Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not that long since Chelsea's star striker was Paul Furlong. They just won the jackpot basically.

 

Or Vialli and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.

 

Look, it's very simple and has been said repeatedly every time people try this revisionist nonsense. Chelsea were doing well just before Abramovich but were living way beyond their means and were about to go bust. Ken Bates got bailed out by Abramovich, whereupon they spent a spectacularly obscene amount of money which cemented them at the top. Without the insane amount of money he spent they would be either bust or mediocre...not least because that money would have gone to another club. Maybe even Newcastle.

 

tl;dr - I'm bitter because Roman was talked out of buying Spurs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much between Chelsea and Man City historically before the money came in. Plus Chelsea's money era stretches back into the 90s when they spent more than they could afford under Bates bringing in big names. Chelsea just got lucky that Abramovich swooped in when the shit was hitting the fan, unlike for e.g. at Leeds. The virtue of being in an affluent area home to billionaires rather than a working class northern town.

 

I favour City over Chelsea because I see some parallels between them and Newcastle. Can't identify with Chelsea. Spend 5 minutes walking around Kensington and its a different world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Tickets-and-Travel/2014/October/City-v-CSKA-Moscow-exclusive-ticket-offer

 

Bahahahaha.

 

Having to offer buy one get one free tickets for their next home Champions League match because even against one of the best teams in Europe in Roma they had over 10k empty seats.

 

They have the money and trophies recently but they'll never be a big club.  Just an utter f***ing embarrassment.

 

Least likes of Chelsea were winning trophies and playing CL footy before they had the money, and Liverpool have always been a proper club.  This lot are just a bunch of charva lottery winners.

 

 

 

Stop. City fans are having a hard time and they are really poor. I know you apparently have a good job, you are in no position to laugh at them.

 

Worst post of the year in the next N-O awards wrapped up.  Well done, whoever you are.

 

Lighten up Pissi, I clearly wasn't serious ffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much between Chelsea and Man City historically before the money came in. Plus Chelsea's money era stretches back into the 90s when they spent more than they could afford under Bates bringing in big names. Chelsea just got lucky that Abramovich swooped in when the shit was hitting the fan, unlike for e.g. at Leeds. The virtue of being in an affluent area home to billionaires rather than a working class northern town.

 

I favour City over Chelsea because I see some parallels between them and Newcastle. Can't identify with Chelsea. Spend 5 minutes walking around Kensington and its a different world.

 

It's one of the worst away trips as well, the one time I went there I paid 55 quid to sit down, no alcohol served to away fans whatsoever, smug as fuck fans, etc.  Can't stand them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that long since Chelsea's star striker was Paul Furlong. They just won the jackpot basically.

 

Or Vialli and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.

 

Look, it's very simple and has been said repeatedly every time people try this revisionist nonsense. Chelsea were doing well just before Abramovich but were living way beyond their means and were about to go bust. Ken Bates got bailed out by Abramovich, whereupon they spent a spectacularly obscene amount of money which cemented them at the top. Without the insane amount of money he spent they would be either bust or mediocre...not least because that money would have gone to another club. Maybe even Newcastle.

 

tl;dr - I'm bitter because Roman was talked out of buying Spurs.

 

:lol: Wrong again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that long since Chelsea's star striker was Paul Furlong. They just won the jackpot basically.

 

Or Vialli and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.

 

You're proving the opposing case if Hasselbaink's the best name you can come up with. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pata was obviously taking the p*ss there :lol:.

 

Whereas I was being deadly serious and I'm now counting down the days til the nomintions open to vote for him.

 

Just put a reminder on my iphone to make double sure.

 

:anguish: Honestly, what's wrong with you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much between Chelsea and Man City historically before the money came in. Plus Chelsea's money era stretches back into the 90s when they spent more than they could afford under Bates bringing in big names. Chelsea just got lucky that Abramovich swooped in when the shit was hitting the fan, unlike for e.g. at Leeds. The virtue of being in an affluent area home to billionaires rather than a working class northern town.

 

I favour City over Chelsea because I see some parallels between them and Newcastle. Can't identify with Chelsea. Spend 5 minutes walking around Kensington and its a different world.

