Jump to content

A lesson for NUFC....


mrmojorisin75
 Share

Recommended Posts

The follwoing quotes are taken from an excellent article in the Telegraph about Chel$ki:

 

"Class is the key word. The people who own, manage and administer Chelsea underline, week in, week out, what Oscar Wilde meant when he defined a cynic as 'someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing'. They spend money like drunken sailors, and brag about there being 'more where that came from'. Then they wonder why the world outside their frantic little parish withholds its respect."

 

"West Bromwich Albion is a football club. Accrington Stanley is a football club. Chelsea has not been a football club for some while. It is a vanity publication, run by vulgarians for whom modesty is a badge of shame…"

 

When I read that I feel it is all too easy to replace Chel$ki with NUFC. 

Over the last decade we have been driven towards becoming a cut-price Netto version of the current Chel$ki; from being the toast of the country a decade ago for our football & fans, we're now arguably second to Chel$ki in the derision league and show few signs of that changing for the better.  The major difference is that we've "acheived" our status on the back of the fans money, not a "Geordie Ambramovich".

 

We need to get the chairman, board, cronies, lackies, sycophants out of our club and run it the way we'd be proud to see it.

 

Anyone not in favour of a takeover think hard on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without passing comment one way or another as to whether I believe Belgravia would be good for the club or not.....

 

 

If the only thing differentiating ourselves from Chelsea is the fact that we aren't owned by a Billionaire but paid for by the fans then surely replacing Shepherd with an investment vehicle (in what ever form it may take) is just one step closer to being this 'cut price' version of Chelsea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't say that i agree - the big difference between chelsea and a belgravia owned nufc would be that we'd have to make money, run a sound business and all that. Abrahmovic doesn't give a fuck about that.

 

in fact, i think that we may move away from the chelsea model with the arrival of belgravia, as that would surely mean the end of freddy 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

There's a big difference between us and Chelsea (not Chel$ki btw) tbh.  The thing that has annoyed people about Chelsea in recent times is not their spending on players, it's their flouting of Premier League rules, safe in the knowledge that they can so easily afford any fines that might come their way that it almost makes it an incorrect decision not to break the rules.  I'm less bothered by them splashing the cash on players than I am by that sort of thing.  That's where their true lack of class shows through.

 

Couple that with Mourinho who, despite the claims that he is a genius diverting attention from his players, is a hugely talented arsehole with no class whatsoever, and the arrogance of Peter Kenyon and you've got all the reasons you need for people to really dislike Chelsea.

 

We've got Shepherd and fans that like to ring into phone-ins and proclaim themselves the best in the land (which I always cringe at btw, because I can imagine how twatful it sounds to other fans listening), but apart from that we're a world away from Chelsea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, it's me then!! 

 

we're actually being run in an ethical way, frugally taking care of our money instead of pissing it away at the first opportunity on shite that never plays for us and offering 80,000 p/w wages to players who can't make 20 games a season

 

that's sarcasm in case you were wondering

 

i'll refer you back to the quotes i started with, please tell me how they don't apply to us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

ah, it's me then!! 

 

we're actually being run in an ethical way, frugally taking care of our money instead of pissing it away at the first opportunity on shite that never plays for us and offering 80,000 p/w wages to players who can't make 20 games a season

 

that's sarcasm in case you were wondering

 

i'll refer you back to the quotes i started with, please tell me how they don't apply to us?

 

One of the methods we use to attract top players here is to offer them higher wages than they'll get elsewhere.  Another way is we outbid bigger clubs that are in the market for these players.  That's not a lack of class, that's business.

 

Making poor signings isn't a lack of class either.  We do all of the things you've outlined in your post above, but that doesn't make us a cut-price version of Chelsea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

might be more accurate to call us a cut-price Real Madrid, going after 2nd rate trophy signings and associated razmattaz. the difference is that they can make it work for them (in a financial sense anyway), as they are the biggest and richest club on the planet. we couldn't even win anything in our episode of the Goal! movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

man, tough crowd...i'll have to be more explicit if i ever make it out of this post alive

 

there are of course many differences between us and Chel$ki; they're from London, they play in Blue, they won trophy's BEFORE they had shedloads of money, they WERE about to go into bankrupcy when we could be headed for that in the near future, they HAD an obnoxious universally despised chairman now we've got one...

