last nail in the coffin for Chelsea..

jackdaw

that's it after today's 0-0 draw against Fulham ...


its all over ..

Terry, Lamps, Drogba, MAlouda , Essien will be gone next summer
if not JAnuary ...

what a f*cking disaster ...

Mr. Presentable

Nah, they'll be fine once they appoint a manager.

cson

jackdaw wrote:

that's it after today's 0-0 draw against Fulham ...


its all over ..

Terry, Lamps, Drogba, MAlouda , Essien will be gone next summer
if not JAnuary ...

what a f*cking disaster ...

Ever the optimist. Bit of a knee-jerk reaction me thinks.

leninbenjamin

last nail in the coffin... wtf? they had a bad run and sacked the manger...

must remind myself to hold a minutes silence for each club tat this happens to in the course of the season...

Melion

You think this is bad?

Wait another 2 or 3 years for the Leeds situation to set in at Stamford Bridge, thats going to be a disaster(and funny for the rest of us)

KdjaCL

cson wrote:

Ever the optimist. Bit of a knee-jerk reaction me thinks.

Tbh hes been saying that since the season started and hasnt been far wrong.


Me i just sitting back and enjoying the train wreck that is Chelsea


kdjac

Zapp Brannigan

I like watching Chelski fall apart, but I really don't think they will. Some players will leave, but Grant will be thrown bags of cash to replace them with some other superstars.

PHB

I'd like them to fall apart, but I don't think they will. Essien/Terry/Drogba/Malouda won't be allowed to leave. Lampard might due to the contract situation. If Grant is staying (which I seriously doubt) Ambrovomich is going to give him his full backing. He really wants the club to play like Barca. I can see crazy crazy crazy crazy crazy money being offered this summer for flair players. I think we'll see a huge influx of players into Chelsea this winter/next summer. I can see them bidding like 100 million for Kaka/Ronaldo/Fabregas/Ronaldinho or something. Personally I think Barca would sell aswell.

Mr. Presentable

Why does anyone want to see them fall apart?

KdjaCL

nipplenuts wrote:

Why does anyone want to see them fall apart?

Imagine its the rivalry thing, point in case me and the giggles i got from Shels demise, most fans hate chelsea and now some chelsea fans hate chelsea. I recall one game where chelsea fans waved 50 pound notes at home fans, thats gonna bite them in the ass.

Suppose its the way football works. swings and roundabouts etc:

from my own exp we got deducted points and lost a league title over it Shels and Rovers gloated and poked fun at us, few season later we relegated rovers and watched shels implode last season so its all good

im sure there are some fans who giggle at leeds, me being one of them


kdjac

PHB

I don't like them as a club. I don't like how they've gone about their business, it's bad for the game as a whole. I like the premiership being fought between two clubs who have a committment to attacking football, Man Utd and Arsenal. I can't stand the style of football that Chelsea play, however, I am warming to Ambrovomich due his apparent desire to play attractive football.

KdjaCL

PHB wrote:

I don't like them as a club. I don't like how they've gone about their business, it's bad for the game as a whole. I like the premiership being fought between two clubs who have a committment to attacking football, Man Utd and Arsenal. I can't stand the style of football that Chelsea play, however, I am warming to Ambrovomich due his apparent desire to play attractive football.

You think the 1st part will change with the 2nd?


kdjac

PHB

No, the business thing refers to how they've acted towards other clubs, including but not limited too, blatent disregard for transfer regulations, buying players they don't need to stop them going elsewhere (SWP), artically inflating the transfer market, and also the source of their money (i.e outside football profit, not the legality of it).

That said, the fact that they play turgid unattractive boring efficient football (or at least did under Mourinho) never helped either.

KdjaCL

PHB wrote:

No, the business thing refers to how they've acted towards other clubs, including but not limited too, blatent disregard for transfer regulations, buying players they don't need to stop them going elsewhere (SWP), artically inflating the transfer market, and also the source of their money (i.e outside football profit, not the legality of it).

