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

[hellava_tough]

What case?! You said he's shit. The fact that he doesn't regularly start makes his 1 in 3 goal return even more impressive.

Giroud is a good striker, he's not top class but as a bench option he's very good and his record off the bench his superb.

We'd do well if we had a player like Giroud.

If they've signed him as a bench-warmer, then fine

But I don't think they have

Hasn't Conte got issues with Morata?

 

[tiger666]

Never scored more than 16 goals in a PL season

I'm hardly quaking in my boots

He has one of the best goals per minute ratios in the league.

 

[Shadydan]

If they've signed him as a bench-warmer, then fine

But I don't think they have

Hasn't Conte got issues with Morata?

No, Morata is just tired and needs help after having a heavy workload of games, Giroud has been signed to help Morata but there's no way he's going to be first choice.

 

[Col_M]

Anyone know if Ake celebrated his goal?

 

[Shadydan]

Anyone know if Ake celebrated his goal?

Saw the highlights and yes he did

 

[StartingPrice]

Not sure how you can say that to be honest. Once upon a time Man Utd were a nothing club just like everyone else, then they won a shit load of trophies, established themselves as a massive global brand etc. and now they're one of the biggest clubs in the world. Only a matter of time before Chelsea and City are at that level. Chelsea have already won multiple league titles and the CL, City are well on the way to doing the same within the near future. Atmosphere has nothing to do with it, there are plenty of massive clubs that have shit atmosphere. In fact, one of the downsides to becoming one of the truly big clubs in world football is that you invariably end up having a shit atmosphere because you've got a load of plastic glory-hunting fans and tourists. Probably the top 5 biggest clubs in Europe are (in no particular order) Real Madrid, Barca, Bayern, Juve, Man U and none of them have a great atmosphere at home games. I've been to see all of them except Real but from what I gather their fans are the worst of the lot.

If City and/or Chelsea continue to win the major trophies and spread their brand across the world like they currently are, they'll definitely surpass Man Utd at one stage or another. Chelsea have only been competitive for 10 years and already you can see Chelsea shirts all over the place in the USA, Africa, Asia etc. The only reason Utd are so big is because they were the dominant force in English football right when all the money came into the game so were able to capitalize. If they win fuck all for 20 years meanwhile City are cleaning up, you really think Man Utd will still be ahead of them? I don't think so.

Oh, come on...that's just not true at all!

Look, I always make a point of pointing out that we had won approximately the same number of trophies as United (and ArseAnal) up to the point that Ferguson had won United a few trophies. But that was largely because we were one of the most successful clubs in this country - along with Everton, who had won nine league titles. We were all dwarfed by Liverpool's epoch of success, but collectively,this was the traditional Big Five. Chelsea were not in it and not even anywhere near it. If you want to compare United and Chelsea, look at the number of trophies they had both won and also the number of times they had finished second or third in the league. United were a big, big club even before Ferguson took over - Chelsea have only ever had sustained success in one epoch - coinciding with being owned by an oil-igarch.

I also agree with you that United (and ArseAnal) had a period of sustained success coinciding with getting on the BPL/CL/TV money gravy-train just when Mr Scholar nearly destroyed our club (so my fellow Yiddos should stop with this massive inferiority complexes, we are just now getting back to where we belong, after a long, hard struggle). I point this out all the time. But to suggest United only achieved success for this reason is equally untrue. United built the biggest all-seater club stadium in England. And it was a massive risk at the time. English/British football was being torn apart by the hooligan problem and attendances were dropping all over the shop. Our solution to it was to develop a ground with a disproportionate number of corporate boxes - the idea being to generate a higher revenue per seat than standard stadiums. We lost out because the hooligan problem was sorted out (kinda), and TV money etc. But it doesn't hide the fact that United took a huge risk and that they did it, and built on it, with revenues generated by the club.

