Where Chelsea are concerned, nothing surprises me any more. Ken Bates and his cohorts are clearly out to prise as much money out of us long suffering fans as they possibly can. It's scandalous, and I should react by boycotting all matches this season. I won't of course, because, as Ken knows, I'm too f**king loyal.

You may wonder what I'm talking about at this juncture, so I'll explain.

Tomorrow sees the start of yet another Premiership season. Predictably, the hacks have picked out Arsenal and Manchester United as pre-season favourites to take the title, with Liverpool and Leeds being tipped as good outside bets. Chelsea barely get a mention in that respect, although I have recently seen one or two of the better pundits predicting a possible top-four finish.

The off-season has seen the usual flurry of transfer rumours filling the newspapers and the news web-sites. Most have turned out to have no substance whatever (surprise, surprise). If you believe all you read, many of Chelsea's best players are either unsettled and looking for a move out of a cash-strapped club, or are the targets of various other clubs all determined to take advantage of Chelsea's finiancial situation and make offers that can't be refused. It was all bollocks, of course, the result of bored hacks making up stories to fill what would otherwise have been empty sports pages.

I thought I'd take the opportunity to make a few predictions about the Premiership in general, and Chelsea in particular. Let's start with predicting the top few places, shall we?

I think it's fair to say that the clubs that filled the top six places last season will also fill the top six places at the end of this season as well. I.e. Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester Utd, Newcastle Utd, Leeds Utd and Chelsea. The other 14 teams just aren't good enough, and won't get a look-in. What the order of these six will be, is anybody's guess.

Personally, I can't see Liverpool or Newcastle winning it. Liverpool, despite having two excellent recent seasons, are still looking weak up front. They rely too much on Michael Owen, who seems remarkably prone to injury. Heskey is not good enough, and the new boy Diouf is going to struggle. Newcastle Utd are probably going to end up in 6th place, I can't see them getting any better than last season, and I really believe that Leeds and Chelsea will improve.

Arsenal and Manchester Utd will probably finish in 1st and 2nd place. Which order that will be will mostly be determined by which team suffers the least number of injuries throughout the season. At the moment, I think Arsenal will win it.

So that leaves me thinking that Leeds, Chelsea and Liverpool will be scrapping for 3rd, 4th and 5th. My heart says Chelsea will finish 3rd, but my head tells me that we have to be much more consistent to do that. If JFH and Eidur click as well as they did early on last season, and keep clicking throughout the season, then I can see 3rd place or better being a realistic prospect.

The three relegation places are up for grabs. Bolton and Sunderland are in real danger of taking the drop. Both Middlesbrough and Fulham must also be quite worried in that respect. Fulham must be especially worried as they will be playing all of their matches away from home. As for the Premiership new boys, I have high expectations of Manchester City and Birmingham City, the former because they will have learned from their last experience in the Premiership, the latter because they appear to have bought some good players over the close season. I fear West Bromwich will go straight back down. I hope I'm proved wrong (I have a soft spot for them, living as I do in the West Midlands).

The other clubs can all look forward to mid-table obscurity. Southampton may have to fight yet another relegation battle, but I expect them to pull through once again. Everton will probably do better than last year, I reckon they have an outside chance of a top-ten finish.

As for Chelsea, I see JFH and Eidur finishing the season as the Premiership's top scoring partnership, notwithstanding van Nistelrooy and Solskjaer and co. Gianfranco Zola will have a storming farewell season, playing just behind the two main strikers as their foil. He may even score a few as well. John Terry and William Gallas will form the main backbone in defence, and Carlo Cudicini will once again impress all with his goalkeeping abilities.

Frank Lampard will continue to improve, and, provided they can avoid injury, Zenden and Gronkjaer will start to repay the faith shown in them by Signor Ranieri. Graeme Le Saux will probably see less action as a result (he's getting old, after all). Manu Petit, if he can be bothered, will probably be chosen as the main central play-maker, but he needs to do better than last year if he is to be a success in that role.

Of the youngsters, I can see Carlton Cole making a fair number of substitute appearances, and as a result, he will improve through the season. He's a good player, just lacking in experience at the highest level.

All in all, it should be a better season for Chelsea, as the team will be largely the same as last season, and that can only be good for consistency. Hopefully, Mr Ranieri will pick one team and one system and stick to it; that will also help.

