So basically, you are proven wrong yet again, so turn to your tried and tested tactic of competely changing the premise of your argument. From chelsea having ruined these players prospects, instead we are to blame for their decline after leaving the club and for them not becoming better players.
Even with your change in tactic you still present an ill thought out, poorly researched and frankly ridiculous argument.
Look at the prices you've payed for all those players...They were all flops because your club obviously saw potential in them, regardless of their age. Why else would you pay such huge sums of money for these players?
Does any club buy a player unless they see potential in them or think they will offer something to the team? Blimey, who;d have thought it was just Chelsea who did that. Aston Villa would never sign a duff player would they, *cough* Bosko *cough* Balaban, only a bit cheaper than our so called flop Glen Johnson but bought way before transfer prices became so elevated. Every club has successes and failures in the transfer market, some are just more high profile.
Doesn't mean we runined their future prospects or stopped them becoming better players though.
Also had to laugh to at the fact you're saying Deco moving from the Premier League to winning a Brazilian title is some sort of achievement.....If anything it backs my argument that he wasn't cut out for this league, and you let a £10M player walk out for free.
As I pointed out, he was coming to the latter part of his career. He got the move
HE wanted. After two more years he was no longer worth the £8 million (not £10 million) we paid for him from Barca. (as usual Ross checks his facts). As I also pointed out, he actually played quite well for us. Injuries were his problem.
It's great when players who aren't cut out for the Premier League make a pretty good contribution to a Premier League title, won with a record number of goals scored. If injuries mean he wasn't cut out for the Premier League, most of your team better toddle off somewhere else as you've been keen to bleat on about Villa's injury problems this season.
I deliberately listed players that cost you alot of money....You don't just pay £10-20M plus for players on a whim, unless you're willing to admit Chelsea are just horribly careless with their money....?
First off, a third of the players you listed cost under £10 million. Mutu £15.8 million, Veron £15 million (just over half what Utd paid for him). Chelsea were careless with money. I've bemoaned some of our transfers on this forum many times, but we were also paying over the odds for some players simply because the price went up as soon as Chelsea's name became involved.
You also conveniently ignore the players Chelsea bought that were a success, not all of whom cost a lot of money. Swings and roundabouts, some you win, some you lose. It happens at every club, it's only the scales of economy that are different.
The main point is, all these players were never as good AFTER Chelsea ditched them....They could have been good players, but ultimately it hasn't walked out. Glenn Johnson is hardly established, btw, the only reason he'll get a look in with England is because of Roys obvious love in with Liverpool players. If it was any other manager, you'd be seeing alot more of Walker/Richards.
Another completely flawed argument, totally ignoring my reply to your preposterous first post on this subject. We did not ruin those players prospects. Also, never as good after Chelsea ditched them. Believe it or not Ross,
some players reach a point where they do start to decline. Shevchenko was one of those, not in the best shape when we bought him and already past his best. Deco was also past his prime.
Were they going to miraculously find a fountain of youth, rejuventate themselves and recapture former glories after leaving Chelsea? 
. Some suffer inuries and never regain their form after. I suppose Chelsea will be to blame for Essien's injuries, sustained on international duty, that have lead to his decline. Of course if not for Chelsea he would still go on to be a better player even with dodgy knees.
As for
They could have become better playes but ultimately it hasn't worked out. Some reach a peak early and never improve further (Wright-phillips). Still a good player but was NEVER going to get any better. Man City found that out and moved him on. Already dealt with Shevchenko and Deco and their failure to find some magic elixir to allow them to become better players as they advanced in the twilight of their careers after leaving Chelsea.
Glen Johnson. Still a good player. He has improved since leaving Chelsea, not declined. He is the established Liverpool right back and an established member of the England squad and currently the chosen right back. Of course you know better than the England manager, so we'd better replace Roy quickly and send you to manage England in his place.
Veron. Could have been a better player if not for Chelsea eh. Bloody hell, it was all down to Chelsea that he didn't improve after leaving us. He was supposed to be the finished product when Utd bought him and he flopped, let alone when we bought him. Utd would certainly have hoped for the finished article after they paid £28 million for him. If we ruined him and his prospects, Utd started it.
Mutu. Hmm could have been a good player. Yes indeed, if he wasn't a coke snorting junkie. Still not Chelsea's fault. You do realise he also received a 9 month ban after failing a drugs test at Fiorentina. Chelsea also won a breach of contract case against him after which he was supposed to have repad the bulk of his transfer fee.
Some just don't fit in with a new manager's plans. Sometimes the club moves forward and wants better quality players. So some they have signed who have reached the limits of their potential or can be replaced by better are going to move on.
IT HAPPENS at EVERY CLUB.
Moving on from some clubs isn't always an upwards step. There are only so many top clubs in top leagues. As players decline or if they fail to improve, they move on to other things. It's not the club they leave whose fault it is that they don't improve. Surely the club they move to would still be able to improve the player if they had the quality, as has happened with many players.
Not every player can be a Christiano Ronaldo and move from a Man Utd to a Real Madrid. For every Ronaldo there are many players who do a John O'Shea and move to a Sunderland.
Some players may be late bloomers and do improve. Some give the perception of improving because they are big fishes in a little pool. That works in reverse when a player has looked good at a smaller club, but when they move to a bigger club, they just don't cut it. When a hefty transfer fee has been paid, it's more noticeable.
I actually think Torres will come good in the end, but he isn't gonna justify £50M, thats just insane.
When exactly have I ever said that the £50 million we paid for Torres was anything other than stupid? Never, that's when. I was against it from the start and still think it was stupid. So your point there is what exactly? The Andy Carroll transfer fee was equally as ridiculous. I thought the Shevchenko fee was ridiculous, I will think the Hazard fee and the fee for Hulk, if they are accurate are ridiculous.
I might disagree with these valuations and transfer fees but what matters is the perception of the purchaser. Judging the worth of these purchases if they come good and help us win trophies will be down to the person who put up the money to decide if they are happy with the return on their investment.
I'll wait for your next change in tactic and ill informed argument Ross, which will no doubt still ignore the majority of the points that refute your ridiculous claims.