 

need i go on?  taking it to extremes, which people here seem inclined to do, then no we're not a cut-price version

that said our chairman states he doesn't care about teams in lower divisions go out of business, takes the piss out of his own clubs fanbase, lying to us while looking us in the eye about who we're gonna sign as players/managers... i could go on

 

what i'm getting, and here is where i spell it out for you in crayon, is that these are the TRAITS that Chel$ki display that make them hated, just because our custodians show them in slightly different ways doesn't mean they aren't the same

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

might be more accurate to call us a cut-price Real Madrid, going after 2nd rate trophy signings and associated razmattaz. the difference is that they can make it work for them (in a financial sense anyway), as they are the biggest and richest club on the planet. we couldn't even win anything in our episode of the Goal! movie.

 

fair point - i like it....maybe a better comparison as Real have conducted themselves is poorly as Chel$ki in recent times i suppose...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

what i'm getting, and here is where i spell it out for you in crayon, is that these are the TRAITS that Chel$ki display that make them hated, just because our custodians show them in slightly different ways doesn't mean they aren't the same

 

You've tried to make a point, and now you're getting arsey when people disagree.  Nice one.  Would you have preferred it if everyone had nodded their head and said "Nice post."

Link to post
Share on other sites

what i'm getting, and here is where i spell it out for you in crayon, is that these are the TRAITS that Chel$ki display that make them hated, just because our custodians show them in slightly different ways doesn't mean they aren't the same

 

You've tried to make a point, and now you're getting arsey when people disagree. Nice one. Would you have preferred it if everyone had nodded their head and said "Nice post."

 

not at all, but nobody has refuted anything i said at the start, merely sidestepped it and said something else for why we're not a cut-price version of Chel$ki - the point remains that we are managed and administered without class, piss money away and then are told "we'll always back our managers" with more money and so on....

 

just saying "there are differences" with us and Chel$ki is beyond the glaringly obvious

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

what i'm getting, and here is where i spell it out for you in crayon, is that these are the TRAITS that Chel$ki display that make them hated, just because our custodians show them in slightly different ways doesn't mean they aren't the same

 

You've tried to make a point, and now you're getting arsey when people disagree. Nice one. Would you have preferred it if everyone had nodded their head and said "Nice post."

 

not at all, but nobody has refuted anything i said at the start, merely sidestepped it and said something else for why we're not a cut-price version of Chel$ki - the point remains that we are managed and administered without class, piss money away and then are told "we'll always back our managers" with more money and so on....

 

just saying "there are differences" with us and Chel$ki is beyond the glaringly obvious

 

We all know that the chairman lacks class in pretty much everything he does.  This has been discussed on here again and again.  But Shepherd has been doing it for years, and I for one don't consider us a cut-price Chelsea.  It's the comparison to Chelsea that I take issue with, not the lack of class argument which pretty much all but two posters on here agree with anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are unpopular, although it's not easy to make a good comparison with Chelsea's unpopularity.

 

I agree that the 'best fans in the country' bit gets on people's nerves.

 

Freddie's also a bit of a PR disaster, with a boorish manner and a habit of opening his mouth before engaging his brain. Outside the local press, which he largely controls, I don't think he has many friends in the national media, and that often comes out in the coverage we receive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what i'm getting, and here is where i spell it out for you in crayon, is that these are the TRAITS that Chel$ki display that make them hated, just because our custodians show them in slightly different ways doesn't mean they aren't the same

 

You've tried to make a point, and now you're getting arsey when people disagree. Nice one. Would you have preferred it if everyone had nodded their head and said "Nice post."

 

not at all, but nobody has refuted anything i said at the start, merely sidestepped it and said something else for why we're not a cut-price version of Chel$ki - the point remains that we are managed and administered without class, piss money away and then are told "we'll always back our managers" with more money and so on....

 

just saying "there are differences" with us and Chel$ki is beyond the glaringly obvious

 

We all know that the chairman lacks class in pretty much everything he does. This has been discussed on here again and again. But Shepherd has been doing it for years, and I for one don't consider us a cut-price Chelsea. It's the comparison to Chelsea that I take issue with, not the lack of class argument which pretty much all but two posters on here agree with anyway.

 

if we're being picky i actually said we're being driven towards it, not that we are it, and i stand by that

 

the only thing that is stopping the current regime from running our club in the same manner is that they don't have the same personal fortune to buy and run the club (do you think FS would merrilly follow FA & PL rules or do what Chel$ki do given half the chance?) nor the ability to choose a management team to run the club in a successful, effective and efficient manner

 

no problem whatsoever with people disagreeing with me, and i admit that my loathing for the man Shepherd blinds me sometimes...in this case i think i'm right though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Invicta_Toon

 

"Class is the key word. The people who own, manage and administer Chelsea underline, week in, week out, what Oscar Wilde meant when he defined a cynic as 'someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing'.

 

bull. is that why we signed Sibierski and Solano in the summer?