In summary, here are my predictions:

Arsenal:	1st - 3rd
Aston Villa:	7th - 12th
Birmingham City:	13th - 18th
Blackburn:	7th - 13th
Bolton:	17th - 20th
Charlton:	13th - 17th
Chelsea:	2nd - 5th
Everton:	9th - 15th
Fulham:	15th - 19th
Leeds Utd:	2nd - 5th
Liverpool:	3rd - 6th
Manchester City:	13th - 16th
Manchester Utd:	1st - 3rd
Middlesbrough:	14th - 19th
Newcastle Utd:	4th - 6th
Southampton:	11th - 18th
Sunderland:	14th - 20th
Tottenham:	8th - 13th
West Bromwich:	16th - 20th
West Ham:	7th - 13th

Turned into positional predictions, this becomes:

1st:	Arsenal, Manchester Utd
2nd:	Arsenal, Chelsea, Leeds Utd, Manchester Utd
3rd:	Arsenal, Chelsea, Leeds Utd, Liverpool, Manchester Utd
4th:	Chelsea, Leeds Utd, Liverpool, Newcastle Utd
5th:	Chelsea, Leeds Utd, Liverpool, Newcastle Utd
6th:	Liverpool, Newcastle Utd
7th:	Aston Villa, Blackburn, West Ham
8th:	Aston Villa, Blackburn, Tottenham, West Ham
9th:	Aston Villa, Blackburn, Everton, Tottenham, West Ham
10th:	Aston Villa, Blackburn, Everton, Tottenham, West Ham
11th:	Aston Villa, Blackburn, Everton, Southampton, Tottenham, West Ham
12th:	Aston Villa, Blackburn, Everton, Southampton, Tottenham, West Ham
13th:	Birmingham City, Blackburn, Charlton, Everton, Manchester City, Southampton, Tottenham, West Ham
14th:	Birmingham City, Charlton, Everton, Manchester City, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Sunderland
15th:	Birmingham City, Charlton, Everton, Fulham, Manchester City, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Sunderland
16th:	Birmingham City, Charlton, Fulham, Manchester City, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Sunderland, West Bromwich
17th:	Birmingham City, Bolton, Charlton, Fulham, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Sunderland, West Bromwich
18th:	Birmingham City, Bolton, Fulham, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Sunderland, West Bromwich
19th:	Bolton, Fulham, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, West Bromwich
20th:	Bolton, Sunderland, West Bromwich

Chelsea today announced the death of former player Ian Hutchinson. He was 54 years old, and he had been suffering from a long illness.

Ian Hutchinson will always be remembered as the man whose long throw set up David Webb's winning header in the FA Cup Final Replay of 1970. But we must never forget that he earned the replay in the first place by scoring the equalising 2nd goal for Chelsea in the first match at Wembley.

Ian's career at Chelsea was cut tragically short by a series of injuries, but in his time at the club, he carved out a reputation as a fast, exciting centre forward. And he was brave with it, putting his head and body into places that other players never would have. But most people will remember Ian for his incredible ability to take very long throw-ins. His action when taking the long throw was what stood out, his arms whirling like windmills after he released the ball. He was, arguably, the inventor and the best practictioner of the long throw as an attacking weapon.

One national newspaper referred to Ian Hutchinson, Ron Harris, Peter Houseman and John Hollins as the "H-Bombs" during the early 70's (was it during our FA Cup winning campaign of 1970?), and you could understand why. All four of these players were strong, athletic and talented, and they must have put the fear of God into opposition teams. Those were the days!

I had the good fortune to attend Ian's testimonial match (1978?). This was played by the then current Chelsea XI against an International XI, a team that included many former Chelsea players, including Ian's good friend, Peter Osgood. Ian, I recall, played most (if not all) of the match, even if he wasn't quite as mobile as he had been. I think everyone took it easy on him that evening; it was his testimonial after all!

Ian Hutchinson was one of my all-time favourite Chelsea players, so today is a sad day for me. I am not ashamed to say that a lump came to my throat and a tear to my eye when I first heard the news of his death. I'd like to take this opportunity to send my heart-felt condolences to his family and friends. I'm sure many other Chelsea fans would wish to do the same.

Rest in peace, Ian, you are a Chelsea legend, and you will never be forgotten.

If ever you doubted that Ken Bates was out of touch with the grass roots Chelsea fan, doubt no more. His rant against the heroes of the early 70's, as reported on the Sun Sport website, reveals him for the prat he is. Unashamedly, I repeat verbatim the report as written by Shaun Custis.