That said, the fact that they play turgid unattractive boring efficient football (or at least did under Mourinho) never helped either.

yeah but how can you warm to Roman if he continues that policy but with flair players ehh Ronaldo ? he hitting contract buy out time next season i think.

They getting ronaldinho alledgley via the contract thing, a player only gonna buy out his contract if he knows he getting well reimbursed at his new club ie contact with them.



kdjac

Mr. Presentable

Yeah, I understand and accept all that, but I want my team to win against the best, not the weakened.

BTW, as a Leeds fan I am also amused by their decline (or should that be bemused). I draw hope from it that it can happen to anyone, eh, PHB

Born in Inchicore, I am also a Pats fan, and while I enjoyed the torment of Rovers fans, I was very sad to see a club of distinction and tradition fall.

PHB

Ronaldo recently extended his contract so it's two/three years before that'll be for him.

It'll make his less bad. Still bad, but less bad. Also, I blame most of the policies on Kenyon anyway. It's like this. If you want to bend the rules and really hurt the game, the least you can do is create a beautiful side to watch. If you do it just to win with horrid football, there is no saving grace for you. If you create a great side like the great madrid's, at least I can appriciate him for that.

KdjaCL

nipplenuts wrote:

Born in Inchicore, I am also a Pats fan, and while I enjoyed the torment of Rovers fans, I was very sad to see a club of distinction and tradition fall.

Ehh we relegated them :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBNwLsTCkVo

Listen to that cheer thats the cheer of relegating your most hated rivals

Yeah, I understand and accept all that, but I want my team to win against the best, not the weakened.

Do you cheer when an opposing player gets sent off and the game is tight and 0-0?



kdjac

Mr Alan

PHB wrote:

I don't like them as a club. I don't like how they've gone about their business, it's bad for the game as a whole. I like the premiership being fought between two clubs who have a committment to attacking football, Man Utd and Arsenal. I can't stand the style of football that Chelsea play, however, I am warming to Ambrovomich due his apparent desire to play attractive football.

in fairness PHB, i dont see that massive a difference in how they've done things, than how Utd were doing them for years before.
Paying over the odds for players?
Tapping up players?
Manager who is highly outspoken and gives a **** about no one but himself?

none of that sound similar no?

Ps. Chelsea have been as/if not more entertaining than Utd this season. And played great football at times under Jose. the myth that chelsea are a boring club to watch,at times, is just not true.

I think your main beef with them is they broke the stranglehold Utd had on the premiership.

Mr. Presentable

Nobody's bought out their contract yet, have they? I think there must be some kind of tacit fair play agreement between the big clubs that it won't happen unless the player actually pays the buyout himself.

Pepe LeFrits

If Abramovich really wants Chelsea to be loved, he'd do well to sack Simon Greenberg.

KdjaCL

PHB wrote:

Ronaldo recently extended his contract so it's two/three years before that'll be for him.

It'll make his less bad. Still bad, but less bad. Also, I blame most of the policies on Kenyon anyway. It's like this. If you want to bend the rules and really hurt the game, the least you can do is create a beautiful side to watch. If you do it just to win with horrid football, there is no saving grace for you. If you create a great side like the great madrid's, at least I can appriciate him for that.

Dunno how old he is but when he hits 24 he can buy out his contract.

If he creates this side your team will suffer, how can you even sniff at liking that idea? He will sign flair players via his and kenyons policies so fact they better means nothing really. They still spending money as a club they didnt earn as a club, that is why i hate them. Altho its fine for Pats to do that.

Football fans can be hypocritical at any time its our god given right


kdjac

Mr. Presentable

KdjaCL wrote:

Ehh we relegated them :eek:





kdjac

Ah jasus, I meant well before that. Showing my age, their downfall was when they lost Milltown.