 

They spend money like drunken sailors, and brag about there being 'more where that came from'.

 

more where that came from? when have you ever got that impression from FF? If anything, he has been most vocal on the money wasted. The splashes of cash when they have come have been unexpected to say the least. If anything, it's the fans who are calling for money to be spent that isn't there

 

"West Bromwich Albion is a football club. Accrington Stanley is a football club. Chelsea has not been a football club for some while. It is a vanity publication, run by vulgarians for whom modesty is a badge of shame…"

 

while FF may not be lacking in the modesty stakes, it laughable to think you are accusing NUFC fans of lapping up his shite the way Chelsea fans revel in Abramovics' largesse

 

 

Over the last decade we have been driven towards becoming a cut-price Netto version of the current Chel$ki;

 

non-sensical statement, how can you be a cut price version of Chelsea? That would be anyone other than Chelsea surely

 

from being the toast of the country a decade ago for our football & fans, we're now arguably second to Chel$ki in the derision league and show few signs of that changing for the better.  The major difference is that we've "acheived" our status on the back of the fans money, not a "Geordie Ambramovich".

 

there is a world of difference in the reasons why NUFC and Chelsea may or may not be derided. I see no commonality whatsoever

 

We need to get the chairman, board, cronies, lackies, sycophants out of our club and run it the way we'd be proud to see it.

 

well you sound perfect for the job, when can you start?

 

Anyone not in favour of a takeover think hard on that.

 

:roll:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".

we didn't sign solano in the summer, and sibierski was widely considered to be an awful signing until he scored a couple of goals....but again you're missing the point:  shepherd is type of man who knows how much it costs the club to sack Uncle Bobby, but only in how much the pay off was....we're still realising the real price of that and will be for some time

 

"more where that came from? when have you ever got that impression from FF?"

i don't know, marcelino, albert luque, michael owen to name a few...the utter inability to learn from past mistakes & the continual references to backing the manager in the future, which we'll see again in January to everyones cost (although i hope not)

 

"non-sensical statement, how can you be a cut price version of Chelsea? That would be anyone other than Chelsea surely" 

you appear to know all about non-sensical statements, how could Chel$ki be another version of themselves i wonder? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't care less if we were popular or not - it didn't win us any trophies in the 90's when we were supposed to be the 'Entertainers' , did it !?

All that happened was a load of patronising media articles from the likes of that clown Collins in the Mail on Sunday, who then proceeded to complain when all the 'neutrals' gloated after we tanked Man U 5-0..!!

 

We need people running the club with a totally-focussed view of making the club successful ON the pitch & MORE successful off it - one follows the other, but you need the on-field success first.

The reason people dislike Chelsea is down to several things, including the slightly suspicious background to the people in charge, but also to envy & resentment from the previously-untouchables of Arsenal , Man U & Liverpool - the latter 2 have big friends in the media, Arsenal because of the power they have previously wielded through Dein being on the FA, but NOT being able to match Chelsea for money.

 

We were also resented by a section of the media in the 90s(why do you think NOTW set up Shepherd/D.Hall ? NOTW owned by Murdoch who was trying to buy Man U at the time.....)and I think you would have seen a different attitude among neutrals had we won the title in 96 & gone on to be more successful ; we would have become a REAL threat to the 'Establishment' , and not just a flash in the pan

to be tolerated & sent back to the sticks after our brief moment of glory.....!!

 

I couldn't care less if we won the title by 1-0 every game - so long as we DID win it. We are NOT here to win neutral popularity contests, but to win trophies , and to do that we have to become coldly-professional ; that ALSO applies to the fans. The 'Sexy Football' can wait until we've won the Champs Lge - not before......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't care less if we were popular or not - it didn't win us any trophies in the 90's when we were supposed to be the 'Entertainers' , did it !?

All that happened was a load of patronising media articles from the likes of that clown Collins in the Mail on Sunday, who then proceeded to complain when all the 'neutrals' gloated after we tanked Man U 5-0..!!

 

We need people running the club with a totally-focussed view of making the club successful ON the pitch & MORE successful off it - one follows the other, but you need the on-field success first.

The reason people dislike Chelsea is down to several things, including the slightly suspicious background to the people in charge, but also to envy & resentment from the previously-untouchables of Arsenal , Man U & Liverpool - the latter 2 have big friends in the media, Arsenal because of the power they have previously wielded through Dein being on the FA, but NOT being able to match Chelsea for money.