Os and Co did nothing By SHAUN CUSTIS The Chelsea glory days of the early 70s are a myth - according to Blues chairman Ken Bates. Controversial Bates said: "What did the likes of Peter Osgood and Alan Hudson actually achieve for the club? Between them they won two cups...it was nothing. "Where did that team ever get in the league? I'll tell you - nowhere. You measure the strength of a club by its position in the table - and the team of the early 70s had nothing to boast about in that respect. "Look at the Chelsea of today and you can see consistency. "We've been in Europe for the last six years and never finished lower than sixth in that time." Bates caused a stir in the summer when he relieved Osgood of his duties as a host at Stamford Bridge. That provoked a fierce backlash from the former striker. But Bates insisted: "Some of those old players still think the world owes them a living because they scored a few goals 30 years ago. Well, it doesn't. "This is a different Chelsea to the one they played for and, over the last few years, a lot more successful." Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1997 and 2000, the League Cup and European Cup Winners' Cup four years ago, and the European Super Cup a year later. But the 70s team is still considered a golden era in Blues' folklore. The names of Osgood, Hudson and Ron 'Chopper' Harris are the stuff of Stamford Bridge legend. Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1970 after a replay against Leeds. And, with Hudson on board the next season, they followed that up with a Cup Winners' Cup victory against Real Madrid after two games. Those days are still talked about with misty-eyed reverence by the older members of the Blues' faithful. But Bates insisted: "All that golden era stuff is nonsense, it wasn't. "The players here are sick and tired of hearing about it. "The golden era is the late 90s and - hopefully - now, with manager Claudio Ranieri. "I remember when we were walking out for the 1997 FA Cup final and our coach Steve Clarke turned to Dennis Wise and told him it was the club's chance to put those ghosts to rest. "We won - but they still haven't gone away completely." Bates made his comments to SunSport the day before it was announced former Blues striker Ian Hutchinson had died of Parkinson's Disease at the age of 54. Hutchinson was a goal-scoring hero in the 1970 final.

Ken Bates should realise that a lot of today's Chelsea fans first came to supporting the club because of the performances of Peter Osgood and Co in the late sixties and seventies. Chelsea became a fashionable club because of its location and the flamboyance of those Chelsea stars he so despises. Without that history, Chelsea would not be the club it is today.

Bates should be thanking those players rather than putting them down so dismissively.

As for the current side being more consistent than the side of Peter Osgood, I can put that myth to bed. True, the last 6 seasons have seen us finish in the top 6 on each occasion, but prior to those seasons we were mid-table also-rans, no better than, say, Everton or Aston Villa in today's terms. In the late 60's and 70's, when Peter Osgood played for the club, we were often in the top 6 of a league that had 2 more teams in it; not necessarily the model of consistency, but then nowhere near as bad as Bates makes out.

Check out the records. In the Osgood era, the highest position Chelsea finished in the League was 3rd. In the late 90's, the highest Chelsea have finished is 3rd. Hardly any different in that respect.

And as for his jibe about European Football, the history books tell a different story than Bates; Chelsea were often competing in European competition, at a time when qualifying for it was much more difficult.

Bates should take a long hard look at the current Chelsea squad and ask himself how many of them could honestly claim to be as committed towards Chelsea as the stars of the 70's were. With a few notable exceptions (including one Gianfranco Zola), none of them. They're all in it for the personal success and the money; if the chance came and they could move to a club that gave them a better chance at that fame and fortune, they'd go tomorrow.

(That last paragraph may have annoyed a few people, but I don't care. It's all true, I'm afraid. Just look at how most of the players jump ship whenever a club gets relegated from the Premiership to the Nationwide, then try to convince me that these players have club loyalty. I'm not saying that the Chelsea players don't give their all when playing for the club, just that their loyalty to the club is not as steadfast as the loyalty of the 70's players was).

No, I'm afraid Ken Bates has lost it as far as I'm concerned. His opinions are not shared by most Chelsea fans, and he should be utterly ashamed of himself for denegrating Ossie and his team-mates in this way. In any case, he should realise that a club with no history has no heart and soul. We have a history, and we're proud of it. Our current squad is also part of our history, and we're proud of that too.

The Facts: The Osgood Era

Season	Division One	Notes
1964-65	3rd (of 22)	League Cup Winners
1965-66	5th (of 22)	Fairs Cup Semi-Finalists
1966-67	9th (of 22)	FA Cup Finalists
1967-68	6th (of 22)
1968-69	5th (of 22)	Fairs Cup 2nd Round
1969-70	3rd (of 22)	FA Cup Winners
1970-71	6th (of 22)	European Cup-Winners' Cup Winners
1971-72	7th (of 22)	European Cup-Winners' 2nd Round
1972-73	12th (of 22)
1973-74	17th (of 22)

The Facts: The Modern Era

Season	Premiership	Notes
1991-92	14th (of 22)
1992-93	11th (of 22)
1993-94	14th (of 22)	FA Cup Finalists
1994-95	11th (of 22)	European Cup-Winners' Cup Semi-Finalists
1995-96	11th (of 20)
1996-97	6th (of 20)	FA Cup Winners
1997-98	4th (of 20)	European Cup-Winners' Cup Winners; League Cup Winners
1998-99	3rd (of 20)	European Super Cup Winners; European Cup-Winners' Cup Semi-Finalists
1999-00	5th (of 20)	FA Cup Winners; Champions' League Quarter-Finalists
2000-01	6th (of 20)	UEFA Cup 1st Round
2001-02	6th (of 20)	UEFA Cup 2nd Round

Our esteemed Chairman has once again opened up his gob and stuck one of his oversized feet into it. This time, he's had a go at the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff. According to the BBC Sport website, Bates made the following comments whilst being interviewed by Grandstand's Football Focus about the new Wembley development.