I also get what you are saying about the global fan-base. I have laboured the point, ever since I predicted we would start to overtake Liverpool nine years ago, that twenty years from now kids in Singapore or Soweto aren't really going to give a monkeys that their Dads (or Mums) support Liverpool because they were the dominant force, what, by that stage it would be forty years ago. We have all [sic.] seen the footage of the Arsenal fan,somewhere in Africa, ripping his shirt off, burning it and putting a Chelsea shirt on after (another) bad result by ArseAnal. But I can also tell you that I had a friend at college from Botswana. All our group of friends were Yiddos, and he was a Yiddo. He supported Spurs /of. I kept in touch with him when he went back to Botswana. Before the start of a season I asked him how he thought we would do...and his reply was that he supports Spurs, ArseAnal and Liverpool (FFS). After some schooling, he understood that he must never mention ArseAnal again...but eventually he became just a Liverpool fan because all his friends in Botswana are Liverpool fans. And United are now much bigger than Liverpool - it is a matter of economics. I said we would begin to catch Liverpool up, and with better infrastructure and a bigger stadium they won't have any innate advantages over us. The most I ever said about United was that they would have a period of deflation because replacing Ferguson was the ultimate poisoned chalice - and that if did things right we might be able to eclipse them for three or four years. If their eclipse lasted until our new stadium, we might just be in a position to be genuine competition to them. But they are far too affluent, with far too big a stadium, to just go away. They may not be the very best ATM, but they will always be one of the top clubs - until several more teams can outspend them, generate more revenues, and have bigger stadiums.

Chelsea and Citeh, by comparison, really were nothing clubs, with the odd trophy here and there, until an oil-igarch bought them and bought them some trophies. No amount of global fans and no amount of revenues based on unearned gift money will ever alter this being a fundamental truth. To say United were a nothing club until Ferguson began winning trophies is just plain wrong - there were one of the biggest and most successful clubs in England before there was any such thing (or any awareness of) the global brand.

 

['O Zio]

Oh, come on...that's just not true at all!

Look, I always make a point of pointing out that we had won approximately the same number of trophies as United (and ArseAnal) up to the point that Ferguson had won United a few trophies. But that was largely because we were one of the most successful clubs in this country - along with Everton, who had won nine league titles. We were all dwarfed by Liverpool's epoch of success, but collectively,this was the traditional Big Five. Chelsea were not in it and not even anywhere near it. If you want to compare United and Chelsea, look at the number of trophies they had both won and also the number of times they had finished second or third in the league. United were a big, big club even before Ferguson took over - Chelsea have only ever had sustained success in one epoch - coinciding with being owned by an oil-igarch.

I also agree with you that United (and ArseAnal) had a period of sustained success coinciding with getting on the BPL/CL/TV money gravy-train just when Mr Scholar nearly destroyed our club (so my fellow Yiddos should stop with this massive inferiority complexes, we are just now getting back to where we belong, after a long, hard struggle). I point this out all the time. But to suggest United only achieved success for this reason is equally untrue. United built the biggest all-seater club stadium in England. And it was a massive risk at the time. English/British football was being torn apart by the hooligan problem and attendances were dropping all over the shop. Our solution to it was to develop a ground with a disproportionate number of corporate boxes - the idea being to generate a higher revenue per seat than standard stadiums. We lost out because the hooligan problem was sorted out (kinda), and TV money etc. But it doesn't hide the fact that United took a huge risk and that they did it, and built on it, with revenues generated by the club.

I also get what you are saying about the global fan-base. I have laboured the point, ever since I predicted we would start to overtake Liverpool nine years ago, that twenty years from now kids in Singapore or Soweto aren't really going to give a monkeys that their Dads (or Mums) support Liverpool because they were the dominant force, what, by that stage it would be forty years ago. We have all [sic.] seen the footage of the Arsenal fan,somewhere in Africa, ripping his shirt off, burning it and putting a Chelsea shirt on after (another) bad result by ArseAnal. But I can also tell you that I had a friend at college from Botswana. All our group of friends were Yiddos, and he was a Yiddo. He supported Spurs /of. I kept in touch with him when he went back to Botswana. Before the start of a season I asked him how he thought we would do...and his reply was that he supports Spurs, ArseAnal and Liverpool (FFS). After some schooling, he understood that he must never mention ArseAnal again...but eventually he became just a Liverpool fan because all his friends in Botswana are Liverpool fans. And United are now much bigger than Liverpool - it is a matter of economics. I said we would begin to catch Liverpool up, and with better infrastructure and a bigger stadium they won't have any innate advantages over us. The most I ever said about United was that they would have a period of deflation because replacing Ferguson was the ultimate poisoned chalice - and that if did things right we might be able to eclipse them for three or four years. If their eclipse lasted until our new stadium, we might just be in a position to be genuine competition to them. But they are far too affluent, with far too big a stadium, to just go away. They may not be the very best ATM, but they will always be one of the top clubs - until several more teams can outspend them, generate more revenues, and have bigger stadiums.

