I agree with Kevin that Chelsea is simply a toy for the man who has everything. But as we know if you play with your toys to much you will break them. As for the departure of the "Special one" my own view is that in the long term this will probably benefit Chelsea. The arrugance shown by Jose was spreading which i believe had players such as Lampard & Terry thinking that they were simply better than they are, as was shown in there performances for England. For the true Chelsea fans the oppertunity has been handed back to once again become a good honest club. Which i believe in there hearts they have missed. If you want to build the biggest club in the world Mr Abramovich the first step is to make it admired not despised.

Brian, Twickenham / London, England

Good old Mr Hill-Wood -- tell them how it is!
This is the beautiful game and its place in the English soul runs deep.
You can't buy history with a business plan Mr Abramovitch and Mr Kenyon (yeugh!).
It takes a bit more than money and business acumen.

El Cid, London,

George Graham didn't have a chairman with £500m to spend on players. Jose Mourinho did.

And for that matter, neither had Wenger. But he's managed it, so let's have a little respect for a very well run club and an excellent manager.

Seb, Bath, UK

There is history and there is history, Peter. Chelsea's one period of success has coincided with an insane spending spree.
Their football is mocked because the quality of players they have should do better.
But let's not forget Chelsea have always been a mickey mouse club with a few cups under their belt as opposed to Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United who were winning titles from the off. Chelsea cannot match that "history" and it is for that reason their ludicrous efforts to gain instant recognition are simpled laughed off.
25,000 for a European tie? Don't make me laugh even harder.
And of course managers that can't produce will end up getting fired. But they won't be told to buy players and play them, unless they work for Russian oligarchs (or Steaua Bucharest).
The whole Chelski thing has been a joke from beginning to end, which is why Arsenal don't want another Russian crook getting involved.

Harry Barracuda, Manama, Bahrain

Simply Peter, yes they would.

You see, as you rightly point out yourself, they didn't interfere when George Graham was winning them trophies by winning 1-0 most of the time. And they don't now.

Chelsea are Roman's plaything. We all suspected it and now we know it. Jose IS capable of producing teams that play "beautiful football". When Chelsea won their first title they regularly played with Duff/Cole/Wright Phillips/Robben and thrashed a lot of teams.

Problem was, wonderful Roman then started buying players for Jose.

Chelsea's situation is Roman's fault. And if Dein took over at Arsenal, they'd largely go the same way.

So, as a Tottenham fan I'd like Jose at THFC by the end of next week and Dein to take over Arsenal.

Lloyd Stiles, Vienna, Austria

Peter, just a quick point, we played that way under George with homegrowns like Hillier and Selley, not multi-million pound players like Lampard, Wright-Phillips and Drogba. I think when you spend almost half a billion pounds on a club, you are entitled to a little excitement.

Will, Milton Keynes, England

Manchester United are expected to exceed both figures to confirm their position as the country’s richest club? How does that work out? At the last count they were £660m in debt.

Windy MIller, Camberwick Green, Trumptonshire

Kevin lee as a hammer i have to tell you that you are mistaken.

I would rather watch good football (That also has a chance of winning). but then i do go to the games . maybe your average chelsea fan isnt there are only reads the result so couldnt care a less about the game itself.

PS I remember a few years back we played a second div game against Gillingham and had more fans than chelsea in the champions league that night. it is just a dream for chelsea that will end with them droppping back to no where...and the winner then will be football.

Keith, London,

One day this money making attitude will corrupt the spirit of Sport in the EPL. I am more and more disgusted by the amount of money clubs are dealing with and hope there will be a boomerang effect one day to such a greed.

Marin, HH,

The outward and visible sign of an inward attachment to a football team that aspires to greatness must surely be its stadium. Look at what Norman Foster has been asked to refurbish at the Nou Camp for EUR240 million. Stunning. And yet this is chump change to Abramovitch. If he wants to make his mark on West London, probably three times the size in poplulation of Barcelona, build a beautiful stadium holding 120,000 seats plus; bus in the punters and discount the gate money and they will come. No one ignores those sort of attendances and eventually it will translate into greatness.
Ditto Liverpool and Arsenal. 60,000 seats are not enough to oust Barcelona and Madrid from the top slot of cities that are passionate about their football. Outdo them in beautiful stadia and you'll outdo them in the beautiful game. Eventually.

