johnnypd Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The difference with Chelsea is that they were a pisspot club with zero history until Harding came in and waved his money around, and subsequently RA did the same. people trot this one out a lot, but chelsea actually have a larger historical average attendance than newcastle and aston villa. people generally just assume a club's 'natural' size is how they were whilst they were growing up or first getting into football, and any subsequent reversal or improvement in fortunes is an anomoly, ie 'sheff wed/forest/qpr should be in the prem' or 'chelsea were tiny before abramovich'. for instance people of a certain age assume burnley, due to a period of success in the 60s, are bigger than blackburn but by any conceivable measuring stick blackburn are the bigger club. likewise people who got into footie in the 80s think newcastle and chelsea have no real grounding or background or tradition. it is as if more recent success counts less than stuff that happened in the 70s or 80s. not only is that bullshit but the opposite is true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quklaani Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 My issue with the "buying the league" nonsense is that it is always used to undermine an acheivement, and it does so by suggesting that the team has an unfair advantage. I think its a fair charge against Chelsea, who for awhile there could just do whatever they liked with no regard to financial risk, and to a lesser extent it was the same with Blackburn. City of course look like making those examples seem like small fry. We've always had a budget, and its always been our own money, and we've never consistently outspent anyone else the way Chelsea suddenly did. We've always built to success, often foregoing short term acheivement for long term dominance. In 2004 we'd just had a woeful season, surrendering our league title in pretty dreadful fashion, we needed reinforcements in defense and midfield, but we were fine up front with Ruud and Saha. So Sir Alex did the obvious thing and spent the entire transfer budget on Wayne Rooney. January 2006, we were 20 odd points behind Chelsea, Keano had jumped ship, we were out of Europe and so on and so forth (this "crisis" was massively over egged, but its still a useful example.) We had a midfield of Alan Smith and John O'shea, so what did Ferguson do? Signed Evra and Vidic. I was as baffled as the next fan by that, but it shows what we know. Anyway, I guess I'm just saying people should look at the bigger picture, we spent 30 million on one player in the summer, but Liverpool spent 40+ on several. Yet again we'll be called the big spenders because of the price tag on one player, and the Scousers will bleat about not being able to compete with us financially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 My issue with the "buying the league" nonsense is that it is always used to undermine an acheivement, and it does so by suggesting that the team has an unfair advantage. I think its a fair charge against Chelsea, who for awhile there could just do whatever they liked with no regard to financial risk, and to a lesser extent it was the same with Blackburn. City of course look like making those examples seem like small fry. We've always had a budget, and its always been our own money, and we've never consistently outspent anyone else the way Chelsea suddenly did. We've always built to success, often foregoing short term acheivement for long term dominance. In 2004 we'd just had a woeful season, surrendering our league title in pretty dreadful fashion, we needed reinforcements in defense and midfield, but we were fine up front with Ruud and Saha. So Sir Alex did the obvious thing and spent the entire transfer budget on Wayne Rooney. January 2006, we were 20 odd points behind Chelsea, Keano had jumped ship, we were out of Europe and so on and so forth (this "crisis" was massively over egged, but its still a useful example.) We had a midfield of Alan Smith and John O'shea, so what did Ferguson do? Signed Evra and Vidic. I was as baffled as the next fan by that, but it shows what we know. Anyway, I guess I'm just saying people should look at the bigger picture, we spent 30 million on one player in the summer, but Liverpool spent 40+ on several. Yet again we'll be called the big spenders because of the price tag on one player, and the Scousers will bleat about not being able to compete with us financially. not only that but your money is there because it is the consequence of fergie's earlier successes, not because it has came from an external source. mind you even in relation to chelsea it kind of belittles the achievement of the players or manager. in mourinho's first season he didnt have the best side in the league - arsenal did, it was a big achievement to only lose one game in his first season in england regardless of how much he spent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quklaani Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Oh of course, if Scolari has shown us anything its that Mourinho was (and is) a very special manager. That Chelsea team didn't just win the league, they kicked the crap out of it, and it was hardly a team of superstars. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Every penny Man Utd spend on players comes from the fans' pockets who spend all that money to watch their club in the same way our rise from the old second division to top of the Premier League was funded by us lot and not as the media have often quoted by Sir John Hall. For that alone I'd rather see them win the league than Chelsea who had to have a helping hand from a rich benefactor to win the league as Blackburn did under Jack Walker. Man Utd's success is down to their (self financed) spending power, their great manager and their ability to develop players into world-class stars and have them playing as a team. Man Utd have very rarely signed the finished product, for such a big club they have never bought a Zidane, a genuine world-class player as Real Madrid did and do, they just make them - see Giggs, Scholes, Ronaldo, Rooney, Beckham and a host of others for example. 90% down to Fergie really. More than anything, I put Man Utd's sucess down to the one-in-a-million chance of having a Youth team produce a crop of amazing first teamers like they did - Beckham, Giggs, Scholes, Nev1, Nev2, Butt. Fergie has been trying to catch lightning in a bottle ever since. Until these kids came along, Man U were just like any other team trying to break through as champions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MW Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Proably the wrong thread but got into a fight with a mackem tonight, very bitter, horrible people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Proably the wrong thread but got into a fight with a mackem tonight, very bitter, horrible people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest getalife Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I stood to win 2 grand on an 8-game, 10 quid accummulator last weekend, and the only team that didn't win was Chelsea at home against Hull........ Who would have predicted that.....? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest north shields lad Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 So it looks like the premiership is going to be bought by Man U again. Stupid comment tbf. They buy players with money they earn. What you want them to do, never sign anyone just to give other teams more of a chance? There in more debt than any other premiership side Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest north shields lad Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The difference with Chelsea is that they were a pisspot club with zero history until Harding came in and waved his money around, and subsequently RA did the same. I'll admit, I don't like Man United, but that's more about things like Steve c***ing Bruce and seven minutes of extra time than it is the club itself. I don't mind Man United fans from the area. But what I really absolutely f***ing loathe are gloryhunters. I don't just mean Man United gloryhunters, but the lot, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool. Once I hear someone with a west country accent talking about how they're a Chelsea fan, I just turn off, they're dead to me, they are the absolute lowest of the low. I would rather my son became a Birmingham City supporter than supported Liverpool or Man United. People (in Britain) who just "choose" a successful club from a city they have no connection with - they're really the lowest of the low, they are the modern day equivalents of quislings, treacherous weasels whose opinion on football matters not one f***ing jot to me, because it is a false one. What do they know about being a real football supporter? It'd be like me suddenly latching on to Pittsburgh Steelers or whoever it is that wins that funny American sport all the time. *rant ends* very true, and while we still have a good local support at SJP, there creeping in here, and some of our away trips to London id say are 20% out of town support. God help us if we ever get good again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 People (in Britain) who just "choose" a successful club from a city they have no connection with - they're really the lowest of the low, they are the modern day equivalents of quislings, treacherous weasels whose opinion on football matters not one fucking jot to me, because it is a false one. What do they know about being a real football supporter? A very unfair statement. How many of these gloryhunters started supporting their clubs at a very young age? Can you really blame children for wanting to support a club they hear a lot about? It's the people with a bit more mental sense about them that decide at a more mature age to support the successful teams that are a problem. And the worst of them all are those that pick and choose and change clubs when they feel like it. I'm someone who 'chose' his club at a very young age - I'll freely admit to having no connection to Newcastle - for whatever reason, but I have and will forever continue to support the club through thick and thin. There are people out there who won't support 'their' club if they're unsuccessful - these aren't true fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hagler Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 when i was at school it was good for the t*** kids to turn up on monday quoting how their club had won on saturday... liverpool at the time..nothing has changed..yet my kids never got the chance to form any kind of support for a club miles away..child abuse i know...yet...they now would never have thier kids support scum.....so the morale is...the prem will come to he who waits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest quklaani Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 So it looks like the premiership is going to be bought by Man U again. Stupid comment tbf. They buy players with money they earn. What you want them to do, never sign anyone just to give other teams more of a chance? There in more debt than any other premiership side Except none of the debt comes from signings, or anything else to do with the club's spending for that matter.. It kinda sucks that we fans had to pay 700 million out of our own pockets just to change owners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1878 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 People (in Britain) who just "choose" a successful club from a city they have no connection with - they're really the lowest of the low, they are the modern day equivalents of quislings, treacherous weasels whose opinion on football matters not one f***ing jot to me, because it is a false one. What do they know about being a real football supporter? A very unfair statement. How many of these gloryhunters started supporting their clubs at a very young age? Can you really blame children for wanting to support a club they hear a lot about? It's the people with a bit more mental sense about them that decide at a more mature age to support the successful teams that are a problem. And the worst of them all are those that pick and choose and change clubs when they feel like it. I'm someone who 'chose' his club at a very young age - I'll freely admit to having no connection to Newcastle - for whatever reason, but I have and will forever continue to support the club through thick and thin. There are people out there who won't support 'their' club if they're unsuccessful - these aren't true fans. I suppose you can't blame kids (depending on how old they are) but you can definitely blame the parents. Gloryhunters are just wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm not looking forward to Saturday. I'll be surrounded by people who regularly go to watch Watford play - except this week half will show their true fucking colours when they cheer a Chelski goal. There's a young lad, who I'm sure has a season ticket, he's ridiculously obese and always wears full Manure kit to every Watford game. What is wrong with the little cunt? He must be about 11. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 As soon as American owners were introduced to our game, money was always going to be the most important thing in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Maybe Tim Lovejoy will be there, wearing his Watford Chelsea top with pride. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 As soon as American owners were introduced to our game, money was always going to be the most important thing in football. It always makes me laugh when people moan about foreign owners being in it for the dollar As if people like Doug Ellis, Peter Swales, Ken Bates, Martin Edwards were feeble minded philanthropists. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 People (in Britain) who just "choose" a successful club from a city they have no connection with - they're really the lowest of the low, they are the modern day equivalents of quislings, treacherous weasels whose opinion on football matters not one fucking jot to me, because it is a false one. What do they know about being a real football supporter? A very unfair statement. How many of these gloryhunters started supporting their clubs at a very young age? Can you really blame children for wanting to support a club they hear a lot about? It's the people with a bit more mental sense about them that decide at a more mature age to support the successful teams that are a problem. And the worst of them all are those that pick and choose and change clubs when they feel like it. I'm someone who 'chose' his club at a very young age - I'll freely admit to having no connection to Newcastle - for whatever reason, but I have and will forever continue to support the club through thick and thin. There are people out there who won't support 'their' club if they're unsuccessful - these aren't true fans. That sounds like my situation...i freely admit i did watch Coventry in the 80's but my Toon born and bred Dad beat it out of me.So to speak.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm someone who 'chose' his club at a very young age - I'll freely admit to having no connection to Newcastle - for whatever reason, but I have and will forever continue to support the club through thick and thin. There are people out there who won't support 'their' club if they're unsuccessful - these aren't true fans. You're entirely missing the point. "Glory"hunters. Where is the glory in choosing to support Newcastle? or Everton? Or Villa? or lots of teams. When i see people walking around where I live wearing Chelsea tops, I really do want to vomit out a significant part of my lower intestine. These are the people I'm talking about. Their parents need to take a very long, hard look at themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm someone who 'chose' his club at a very young age - I'll freely admit to having no connection to Newcastle - for whatever reason, but I have and will forever continue to support the club through thick and thin. There are people out there who won't support 'their' club if they're unsuccessful - these aren't true fans. You're entirely missing the point. "Glory"hunters. Where is the glory in choosing to support Newcastle? or Everton? Or Villa? or lots of teams. When i see people walking around where I live wearing Chelsea tops, I really do want to vomit out a significant part of my lower intestine. These are the people I'm talking about. Their parents need to take a very long, hard look at themselves. I saw people wearing Blackburn tops in 94....never seen them wearing them since....CUNTS!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm someone who 'chose' his club at a very young age - I'll freely admit to having no connection to Newcastle - for whatever reason, but I have and will forever continue to support the club through thick and thin. There are people out there who won't support 'their' club if they're unsuccessful - these aren't true fans. You're entirely missing the point. "Glory"hunters. Where is the glory in choosing to support Newcastle? or Everton? Or Villa? or lots of teams. When i see people walking around where I live wearing Chelsea tops, I really do want to vomit out a significant part of my lower intestine. These are the people I'm talking about. Their parents need to take a very long, hard look at themselves. Think you might be getting a pretty large infusion soon enough imo Fully expect to see my first Villa top back home sometime this calendar year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm someone who 'chose' his club at a very young age - I'll freely admit to having no connection to Newcastle - for whatever reason, but I have and will forever continue to support the club through thick and thin. There are people out there who won't support 'their' club if they're unsuccessful - these aren't true fans. You're entirely missing the point. "Glory"hunters. Where is the glory in choosing to support Newcastle? or Everton? Or Villa? or lots of teams. When i see people walking around where I live wearing Chelsea tops, I really do want to vomit out a significant part of my lower intestine. These are the people I'm talking about. Their parents need to take a very long, hard look at themselves. Did you see a Didier Six inspired Villa twatt Man Urinal 3-0 in 1984, on ESPN today Brummie...your Paul Birch avatar reminded me,as he was playing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 very true, and while we still have a good local support at SJP, there creeping in here, and some of our away trips to London id say are 20% out of town support. God help us if we ever get good again. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against out of town support. For example, we get a load of support down the M5 corridor, places like Cheltenham, Gloucester, Worcestershire, as well as areas like Staffordshire, Warwickshire etc. My beef is with people who choose to support Man United / Chelsea / Liverpool - teams that consistently win stuff. It is just so fucking easy. Show some civic pride, choose a team nearby, choose a team your family has a link with. Can you imagine what it feels like for a Newcastle fan to win the league? or a Villa or Everton or Man City fan? Then think about what it is like for someone who just chose Man United when they win the league? They can't possibly know what it would really mean, they chose a guaranteed route to success. If they have no natural familial or local connection, why do these people not choose Mansfield Town? Or Notts County? Beause they know that they have a short cut to success. All fair and good, good luck to them, I just don't want to talk to them about football, their opinion to me is meaningless, I dont want to hear it - they've just opted for the easy route. I also wouldn't be quite so extreme on the subject if there weren't just so fucking many of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colocho Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 As soon as American owners were introduced to our game, money was always going to be the most important thing in football. It always makes me laugh when people moan about foreign owners being in it for the dollar As if people like Doug Ellis, Peter Swales, Ken Bates, Martin Edwards were feeble minded philanthropists. That's a good point, but the extremity of capitalism in US societies has refined businessman who not only know how to make a significant return on their investment but how to ensure the growth and prosperity of a business, in the case the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now