"The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is crap by comparison (to the new Wembley), with 100-yard queues for toilets and the like. They think it's good because they've seen nothing else".

Sorry, Ken, but I think you're wrong. I was at last year's FA Cup Final, and I think the Millenium Stadium is a fantastic venue. I didn't encounter a 100-yard queue for the toilets, nor for any other facility, for that matter. How would you know anyway, as you wouldn't be seen dead outside of an executive box?

If long queues at a stadium facility define a crap stadium, why aren't you declaring Stamford Bridge as a crap stadium too?

As usual, Ken Bates is sucking on a mouthful of sour grapes. His bitter invective is surely the result of being denied a chance to build another unwanted hotel empire, this time at the home of English football. (You will recall that he was "asked to leave" the organisation handling the re-design and re-building of Wembley, because his grandiose plans were too expensive and entirely not appropriate). He should learn to take defeat gracefully, and grow up.

Last year, Chelsea were forced to go to Israel to play the away leg of their 2nd round UEFA Cup tie against Hapoel Tel-Aviv. When some of their players, having been given the choice, decided it was too dangerous to go to Tel-Aviv, they were roundly condemned as cowards. Even in the wake of the September 11th terrorist atrocities in the USA, and of the serious unrest in Israel, no sympathy could be found for the men who put their families' interests ahead of their football club's interests.

This year, Leeds United have been drawn against Hapoel Tel-Aviv in the second round of the UEFA Cup. Exhibiting their usual level of consistency (i.e. none at all), UEFA have decreed that the away leg of the tie is to be played in Italy, not Israel. Apparently, it would be far too dangerous to play the match in Israel.

Not only that, but Maccabi Haifa have to play all their "home" matches in the Champions' League in Cyprus, presumably for the same reason.

Can anybody else smell the putrid odour of hypocrisy in all of this? The situation in Israel is no more dangerous this year than it was last year (some would argue that it's less dangerous). So why shouldn't the Israeli clubs be allowed to play their home games at home? If it was safe enough last year, it must still be safe enough this year. Mustn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I think UEFA is actually doing the right thing this season. What rankles is the fact that they haven't apologised to Chelsea for doing the wrong thing by them last year. And of course, the British press haven't bothered to point out the inconsistency, for fear (presumably) of having to retract the accusations of cowardice against certain Chelsea players. The truth is, the press should have praised the players who actually made the trip to Israel last year on their bravery; instead, they took the option that allowed them to further bad-mouth Chelsea.

Just take a look at the following two pictures. I took the photographs myself whilst attending the Villa (21st December) and Charlton (11th January) matches.

21st December 2002   11th January 2003

The barren desert waste in the picture on the right contrasts starkly with the lush green surface in the picture on the left. What catastrophe can have befallen the Stamford Bridge pitch in the three intervening weeks to cause such a dramatic deterioration in the pitch's surface? Surely it must have been some kind of hitherto unknown grass disease that killed off the normally hardy plant almost overnight?

Of course not. Chelsea simply played two matches on it over the Christmas and New Year break. In fact, the damage had already been done by the second of these matches (Middlesbrough, 4th January 2003), by all accounts.

I guess you have to question the competence of the ground staff, who appear to be the party responsible for this mess. When I left the Villa match on 21st December, the pitch was slightly cut up, as it had rained almost incessantly during the week preceding that match, and the pitch was quite wet as a result. The pitch wasn't badly cut up, you understand, just slightly so. And I simply refuse to believe that the pitch cut up any more during the Boxing Day match (Southampton).

So who decided to cover the surface with tons and tons of sand then? Granted, this has the effect of preventing it being cut up any further than it already had been, but it probably wasn't necessary to flood the pitch with sand, was it?

Frankly, it was embarrassing to see the pitch in the state it was presented to us on 11th January. You'd be hard pushed to find any other pitch in Europe that was so poor. For a club harbouring ambitions to be a major force in European football, it was a disgrace.

That having been said, I feel I have to condemn those in the media who declared that the match should have called off. If it had been called off, then the same members of the media would have railed against Chelsea once again, bleating that our players "didn't have the stomach to play on that pitch", or some such crap. As it happens, the pitch was perfectly playable (even the referee agreed that it was), and Chelsea performed superbly on it. That Charlton found it difficult was their problem.

Anyway, the problems are apparently over now, as the club has decided to rip up the old pitch and lay a new one. Next season, we are now told, they'll have a vastly improved pitch with state-of-the-art under-pitch heating and drainage. About time too.