Rumours had been brewing over the last few months that Chelsea were interested in signing France forward Nicolas Anelka from Bolton. These were logical of course, because Anelka has been excellent this season, and has buckled down and worked on his game and temperament in the last few years. Chelsea were not the only interested party, and both Arsenal and Manchester United were rumoured to be interested, along with several continental clubs. The fees mentioned were anywhere between £8 and 12 million, and you can't say that Anelka isn't worth that.

Today however, official confirmation was received that Bolton rejected a bid from Chelsea. The amount of the bid is unclear but it is believed to be around £11 million, and it looks like Chelsea will have to shell out a lot of money, despite their slightly hilarious protestations of late that they are "not a spending club" and looking to "tighten the strings" and so on.

Apart from the fact that Chelsea have unlimited finances, and pay virtually 40-60% extra for all of their transfers because other clubs don't want to let them off lightly, there are several others reasons why Anelka will cost them a lot more:

1. Bolton are in quite a strong position. Anelka signed a 4 year deal at the start of the season. If he goes now, they can use the money to bring someone in, if he stays, then his class will be invaluable to them, and he can still be sold in the summer when Bolton can start a bidding war. Anelka has for a change not thrown his toys out of the pram and said that although he'd like to be playing Champions League football, he'd be happy to stay at Bolton as well.

2. Along with Dimitar Berbatov, Anelka is the best striker in the Premier League that isn't cup-tied for Europe. There are other strikers available in Europe (a few), but because of the way the Premiership is, it takes time for players coming from abroad to adapt, and with only 5 months left of the season, January signings generally need to come from within the league to have an impact. Anelka and Berbatov are not just two of the best in England, they are probably two of the best in Europe, and with Spurs reportedly wanting £35 million for Berbatov, Anelka is definitely the better option.

3. The African Nations Cup will deprive Chelsea of their two best attackers Drogba and Kalour. Pizzarro hasn't been much good, and Shevchenko's overall floppery is quite well known. They will be in serious need of attacking threat for a month or so, and so a striker buy is crucial.

4. Nevermind going missing for the ANC, but Drogba has once again come out and said that he wants to leave Chelsea, so they are also in the market for a top striker for next season, and Drogba's comments might seem him drop out of favour by the end of this one. The Ivorian had this to say - "The problem is that I say that I want to leave since two or three years. Mourinho's departure didn't help, to the contrary it made my desire to leave even bigger". Chelsea's main striker wants out, they're short of two for the next month and a half, their other strikers are poo, and they need someone who's good, not cup-tied, and able to spearhead them for at least a few years.

Bolton really hold all the cards on this one, although a lot depends on Anelka maintaining his good temperament and decent behaviour. If he decides to throw a strop and hands in a transfer request or something, then Chelsea will be able to bring the price down. But Anelka knows that he can get his move at the end of the season as well, so there shouldn't be any massive urgency. Peter Kenyon is also quite a poor negotiator, so Bolton should be able to get at least about £16-18 million for Anelka, if not more.

In a recent interview, Alex Ferguson said that it was his duty to produce English players, because nobody else was going to. Whether he intended it that way or not, the media interpreted it as a pop at Arsene Wenger and Arsenal, and probably a bit at Liverpool as well.

Of course, this all comes on the back of England's defeat to Croatia, and their generally bad football over the last year, and how all this is somehow the fault of foreign players coming in, and how clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool don't produce enough English players. Of course clubs like Manchester United and Chelsea are hailed for having "English souls" and whatever else, but that's really a lot of crap. It's easy for the two richest clubs in the country to go out and spend 10-20m on an English player and then claim that they have homegrown players. It's also nonsense.

So I thought i'd take a look at the two clubs named as the big "saviours" of English football, and see just exactly how many English international players they've "produced".

From the England squads, Manchester United have Wayne Rooney, Michael Carrick, Gary Neville, Wes Brown, Owen Hargreaves, Rio Ferdinand and Ben Foster. Which is fine I suppose, it's nice to have 7 England internationals, and I guess Alex Ferguson can be proud of that. But when it's used as stick to beat other clubs and managers with, then it becomes very, very unfair, because how much did these players cost?

Well, Rooney cost £27 million, Carrick cost £18m, Hargreaves cost £17m, and Ferdinand cost £33m. Ben Foster was a £1 million buy from Stoke, and ONLY two players - Gary Neville and Wes Brown - are from United's "famed" youth setup. Well, that's a total cost of £96 million! It's easy to brag about your "English core" when you're filthy rich isn't it!

And Chelsea? Well they have Ashley Cole, Wayne Bridge, John Terry, Frank Lampard, Joe Cole and Shaun-Wright Pillips. Once again, errr... well done for having all these Englishman in the squad, but again, how many have Chelsea produced? Just one - John Terry. As for the rest? Ashley Cole cost about £17 million (£5m + William Gallas), Wayne Bridge cost £7m, Frank Lampard cost £11m, Joe Cole cost £7m and Shaun Wright-Phillips cost £21m. Total cost: £63 million.

