Let's All Laugh At... Let's all laugh at Chelsea thread

[rossdapep]

These Conte comments have got to be pretty damaging, right?

What manager is going to agree to going there when they know they have no control over the transfers?

I'm sure some will for the money but there will come a point where people in the game will stay well clear knowing the restrictions and continued upheaval.

 

[thebenjamin]

These Conte comments have got to be pretty damaging, right?

What manager is going to agree to going there when they know they have no control over the transfers?

I'm sure some will for the money but there will come a point where people in the game will stay well clear knowing the restrictions and continued upheaval.

Most clubs outside England, the head coach has little say in transfers. It's peculiar to England the idea that someone would coach the players and handle the transfers.

 

['O Zio]

You can't say that as the term is totally subjective.
The term big club is a nonsense anyway.

That's why I said "regardless of what criteria you base it on". Whether a big club to you is one that's a big brand globally, has massive marketing deals, has won lots of major trophies, is able to attract the best players in the game, has lots of money.....I agree the term "big club" is a bit silly and pointless, but really I don't see how anyone can say nowadays that Chelsea isn't one. Like I say, regardless of what you use to determine a "big club" Chelsea fit the criteria nowadays.

 

[Japhet]

That's why I said "regardless of what criteria you base it on". Whether a big club to you is one that's a big brand globally, has massive marketing deals, has won lots of major trophies, is able to attract the best players in the game, has lots of money.....I agree the term "big club" is a bit silly and pointless, but really I don't see how anyone can say nowadays that Chelsea isn't one. Like I say, regardless of what you use to determine a "big club" Chelsea fit the criteria nowadays.

It's similar to saying Saudi Arabia are a major global economy. They are based on the amount of money they have, but other than that there is nothing to support it. The fact is that older values like heritage and history have been replaced with cheque writing ability. Chelsea are a big club when modern values are the only criteria.

 

['O Zio]

It's similar to saying Saudi Arabia are a major global economy. They are based on the amount of money they have, but other than that there is nothing to support it. The fact is that older values like heritage and history have been replaced with cheque writing ability. Chelsea are a big club when modern values are the only criteria.

But the fact is we're talking about whether Chelsea are a big club now, i.e. in the modern times, therefore you have to use modern values to judge that. Back when Abramovic took over, they were a small club with a lot of money, and that was it, but since then the money has taken effect and they've won a lot of major trophies, had some of the biggest stars in world football play for them, have become a massive global brand, and are widely supported all around the world. To say they have money but nothing else is just plain incorrect nowadays whether we like it or not.

 

[Japhet]

But the fact is we're talking about whether Chelsea are a big club now, i.e. in the modern times, therefore you have to use modern values to judge that. Back when Abramovic took over, they were a small club with a lot of money, and that was it, but since then the money has taken effect and they've won a lot of major trophies, had some of the biggest stars in world football play for them, have become a massive global brand, and are widely supported all around the world. To say they have money but nothing else is just plain incorrect nowadays whether we like it or not.

Not arguing with you at all. Chelsea are a modern day 'big club'. They are a global brand and have had huge success, but only because of a massive injection of cash. If it wasn't for that they'd still be minnows.

 

['O Zio]

Not arguing with you at all. Chelsea are a modern day 'big club'. They are a global brand and have had huge success, but only because of a massive injection of cash. If it wasn't for that they'd still be minnows.

No arguments from me on that one. I just take objection to people coming out with statements like "Chelsea aren't even a big club, back in my day they barely got 5000 through the door" etc. Like I say, like it or not, in the "modern times" Chelsea are undeniably one of the biggest clubs in the world and what they did or didn't do in the 60s is neither here nor there. Their success was started by a massive injection of cash but nowadays I think they've built on top of that are are now just a big club in their own right. For me they'll always have an asterisk next to anything they achieve though, just like City and PSG

 

[Japhet]

No arguments from me on that one. I just take objection to people coming out with statements like "Chelsea aren't even a big club, back in my day they barely got 5000 through the door" etc. Like I say, like it or not, in the "modern times" Chelsea are undeniably one of the biggest clubs in the world and what they did or didn't do in the 60s is neither here nor there. Their success was started by a massive injection of cash but nowadays I think they've built on top of that are are now just a big club in their own right. For me they'll always have an asterisk next to anything they achieve though, just like City and PSG

I guess it sticks in the craw a bit if, like me, you remember going to Stamford Bridge when the pitch was like a cabbage patch and the home end was a corrugated iron shed.

