies to all the top 4, but not after one season. I think they could scrape by with one season outside the CL, as Arsenal will prove next year. Their debt is also huge, don't forget, as is Uniteds. Abramovich is not propping up Chelsea any more.

We are not really any different to any other club, so no point singling us out.

United and Arsenal earn something like £2m more than us at every home game thanks to OT and Emirates. We don't have that security. Chelsea have Roman.

That's around £50m/year behind Arsenal and United.

Our debts is probably almost the same as Arsenal and that is without paying for a new stadium.

[dom9]

Do the results show a little short termism/desperation in the general view of fans?

A sort of...win the title and worry about the rest later, even though the later could end up being mid table humiliation for the forseeable future, maybe being so skint that we MUST sell players, because as i saw the poll it was that G&H stayed on long term after 1 title, regardless of what they might do...no get out clause with a sale to anyone else, we would be stuck with them.

I'm not sure people have really considered this, and the possible consequences.

Delay the Scum for one season is what it amounts to imo, then be stuck with funding lower than Spurs, Newcastle, City, Scum, Chavs, QPR Villa for years to come, with no hope of a takeover.

I say it again. Where is the evidence that this is a bad thing?

Erm - the difference with United and Arsenal is that there hasnt been any active signs that they could struggle to repay.

Without the 6 month extension, G&H would be required to repay the loan - and they would not be capable of doing so.

Arsenal are skint. That is why they don't spend money on established players. Don't believe the nonsense about Wenger wanting to develop from within because that is his philosophy.

The 6 month extension for LFC was the banks' deadline. The banks had no option but to allow the extension, or re-negotiate (which they are not doing for anybody at the moment).

I don't believe for one second that Chelsea wont spend on quality players over the coming years, they just won't be advertising that they'll pay top wack imo.

I still believe there will be a huge gap in what we spend over the next few years compared to what Chelsea, Scum, City will be spending if we are still owned by H&G.

However, it took me an age to decide which option to vote for, as i am as desperate as any to see LFC lift the Title again, i nearly said 'lift the title..'once more' then, is that what this would amount to if we were to take it this season then be stuck with our present ownership.

I honestly do fear Hicks's business methods.

Chelsea are skint. Otherwise they would be buying the likes of Kaka this January to win the league and CL. The players have to pay for their own meals in the canteen, and they have laid off about 100 non-playing staff.

United and Arsenal earn something like £2m more than us at every home game thanks to OT and Emirates. We don't have that security. Chelsea have Roman.

That's around £50m/year behind Arsenal and United.

Our debts is probably almost the same as Arsenal and that is without paying for a new stadium.

Arsenal and United need that revenue to pay off their loans. The mortgage on the Emirates is huge, as is the Glazer debt.

[Vermilion]

Chelsea are skint. Otherwise they would be buying the likes of Kaka this January to win the league and CL. The players have to pay for their own meals in the canteen, and they have laid off about 100 non-playing staff. .

As i said, i just think it's the start of a bit of belt tightening, and and instilling an ethos at the club of not wasting money, as i say i still think they have the luxury of being able to spend when needed, maybe not 70mill silly money for Kaka, but substantially more than us, and for the foreseeable future, it's just that i feel we will continue to be at a disadvantage when it comes to challenging on a CONSISTANT basis.

[dom9]

As i said, i just think it's the start of a bit of belt tightening, and and instilling an ethos at the club of not wasting money, as i say i still think they have the luxury of being able to spend when needed, maybe not 70mill silly money for Kaka, but substantially more than us.

Who was the last big name superstar they bought, when did he arrive, and how much did he cost?

A quick google search tells me the following were brought in over the Summer:

Jose Bosingwa (FC Porto - Chelsea) £16.2million
Deco (FC Barcelona - Chelsea) £8million
Fabio Paim (Sporting Lisbon - Chelsea) Loan Deal
Mineiro (Hertha Berlin-Chelsea) Free Transfer

Keane cost £20m. Not to mention Reira, Degen, N'gog and Dossena.

[Vermilion]

Who was the last big name superstar they bought, when did he arrive, and how much did he cost?

A quick google search tells me the following:

Jose Bosingwa (FC Porto - Chelsea) £16.2million
Deco (FC Barcelona - Chelsea) £8million
Fabio Paim (Sporting Lisbon - Chelsea) Loan Deal
Mineiro (Hertha Berlin-Chelsea) Free Transfer

Keane cost £20m. Not to mention Reira.

But have they not just bought who the manager asked for, as i say the days of sticking 10 mill or more on top for Chelsea are gone, but they still have money in the bank so to speak...around 8billion.

Whereas we haven't even paid for Keane, are in debt up to our eye balls...and this is without even having built a stadium, not the signs of a blossoming future under H&G imo.

[AFII]

The difference is that Arsenal and United know that they will earn ?? every year to pay their debts thanks to OT and Emirates.

We don't have that security.

[Vermilion]

The difference is that Arsenal and United know that they will earn ?? every year to pay their debts thanks to OT and Emirates.

We don't have that security.

Nor do Arsenal have a massive debt as a result of a takeover to pay back.

Anyway i'm glad it's only a poll, as i see our best chance of long term success coming from new ownership...but lets get this Title won first regardless.

[AFII]

We are in the same situation as Arsenal, minus a big fancy stadium.

That is a massive difference.

If we would take another loan and build the stadium then we would probably be forced to pay £60m+ in interest every year.

No way that we could afford that until the stadium is finished.

We simply is in a situation that a new stadium is impossible until we get new owners.

[dom9]

But have they not just bought who the manager asked for, as i say the days of sticking 10 mill or more on top for Chelsea are gone, but they still have money in the bank so to speak...around 8billion.

Whereas we haven't even paid for Keane, are in debt up to our eye balls...and this is without even having built a stadium, not the signs of a blossoming future under H&G imo.

Chelsea do not have £8 Billion. Abramovich does (ish - the value of his assets is falling).

He has not given them any money, he has lent it to them, albeit interest free. It has to be paid back, but they are still operating at a loss.

Paying for transfers in instalments is normal practice.

I don't know why you are singling out LFC. The arguments you give are the same for practically all clubs.

[dom9]

The difference is that Arsenal and United know that they will earn ?? every year to pay their debts thanks to OT and Emirates.

We don't have that security.

And we dont?

What are you on?

[dom9]

We are in the same situation as Arsenal, minus a big fancy stadium.

That is a massive difference.

If we would take another loan and build the stadium then we would probably be forced to pay £60m+ in interest every year.

No way that we could afford that until the stadium is finished.

We simply is in a situation that a new stadium is impossible until we get new owners.

You are kidding yourself mate. Why would anybody piss half a billion up the wall to buy a football club a new stadium?