KdjaCL

millersangel wrote:

in fairness PHB, i dont see that massive a difference in how they've done things, than how Utd were doing them for years before.
Paying over the odds for players?
Tapping up players?
Manager who is highly outspoken and gives a **** about no one but himself?

in defense of PHB (ewww) Chelsea have done some nasty things in regards transfers Obi Mikel, Sidwell, Shev, Duff well ehh pretty much all would fall under the hint of "tapping up" and getting agents to do their dirty work.

Fact Zahavi wouldnt talk to the Lord somfin enquiry kinda proves that. Kenyon is at Chelsea to get them into the G14 and hes failing miserably as long as he continues to break their unwritten rules, they letting in 30 odd new clubs and Chelsea are not one of them.


kdjac

Mr. Presentable

KdjaCL wrote:

They still spending money as a club they didnt earn as a club, that is why i hate them.
kdjac

I saw a documentary on Manchester United about 10 years ago, wherein it said the club, in dire straits in the 1960's, purloined the pensions of their former players to keep the club afloat. Anyone remember that?

Money is money, and the rich are always the most successful clubs over time. For me it is not important where it comes from, but money buys success on the field. All across Europe, the successful clubs are the rich ones. Every title is bought..........

PHB

First off, these aren't things I have a problem with.

Paying over the odds for players?
Manager who is highly outspoken and gives a **** about no one but himself?

Also, I think Fergie cares a lot about United, more than Mourinho about Chelsea.

Tapping up players?

There's tapping up and there's blatent tapping up. Some of it happens all the time. Some of it is just downright disrespectful. Also there's the whole kidnapping thing. See KdjacL's post.

Ps. Chelsea have been as/if not more entertaining than Utd this season. And played great football at times under Jose. the myth that chelsea are a boring club to watch,at times, is just not true.

That's just utter bull****. Chelsea for a while were interesting, but most of the time are shockingly boring. I'd rather watch Liverpool play than Chelsea, and that's saying something.

I think your main beef with them is they broke the stranglehold Utd had on the premiership.

No Arsenal did that. Basically you ignored everything I said, pretended it was something else, and then wrote your post. Interesting stuff.

Dunno how old he is but when he hits 24 he can buy out his contract.

He is 22, nearly 23 I think. That's if he's in a 5 year contract, and if he is 2\3(can't remember which) years in at least. He is currently in the first year of his five year contract.

If he creates this side your team will suffer, how can you even sniff at liking that idea? He will sign flair players via his and kenyons policies so fact they better means nothing really. They still spending money as a club they didnt earn as a club, that is why i hate them. Altho its fine for Pats to do that.

Fair enough, and it's a problem I have with them aswell, the main problem really. However, the fact that they've done that to create boring football makes it even worse. I don't like that idea, but I'd much rather (not as a United fan, but a football fan) it to them spending 100 million on say Vidic in order to make them better defensively.

Mr Alan

I'm not saying that Chelsea haven't done some deplorable things in transfer dealings, but from a Utd fan, i would find that quite hypocritical. Utd are the originals, to hate chelsea for bringing it onto the next level is a bit rich, imo.

but as you said . . . thats a football fans right sometimes

KdjaCL

nipplenuts wrote:

I saw a documentary on Manchester United about 10 years ago, wherein it said the club, in dire straits in the 1960's, purloined the pensions of their former players to keep the club afloat. Anyone remember that?

Money is money, and the rich are always the most successful clubs over time. For me it is not important where it comes from, but money buys success on the field. All across Europe, the successful clubs are the rich ones. Every title is bought..........

All the successful clubs have earned the right to have 60K+ fans in their stadiums via traditions of winning leagues and European cups with more than one set of players.

if pool didnt win the CL few years ago they would still be one of the biggest clubs in the world as they earned the right to be called that over 50 or 60 years. Not because someone bought them and bought every decent player for 20 million more than they were worth.


kdjac

Mr. Presentable

millersangel wrote:

Utd are the originals,

Well, George Graham?