 

We were also resented by a section of the media in the 90s(why do you think NOTW set up Shepherd/D.Hall ? NOTW owned by Murdoch who was trying to buy Man U at the time.....)and I think you would have seen a different attitude among neutrals had we won the title in 96 & gone on to be more successful ; we would have become a REAL threat to the 'Establishment' , and not just a flash in the pan

to be tolerated & sent back to the sticks after our brief moment of glory.....!!

 

I couldn't care less if we won the title by 1-0 every game - so long as we DID win it. We are NOT here to win neutral popularity contests, but to win trophies , and to do that we have to become coldly-professional ; that ALSO applies to the fans. The 'Sexy Football' can wait until we've won the Champs Lge - not before......

 

Ba ha ha, you've just made my point for me - that might as well be right out of the mouth of Pete Kenyon or Fat Fred

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea do piss money away and look set to take a £8 - £10 million loss on SWP alone, the fact they have so much money means its not noticed as much. Poeple go on as though we spent the money on Owen knowing he was going get 2 major injuries, had he stayed fit and played every game no fker would be whinging about him.

Bad luck is not bad management but sadley we get loads of bad luck, Fred does not have an unlimted ammount of funds like Abramovic does, we would be very veyr lucky to get an owner like, he does not care about the club making him money he just wants the glory that comes with winning things. Belgravia would want us to be a money making club and would not just pour moeny into it season afetr season. Yes O wuld love a new ownwer for the club but only the right one, there is no point jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ChickenKiev

The follwoing quotes are taken from an excellent article in the Telegraph about Chel$ki:

 

"Class is the key word. The people who own, manage and administer Chelsea underline, week in, week out, what Oscar Wilde meant when he defined a cynic as 'someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing'. They spend money like drunken sailors, and brag about there being 'more where that came from'. Then they wonder why the world outside their frantic little parish withholds its respect."

 

"West Bromwich Albion is a football club. Accrington Stanley is a football club. Chelsea has not been a football club for some while. It is a vanity publication, run by vulgarians for whom modesty is a badge of shame…"

 

When I read that I feel it is all too easy to replace Chel$ki with NUFC. 

Over the last decade we have been driven towards becoming a cut-price Netto version of the current Chel$ki; from being the toast of the country a decade ago for our football & fans, we're now arguably second to Chel$ki in the derision league and show few signs of that changing for the better.  The major difference is that we've "acheived" our status on the back of the fans money, not a "Geordie Ambramovich".

 

We need to get the chairman, board, cronies, lackies, sycophants out of our club and run it the way we'd be proud to see it.

 

Anyone not in favour of a takeover think hard on that.

 

Who would you rather be, Accrington Stanley or Chelsea? Think hard before you answer because in today's football there are only 2 directions. Unfortunately it all depends on money, which to a high degree buys success. There's no other way to have success. Chelsea are doing nothing wrong, people are just jealous and since they have quality on the pitch which nobody can falter then people use their wealth to try and put them down. I'm not saying I like what I see, I'm just saying how it is and people just have to go along with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would you rather be, Accrington Stanley or Chelsea? Think hard before you answer because in today's football there are only 2 directions. Unfortunately it all depends on money, which to a high degree buys success. There's no other way to have success. Chelsea are doing nothing wrong, people are just jealous and since they have quality on the pitch which nobody can falter then people use their wealth to try and put them down. I'm not saying I like what I see, I'm just saying how it is and people just have to go along with it.

 

personally i'd rather not be a team grinding one-nils for the sake of "everything" (i.e. to win)

personally i'd rather be see a keegan/wenger/ferguson team than a mourinho one

personally i'd rather not see players wearing our shirt to harass referees, cheat or do anything else underhand to secure the all important win

 

if we become a club that is defined by winning then it will be sad, sad day...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

if we become a club that is defined by winning then it will be sad, sad day...

 

You are the fan that they've been telling me about on Sky! :shock:  The one that would rather lose 5-4 than win 1-0.  I thought you were a myth like the unicorn.  bluebigrazz.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would you rather be, Accrington Stanley or Chelsea? Think hard before you answer because in today's football there are only 2 directions. Unfortunately it all depends on money, which to a high degree buys success. There's no other way to have success. Chelsea are doing nothing wrong, people are just jealous and since they have quality on the pitch which nobody can falter then people use their wealth to try and put them down. I'm not saying I like what I see, I'm just saying how it is and people just have to go along with it.

 

personally i'd rather not be a team grinding one-nils for the sake of "everything" (i.e. to win)

personally i'd rather be see a keegan/wenger/ferguson team than a mourinho one

personally i'd rather not see players wearing our shirt to harass referees, cheat or do anything else underhand to secure the all important win

 

if we become a club that is defined by winning then it will be sad, sad day...

You're mental tbh

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...