Chelsea and Manchester United spend more on their beloved English players than most clubs (Arsenal included) do in 2 or 3 seasons on ALL their players. And how many can you say are worth it? Is Owen Hargreaves really worth £17m when Mathieu Flamini cost £1m? Is Rio Ferdinand really worth £33m when Kolo Toure cost £750,000? Is Wayne Bridge worth £7m when Patrice Evra was only £4.5m? And Michael Carrick £18m when the far superior Xabi Alonso was only £11m? There's a reason that clubs look abroad for players, and it's not because they dislike English players or want to harm English football, it's because the prices and hype that surrounded even a moderately talented English player are ludicrously high, and clubs other than Chelsea and Manchester United can't really throw the money around.

In any case, we've seen that between them, Chelsea and Manchester United presently have only three club-produced England internationals in their squads. So why don't we look at the recent England squads, and the number of players that have been club-produced by the "Big Four", and when they won their first caps:

Manchester United: Gary Neville (1995), David Beckham (1996), Phil Neville (1996), Wes Brown (1999)
Arsenal: Ashley Cole (March 2001), David Bentley (September 2007)
Liverpool: Steven Gerrard (2000), Michael Owen (1998)
Chelsea: John Terry (June 2003)

OK, so Manchester United have the most home-produced players of those 4, but the most recent cap of them all was Wes Brown in 1998, and he's not even that important. They're basically still living off the reputation of their much vaunted "Golden Generation", but the fact is that United have not produced a decent English player in years and years, and their present crop are decidedly ageing and average at the ages of 32, 31, 32 and 28.

And I'd like to follow that up by asking you which club from the "Big Four" has produced the most number of players to be capped in this decade? Well the answer to that, funnily enough, is Arsenal! Two is not a large number, but it's certainly more than Manchester United have given to English football in the last 7 years. And if you look at the recent England youth squads, you will find that it's Arsenal who are producing the most talented young English players, and in good numbers as well. Surely this can only be because of their foreign manager, and all the incredibly talented foreign players that are there in training and on the field?

Incidentally the two clubs that have contributed the most to recent English squads are Leeds and West Ham. Leeds - Aaron Lennon, Paul Robinson, Alan Smith, Scott Carson, and Jonathan Woodgate
West Ham - Rio Ferdinand, Joe Cole, Michael Carrick, Frank Lampard and Jermain Defoe (although the latter was schooled mostly at Charlton)

Back in May, when Chelsea failed to beat Arsenal at Ashburton Grove, thereby handing the title to Manchester United, Arsenal fans took great delight in singing "Sacked in the summer, you're getting sacked in the summer" to the hyperactive Jose Mourinho. Bordering on obnoxiousness as always, the Portuguese manager had charged on the field at full-time, gesturing wildly to the crowd and trying to be the focus of attention.

Although that little interchange amused many, tellingly not a lot of eyebrows were raised - Mourinho was clearly not too happy with how things were being run at Chelsea, and Chelsea were allegedly not too happy with the style of football played under Mourinho, and his unwillingness to be pushed around by their collection of suits - Kenyon, Buck, Abramovich and Zahavi, of which only the latter can have some claim to being a "football man".

Add to that the appointment of Avram Grant from Portsmouth as Director of Football (not to mention the arrival of Frank Arnesen many months earlier to oversee the scouting and talent acquisition) and Chelsea clearly seemed to be building the sort of system that makes a manager's wishes irrelevant. In someways they have jumped from being small to "big" in a very short span of time, and without really having the structure to match. They have hurriedly tried to cobble together a "structure" at the club, and this smells of an insecurity towards the age-old foundations established at powerhouses like AC Milan, Barcelona, and closer-to-home... Arsenal and Manchester United.

I don't think Abramovich liked the fact that Chelsea were reliant for success on Mourinho, especially with the disagreements over playing style and the arrival of certain personnel (Shevchenko, Ballack, Wright-Phillips), and so he decided to establish a "continental-style" structure that would oversee everything to do with the sporting aspects of the club other than the actual coaching, tactics and and operations of the first-team. Any manager arriving in the future would have to work within these constraints, but Mourinho had been there before it all, and was the man responsible for delivering Chelsea's first meaningful silverware in 50 years, so it was never going to work well.

Mourinho may not have played terrific football, or thrilled many (or any), but he had a talent for figuring out how to win or draw football matches. I can't remember any games where they every looked out of a tie, and their resilience and solidity were incredible. You can't hire a manager to win you titles, and when he wins you titles, start telling him how to do his job.

So out goes one of the brightest young managers in Europe, the only surprise being that it was a month into the season instead of before it. Whoever comes in now will have a difficult task, because they can't afford to let performances flag. Avram Grant has stepped up to the mantle for now, but two of the names being bandied about are Fabio Capello and Guus Hiddink. Capello seems unlikely, given his fondness for signing Italians wherever he goes (and the fact that the transfer window doesn't reopen for some months), and when you factor in the Russian connection, and his friendship with Abramovich, Hiddink is not the unlikeliest candidate in the world. Harry Redknapp is a less-likely figure, but another shrewd operator, and someone who likes to play exciting football.