 

[class of 62]

No arguments from me on that one. I just take objection to people coming out with statements like "Chelsea aren't even a big club, back in my day they barely got 5000 through the door" etc. Like I say, like it or not, in the "modern times" Chelsea are undeniably one of the biggest clubs in the world and what they did or didn't do in the 60s is neither here nor there. Their success was started by a massive injection of cash but nowadays I think they've built on top of that are are now just a big club in their own right. For me they'll always have an asterisk next to anything they achieve though, just like City and PSG

the real querie here is the vast majority of there support don't understand the sentence "where were you when you where shit".. big clubs win trophies... they don't buy them, if they didn't have putins puppets money they'd be as big as Brentford .

 

['O Zio]

if they didn't have putins puppets money they'd be as big as Brentford .

Not sure what your point is there mate, sorry, they do have his money and they are bigger than Brentford.

 

[tiger666]

A lot of sour grapes in here.

 

[neogenisis]

Its just nice to see its not us imploding in the media =)

 

[RickyVilla]

A lot of sour grapes in here.

And a lot of people sucking Chelsea's dicks.

 

[TheChosenOne]

Chelsea F.C. is located in Fulham.

Another cuckoo club.

 

[slartibartfast]

But if the oil money pulled out of Chelsea tomorrow or Abramovich just tightened the purse strings, which he is doing by the way, would they stay a 'big club'? Would their fan base, which is mostly made up of glory hunters rather than families full of history, suddenly take a nose dive?
Would these fans continue following Chelsea if the finished mid table for 2 or 3 seasons?
For me this is why their big club status is still questionable because I think they could still derail very quickly.
Please God make it so

 

[riggi]

Can't belive this is a thing.

 

[Westmorland]

Chelsea are just West Ham with money. In fact I would say WestHam have bigger support generally than Chelsea. You can usually tell on phone ins if they are talking about West Ham they are inundated with calls, not so with Chelsea.

 

[Westmorland]

No arguments from me on that one. I just take objection to people coming out with statements like "Chelsea aren't even a big club, back in my day they barely got 5000 through the door" etc. Like I say, like it or not, in the "modern times" Chelsea are undeniably one of the biggest clubs in the world and what they did or didn't do in the 60s is neither here nor there. Their success was started by a massive injection of cash but nowadays I think they've built on top of that are are now just a big club in their own right. For me they'll always have an asterisk next to anything they achieve though, just like City and PSG

Man City are like Chelsea a very rich club as opposed to big. If city won the league 5 years running plus a couple of champ lge titles they would not be as big as United, never will be . City can hardly fill their ground for champ lge games. In fact their crowd don’t seem up for it at all. The atmosphere is nothing like that at Spurs..Whl or Wembley

 

[riggi]

Man City are like Chelsea a very rich club as opposed to big. If city won the league 5 years running plus a couple of champ lge titles they would not be as big as United, never will be . City can hardly fill their ground for champ lge games. In fact their crowd don’t seem up for it at all. The atmosphere is nothing like that at Spurs..Whl or Wembley

Why are man united bigger than city? Given time surley Man City can rival them for fan bases and achievments?

 

[tiger666]

Man City are like Chelsea a very rich club as opposed to big. If city won the league 5 years running plus a couple of champ lge titles they would not be as big as United, never will be . City can hardly fill their ground for champ lge games. In fact their crowd don’t seem up for it at all. The atmosphere is nothing like that at Spurs..Whl or Wembley

How will they "Never" be as big as United? Stupid thing to say.