Keefaz

I heard that None the wiser tbh Just asked the missus what name he was trying to say. No idea.

Shearer's rubbish. Absolutely rubbish.

What a finish that is.

Aye. But what was it? The actual sixpence they used to buy the club's first ball? Then why do they still have it if they spent it on a football?

What was all that about the sixpence? Didn't seem to make any sense.

Two great goals against four really poor goals. Didn't look good from that.

Just back in from work. Pretty glum-looking scoreline. But, y'know, shit defence is shit.

FWIW, I don't rate them, really, but we've got too many crucial players out.

Would fancy a proper 5 man midfield to give the back four some protection. That would probably involve giving Alan bloody Smith a game, though.

I've just stabbed out my eyes and ears after that Beeb Xmas advert. Fucking hell.

Raylor wins!

Well this is fucking enlightened punditry.

Robbie Savage can fucking talk, like.

Hilarious that. Must be absolutely gutting to have the pen saved and then concede immediately from the goal kick. Lush.

Watching the highlights of Spurs-Bolton. Spurs are playing some immense stuff. Got to be contenders.

How far apart are Mancini's eyes?

His fucking face.

What a cunt.

Can't believe Morrison ever scores: he's balls.

HAHA!

Great finish that, ffs.

1 league title, 3 FA cups, 2 League cups, 2 UEFA Cup Winner's Cups. In contrast to West Ham's haul of 3 FA Cups, 1 UEFA Cup Winner's Cup. Average historical crowd more than 7,000 bigger than west ham's puny amount, and a few hundred more than even ours. Whatever way you look at it, Chelsea were a bigger club than West Ham before Abramovich came along. And it's not like you can simply discount what has happened since either. Brilliant attendances like 7000 v Southampton in the early 90s, and regularly getting sub-10k attendances throughout the 80s. it's specifically shite like this that prompted me to bring it up, no offence btw. for the sole reason that it reminds me so much of those cretins who bang on about our low attendances in the late 80s, early 90s pre-keegan. tiresome nonsense. In what way is it shite? Since I was born their attendances have been absolutely hopeless and much worse than ours. They were by no means a massive club when Abramovich took them over.

1 league title, 3 FA cups, 2 League cups, 2 UEFA Cup Winner's Cups. In contrast to West Ham's haul of 3 FA Cups, 1 UEFA Cup Winner's Cup. Average historical crowd more than 7,000 bigger than west ham's puny amount, and a few hundred more than even ours. Whatever way you look at it, Chelsea were a bigger club than West Ham before Abramovich came along. And it's not like you can simply discount what has happened since either. Brilliant attendances like 7000 v Southampton in the early 90s, and regularly getting sub-10k attendances throughout the 80s.

i hear this nonsense a lot, but it's not true. you do realise Chelsea have a higher average historical attendance than newcastle united, right? and that west ham's average is not even close. chelsea are also more successful than wham in terms of trophies pre-abramovich. people make out like chelsea were as small as fulham before abramovich came along, but its just not true. This is bullshit, isn't it?

Carver video is absolutely heartbreaking.