Pablo, Hong Kong,

Kevin, it's not all about winning, it's about getting value for money. Football isn't a business, it's entertainment.

As for the reasons you give for the 20,000 Rosenbourg attendance - quality of the opposition - utter tosh. As an Arsenal fan, you would of course have known that we attracted 38,000 people to the Emirates last April to watch the FA Youth Cup against Manchester Utd. These are U18's! I paid the money as I knew I would be entertained. I didn't care whether we won or lost that, I just wanted to see the next generation of kids playing the Arsenal way.

Michael, London, UK

S Rowley, Arsenal are no more at risk of bankruptcy than you would be if your mortgage company asked for your house back. In fact, you're more at risk as Arsenal have a 25-year loan fixed at a rate that is less than most people pay on their mortgages.

Arsenal are in the middle of some massive property redevelopment, mainly The Stadium - Highbury Square, which will bring in around £300m + in revenue, and a clear £100m of profit. Added to the £100m of Emirates sponsorship (which covers the interest repayment of the loans) then Arsenal are in a very healthy state off and on the pitch. Arsenal's debt will halve in the next few years, the interest repayments will go down, but the revenues will continue to increase.

gareth, london,

Evidence suggests football is not just about winning. History & style have much more to do with it- ask Wimbledon's winning team the attendance for their FA Cup semi. Or Jack's Rovers?

Who wants to pay £45 to watch functional football that an athletic pub team could put together? I'd pay to watch Fabregas, Scholes or Berbatov, because they can do something I could only deam of.

I suspect the 25000 had more to do with the price and wall-to-wall tv coverage than Rosenberg. Both of those can be linked to the hand of Kenyon, rather than Mourinho. If Billy Bunter had any brains, he would be encouraging young Chelsea fans to attend by reducing prices. He needs to talk to those who thought Kerry Dixon was god, not those who pitched up with Roman, to find out what's going on, He never did it at United, though.

Hil-Wood is right, although his tone is not.. Then again, he probably thought about Ashley Cole and let himself down. Arsenal have traditionally been better than that.

jesper lemons, Prestwich,

Peter Hill-Wood star man. Need you say more.

A mahmood, bradford, uk

Since when has turnover been an indication of profit ? Since when has an operating profit been a picture of the overall health of a business? As far as I know, Arsenal are heavily in debt and should their creditors decide to pull in their loans, Arsenal would be bankrupt. A very different scenario from what has been painted.

S Rowley, London, UK

spot on kevin lee

vladimir, belgrade, serbia

Kevin Lee...I understand that the Carling Cup game tonight is sold out. You may not shell out to watch it but there are plenty that will, which is down to the football the team play... its certainly always entertaining

marc bampton, slough,

hey Kevin Lee...it sounds to me you are a chelsea fan more than an arsenal...if i were u...i wouldn't be opening my mouth to defend chelsea behaviour and their fans..rosenborg or not..weak or not..my team r still playing...my team whom I SUPPORT..and id go across the world to see my team arsenal play and win...so instead of u wearing that arsenal shirt and claim u actually cheer for them...y dont u give them to someone who truly does...

Hamzeh Al Karmi, Amman, Jordan

Let's get one thing straight. Football is about winning. Winning pretty is a bonus. Abramovich got rid of Jose because he wants to pick the team himself and thinks he can do it better. Chelsea is a toy for him (hence the purchase of over the hill strikers) and reason Chelsea got 20,000 for a champions league game is because the oppposition was unattractive and that's a problem with the format of the Champions League itself, not Chelsea. I am an Arsenal supporter but I wouldn't shell out a load of money to see Rosenborg any more than I would to watch a Carling Cup game. Notice that George Graham was not interfered with by the board because he was winning! Winning attracts fans. fans make money for the club. The truth is, in the end fans would rather see trophies than pretty play. Ask around at Tottenham and West Ham.

Kevin Lee, London, England

All clubs have 'history'. The temptation to recall it through rose-tinted glasses is inevitable. George Graham's sides had much more in common with Jose's Chelsea's than Arsene's Arsenal.
Abramovich got rid of Jose coz he was sick of the boring football. Of course the Arsenal board have no incentive to interfere with Wenger but if the football on offer at the Emirates was as dire as it is at The Bridge would they still be keeping their noses out???

Peter, Wellington, NZ