Chelsea and Citeh, by comparison, really were nothing clubs, with the odd trophy here and there, until an oil-igarch bought them and bought them some trophies. No amount of global fans and no amount of revenues based on unearned gift money will ever alter this being a fundamental truth. To say United were a nothing club until Ferguson began winning trophies is just plain wrong - there were one of the biggest and most successful clubs in England before there was any such thing (or any awareness of) the global brand.

Sorry mate but despite going to some considerable effort in your response (which I appreciate), you've also managed to completely miss the point in what I was saying. I never for one second suggested that Utd were not a big club until the Ferguson era. As you've highlighted and increased the font size of in my post, I said that "once upon a time Man Utd were a nothing club just like everyone else" and I still stand by that. At no point did I say that they weren't a big club until Fergie came along. The fact is that every single club that has ever existed started off as a nothing club founded by a couple of blokes (usually in a pub, let's be honest) and Man Utd are no exception. But years down the line when they've had success on (and in modern times off) the pitch, and they've turned into one of the biggest clubs in any sport in the whole world. I'm talking long before the Ferguson years. It's just a fundamental fact. I understand that City and Chelsea were/are nothing clubs in your eyes, but the fact is that in 10, 20, even 100 years time nobody will care about where the money came from and if one club or another has been more successful, they will inevitably be one of the biggest clubs in the same way as Man Utd are. Nobody sits around nowadays saying "Man Utd are good, but they'll never have the history of Wanderers FC". Look back at who were the dominant teams in the early 1900s and see how many of those teams are still big players. The fact is if you are successful, you will eventually be a big club, whether that's through oil money or whatever. Eventually there comes a point where being successful overrides the rest of it in the public's eyes.

The point I was trying to make in that regard to Utd's success in the PL era was that they happened to have a sustained period of success at a very convenient time in terms of the amount of money/publicity etc. that was being brought into the game and therefore were able to amass the wealth that has now enabled them to compete with the likes of Chelsea and City financially without needing some "sugar-daddy" type owner to come in and just throw money around. I never said they weren't a big club until then, it just explains a lot of why they were/are able to compete with the "financially doped" clubs like City without having had one of them type of owners.

Also I'm not talking about "global brands" etc. because I in some way give a shit about companies' marketing ambitions, it's because it's become a huge way in which clubs make money nowadays. And as we all know, like it or not, money is what drives the game. Do I like that? Not at all. Would I want us to be bought out by billionaires and win thing? Not at all. But I'm just not naive enough to think that just because Chelsea weren't a "big club" (whatever it even means) during the 60s that they can't become a big club in the 21st century. By most measures, except for historical success, they've already achieved that, and even historical success is something that is almost inevitably going to fall into place over the years. And by the same token, I'm not naive enough to think that just because we were a great team in the 60s that buys us some sort of infinite membership to the "big club" status. The way some of our fans dine out on it makes them sound even more deluded than the Scousers who seem to think they've got some god-given right to compete for the title every season just because they were good 30 years ago.

 

[sebo_sek]

Doesn't regularly start?

I rest my case

Ole Gunnar Solskajer (spelling)
I rest MY case

 

[rossdapep]

Sorry mate but despite going to some considerable effort in your response (which I appreciate), you've also managed to completely miss the point in what I was saying. I never for one second suggested that Utd were not a big club until the Ferguson era. As you've highlighted and increased the font size of in my post, I said that "once upon a time Man Utd were a nothing club just like everyone else" and I still stand by that. At no point did I say that they weren't a big club until Fergie came along. The fact is that every single club that has ever existed started off as a nothing club founded by a couple of blokes (usually in a pub, let's be honest) and Man Utd are no exception. But years down the line when they've had success on (and in modern times off) the pitch, and they've turned into one of the biggest clubs in any sport in the whole world. I'm talking long before the Ferguson years. It's just a fundamental fact. I understand that City and Chelsea were/are nothing clubs in your eyes, but the fact is that in 10, 20, even 100 years time nobody will care about where the money came from and if one club or another has been more successful, they will inevitably be one of the biggest clubs in the same way as Man Utd are. Nobody sits around nowadays saying "Man Utd are good, but they'll never have the history of Wanderers FC". Look back at who were the dominant teams in the early 1900s and see how many of those teams are still big players. The fact is if you are successful, you will eventually be a big club, whether that's through oil money or whatever. Eventually there comes a point where being successful overrides the rest of it in the public's eyes.