 

It's one of the worst away trips as well, the one time I went there I paid 55 quid to sit down, no alcohol served to away fans whatsoever, smug as fuck fans, etc.  Can't stand them.

 

Chelsea fans were the type to wave money at northern fans and chant about being on the dole during the 80s. Either that or they were members of the NF. Thats the kind of twats that support the club historically - add in the plethora of new age glory hunters and its not a great mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

Their players were fucking horrible in the '90s like. Almost every single one of them was an absolute fucking cunt. Even the ones that weren't were fucking irritating.

 

Wise

Poyet

Stein

Spencer

Petrescu

Burley

Hughes

Gullit

Morris

Di Matteo

Le Boeuf

Babayaro

Le Saux

Flo

 

 

All either absolute cunts are just irritating as fuck players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that long since Chelsea's star striker was Paul Furlong. They just won the jackpot basically.

 

Or Vialli and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.

 

You're proving the opposing case if Hasselbaink's the best name you can come up with. :lol:

 

The same JFH who had a record that was better than 1 in every 2 matches and managed over 20 league goals the same amount of times in 4 seasons in a ridiculously inferiour team than your hero Drogba did in 10?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their players were f***ing horrible in the '90s like. Almost every single one of them was an absolute f***ing c***. Even the ones that weren't were f***ing irritating.

 

Wise

Poyet

Stein

Spencer

Petrescu

Burley

Hughes

Gullit

Morris

Di Matteo

Le Boeuf

Babayaro

Le Saux

Flo

 

 

All either absolute c***s are just irritating as f*** players.

 

Zola was the only likeable one

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that long since Chelsea's star striker was Paul Furlong. They just won the jackpot basically.

 

Or Vialli and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink.

 

You're proving the opposing case if Hasselbaink's the best name you can come up with. :lol:

 

The same JFH who had a record that was better than 1 in every 2 matches and managed over 20 league goals the same amount of times in 4 seasons in a ridiculously inferiour team than your hero Drogba did in 10?

 

Drogba signed in '04 and left in '12. Is Maths no longer on the curriculum in Norn Iron?

 

Drogba was never an out-and-out goalcorer anyway. More a CF that could do everything. Stupid bringing him up. But yes, he was a far, far better player than JFH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pata was obviously taking the p*ss there :lol:.

 

Whereas I was being deadly serious and I'm now counting down the days til the nomintions open to vote for him.

 

Just put a reminder on my iphone to make double sure.

 

:anguish: Honestly, what's wrong with you?

 

You took the piss so, so did I.

 

If you're gonna take the piss out of the blue, don't go crying if you get it back.  Jesus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much between Chelsea and Man City historically before the money came in. Plus Chelsea's money era stretches back into the 90s when they spent more than they could afford under Bates bringing in big names. Chelsea just got lucky that Abramovich swooped in when the s*** was hitting the fan, unlike for e.g. at Leeds. The virtue of being in an affluent area home to billionaires rather than a working class northern town.

 

I favour City over Chelsea because I see some parallels between them and Newcastle. Can't identify with Chelsea. Spend 5 minutes walking around Kensington and its a different world.

 

It's one of the worst away trips as well, the one time I went there I paid 55 quid to sit down, no alcohol served to away fans whatsoever, smug as f*** fans, etc.  Can't stand them.

 

Chelsea fans were the type to wave money at northern fans and chant about being on the dole during the 80s. Either that or they were members of the NF. Thats the kind of t***s that support the club historically - add in the plethora of new age glory hunters and its not a great mix.

 

Yeah horrible racist element to them. Just general shithouses tbh

 

And that's just John Terry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pata was obviously taking the p*ss there :lol:.

 

Whereas I was being deadly serious and I'm now counting down the days til the nomintions open to vote for him.

 

Just put a reminder on my iphone to make double sure.

 

:anguish: Honestly, what's wrong with you?

 

You took the p*ss so, so did I.

 

If you're gonna take the p*ss out of the blue, don't go crying if you get it back.  Jesus.

 

Oh ffs, how was I taking the piss out of you? I'm curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...