Last night was my first ever time at Stamford Bridge, and I have to say that I was underwhelmed. Most of the fans didn't know the songs (most of which were quite uninspired), some were audibly saying stuff like "how does that one go?" and "what are they saying?", and all the shirts were from this season or the one before - no history eh?

They also have some ridiculous anthem, and silly flags that they wave about, and it gave the general impression that I was in some bizarre kind of football Disneyland. I don't really mean to slag them off at Chelski, but it was seriously uninspiring stuff - there were chants of "Chewwseaaa", "Champeeeeyuns" and one or two others that are quite generic and which i'm fairly sure have been nicked off others. Ditto for the player songs. And their support mostly seemed to be in the form of vitriol and abuse at opposition players and fans, and maybe that is just emblematic of the Chelsea/Mourinho mentality of "Us Against The World". Anyways, enough of that, on to the football...

...which as you might expect in a Champions League semi-final was a very tense, cagey affair. I personally don't think that 1 goal is enough for Chelsea up at Anfield, and Fat Frankie Lampard had a chance from which he really should have scored. Shevchenko came close a few times (but was a passenger for the rest of the game), and Joe Cole and Didier Drogba were generally a dangerous duo for most of the game, although Drogba was heavily marked and didn't really have too many shooting opportunities (but he created chances for others, including the goal).

Seeing Drogba play in the flesh really gave me an idea of just how difficult an opponent he is - he's absolutely massive and a good athlete as well. Tall, very well built, and quite quick, time-and-time again he was first to long balls, and/or easily able to get the upper-hand at balls played into the channels. He works hard and really organises the game from the front (and on more than one occassion he lectured Shevchenko, whose timid personality doesn't do him any favours in this team).

Carragher dealt with him decently, but Agger was at his wit's end, and Drogba mostly operated in his area. In the second-half they dealt with him by having Mascherano/Xabi track him and pick-up the second ball when Agger challenged him in the air, but he had already done the damage with his contribution to the goal in the first half. He charged past Agger on the right-flank and put in a low cross to Joe Cole who neatly steered the ball in. Cole was influential all game and he finally gives Chelsea that bit of attacking flair and intelligence that they've missed this season.

Mamamamakekekekelelele was solid, Mikel was decent, and I finally saw Lampard for the overrated "lucky" player that many claim he is - he did nothing all game, doesn't beat players, and thumps long (/diagonal) balls up for the winger or Drogba to get to. But he does pick up scraps in front of goal, and if it wasn't for a super save from Reina, he would have volleyed in for 2-0 and more or less killed the tie. Ashley Cole might as well not have been there - at Arsenal he was an exciting, tenacious, attacking fullback; at Chelsea he is a slightly confused, reasonably steady left-back who just thumps 50-60 yard curling balls into the box for Drogba, and occassionally makes forays and crosses into the box. Chelsea really isn't the place for footballing fullbacks, and on the night Paulo Ferreira didn't seem like fullback who even knew how to play football - he was beaten time and time again by Boudewijn Zenden of all people, and he's just lucky that Zenden couldn't shoot, cross or pass to save his life.

That was it really, there were more poor performances on show than good ones, and Liverpool were really bad. I can't believe why Rafa Benitez put out the side that he did, but i'm sure that we'll see a completely different Liverpool at Anfield. Resting Peter Crouch was strange, and omitting Pennant (who has been in good form of late) was a sign that they were willing to play for a draw and maybe steal one on the break with Bellamy's pace. As it were, Bellamy was just awful - Chelsea defended deep, and never pushed up so he never had anywhere to run into. Kuyt can't quiyt act as the proper foil for him, and Liverpool generally looked like a side that didn't know what they were doing.

Gerrard was excellent, and influential, but had nothing happening in front of him (constant comments from the Chelsea fans all night along the lines of "ee should of come to Chewww-seee", which was also what they said in reference to any other good player that someone decided to talk about... amazing what a bit of money does to people eh?). He had one fantastic volley saved by Cech, which was the only real save that he made all game. This was in stark contrast to Pepe Reina at the other hand who made a series of breath-taking saves at the other end. He was Drogba's rival for Man of the Match, and if Liverpool go on to salvage anything in the second leg, they have him to thank for keeping the scores level.

Finally, a quick mention about the "ghost penalty" that Mourinho keeps going on about - I haven't seen the incident on TV, but I was seated directly in line with it, and to me it seemed that the ball bounced up off Arbeloa's knee or thigh onto his hand (which was by his side). Ball-to-hand if there ever was one and I think the referee made the right decision, although Mourinho being Mourinho, the Special One with Special Needs, no decision will ever satisy him.

Anyways though, it's all just fuel for the fire that is the game at Anfield. There will be the Kop and all the fans to deal with, as well as (i'm hoping) a more attacking line-up. Steve Finnan was badly missed, and Pennant and Crouch will play in the second-leg, maybe even Mark Gonzalez. The attack in London was completely void of any guile or invention, and Luis Garcia, inconsistent as he is, is a big loss in this department.

Anyhow, next week should be quite the game, and the atmosphere will be something special up there... let's see if Chelsea can handle it.