The point I was trying to make in that regard to Utd's success in the PL era was that they happened to have a sustained period of success at a very convenient time in terms of the amount of money/publicity etc. that was being brought into the game and therefore were able to amass the wealth that has now enabled them to compete with the likes of Chelsea and City financially without needing some "sugar-daddy" type owner to come in and just throw money around. I never said they weren't a big club until then, it just explains a lot of why they were/are able to compete with the "financially doped" clubs like City without having had one of them type of owners.

Also I'm not talking about "global brands" etc. because I in some way give a shit about companies' marketing ambitions, it's because it's become a huge way in which clubs make money nowadays. And as we all know, like it or not, money is what drives the game. Do I like that? Not at all. Would I want us to be bought out by billionaires and win thing? Not at all. But I'm just not naive enough to think that just because Chelsea weren't a "big club" (whatever it even means) during the 60s that they can't become a big club in the 21st century. By most measures, except for historical success, they've already achieved that, and even historical success is something that is almost inevitably going to fall into place over the years. And by the same token, I'm not naive enough to think that just because we were a great team in the 60s that buys us some sort of infinite membership to the "big club" status. The way some of our fans dine out on it makes them sound even more deluded than the Scousers who seem to think they've got some god-given right to compete for the title every season just because they were good 30 years ago.

Isn't saying they are a 'nothing club' also saying that they aren't a big club? Same thing isn't it?

 

[chinaman]

Hope that Ruskie is fed up with the club and pull his support. Everything will then crumble.

 

[hellava_tough]

Ole Gunnar Solskajer (spelling)
I rest MY case

Ancient history!!

But seriously, OGS was a great player, but he had the likes of Yorke, Cole, Teddy to complete with

Giroud hasn't had that and he's still on the bench

Talented, but no ambition to go that extra mile

 

['O Zio]

Isn't saying they are a 'nothing club' also saying that they aren't a big club? Same thing isn't it?

Yeah it is. Not sure what that's got to do with what I said though mate, sorry. I was saying even Utd were once a nothing club and they became big, so I don't understand why some people refuse to believe that Chelsea are now a big club just because they didn't used to be. I don't really get what that has to do with nothing club and not a big club being the same thing though.

 

[knowlespurs]

Hope that Ruskie is fed up with the club and pull his support. Everything will then crumble.

he certainly seems unwilling to spend big

 

[Shadydan]

Regarding the Russian, Chelsea mate sent me this

A list has just been released by the US government of blacklisted Russian oligarchs who are being investigated for fraud and corruption. They could face international sanctions. Roman Abramovich is number 2 on the list.

Probably has something to do with that.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ch-Putin-Trump

 

[Dougal]

Regarding the Russian, Chelsea mate sent me this

A list has just been released by the US government of blacklisted Russian oligarchs who are being investigated for fraud and corruption. They could face international sanctions. Roman Abramovich is number 2 on the list.

Probably has something to do with that.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ch-Putin-Trump

Knowing our luck number one on the list will be Bahamas based Josef Lewskov.

 

[yid1o]

Hope that Ruskie is fed up with the club and pull his support. Everything will then crumble.

Even if he does some other rich bloke will take them over.
Like it or not he has made them a global brand since he took over so the idea of them going down the pan, as much as I'd love it, is fantasy.

 

[knowlespurs]

it is quite funny hearing Chelsea fans moan about Citeh and how much they are spending on fees and wages, and not appreciating the irony

 

[TheChosenOne]

Bats has just scored on his debut for Dortmund.

 

[slartibartfast]

it is quite funny hearing Chelsea fans moan about Citeh and how much they are spending on fees and wages, and not appreciating the irony

Agree. Not one of them can see the hypocrisy. Andy Jacobs of TS is the same.
Its the same with Man U. Just look at poor Mourinho complaining they can't compete anymore.
Just not fair when you suddenly find you're not the biggest bully in the playground anymore is it?


Suck it you ass hats lol.

 

[TheChosenOne]

it is quite funny hearing Chelsea fans moan about Citeh and how much they are spending on fees and wages, and not appreciating the irony

You can include Wenger in that category too - paying 350k a week to Ozil and £56/60 mill for Aubs. Cheapskate ain't he ?