PHB

It's a bit rich, what the hell does that mean? There are levels, ones that everybody is at, and then there is Chelsea. Moving onto the next level is often times bad, it doesn't make you a hypocrite. United are the originals? What in the world world do you live in? Football has existed before the premiership, and by god, those sorts of deals have been around as long.

Mr Alan

PHB wrote:

That's just utter bull****. Chelsea for a while were interesting, but most of the time are shockingly boring. I'd rather watch Liverpool play than Chelsea, and that's saying something.

cant believe ya said that, never letting you live it down

PHB wrote:

No Arsenal did that. Basically you ignored everything I said, pretended it was something else, and then wrote your post. Interesting stuff.

you said you had a problem with the way Chelsea went about things. I presumed ya meant, tapping up, over paying, being mental, and i was simply pointing out that these were things Utd have done for years. So i didnt ignore your point, i may have misunderstood what you meant by, "the way they go about things" but i think it was a fair enough mistake, after all, the reason most people dislike Chelsea is for those reasons.

Mr. Presentable

KdjaCL wrote:

All the successful clubs have earned the right to have 60K+ fans in their stadiums via traditions of winning leagues and European cups with more than one set of players.

if pool didnt win the CL few years ago they would still be one of the biggest clubs in the world as they earned the right to be called that over 50 or 60 years. Not because someone bought them and bought every decent player for 20 million more than they were worth.


kdjac

Of course, there's no arguing with that. But the fundament is that money still buys success, however it is earned.

Mr Alan

KdjaCL wrote:

All the successful clubs have earned the right to have 60K+ fans in their stadiums via traditions of winning leagues and European cups with more than one set of players.

if pool didnt win the CL few years ago they would still be one of the biggest clubs in the world as they earned the right to be called that over 50 or 60 years. Not because someone bought them and bought every decent player for 20 million more than they were worth.


kdjac

^^^^true dat

PHB

Of course, there's no arguing with that. But the fundament is that money still buys success, however it is earned.

I'm not saying it doesn't buy succes, I just think it's bad for the game as a whole.

MrJoeSoap

KdjaCL wrote:

Shels demise.... swings and roundabouts etc:

Exactly. We'll be back. And you still won't be able to beat us! Myself and the bro (Pats fan, for his troubles) were trying to figure out the last time Pats actually beat Shels. I could be, but don't think I'm wrong in saying it was before the 2004 European run...

jackdaw wrote:

that's it after today's 0-0 draw against Fulham ...


its all over ..

Terry, Lamps, Drogba, MAlouda , Essien will be gone next summer
if not JAnuary ...

what a f*cking disaster ...

I was watching the Chelsea game earlier and thinking how pathetic it was that they were booing at the final whistle. If you can take the good times you should be able for the bad. They've won the league title twice in the past three seasons and now they boo when they draw at home. I found it quite disrespectful to Fulham to be honest. Whilst I feel nothing for the bandwagon jumpers, you have to feel sad for the genuine Chelsea fans who have done nothing wrong but have had their club pretty much hijacked (in a good sense, to an extent) by Roman Abramovich and the fair-weathers. They are the ones who will suffer if it all does fall apart.

DSB

MrJoeSoap wrote:

I was watching the Chelsea game earlier and thinking how pathetic it was that they were booing at the final whistle. If you can take the good times you should be able for the bad. They've won the league title twice in the past three seasons and now they boo when they draw at home. I found it quite disrespectful to Fulham to be honest. Whilst I feel nothing for the bandwagon jumpers, you have to feel sad for the genuine Chelsea fans who have done nothing wrong but have had their club pretty much hijacked (in a good sense, to an extent) by Roman Abramovich and the fair-weathers. They are the ones who will suffer if it all does fall apart.

I definitely assume it was more to do with how the club is being run and how Mourinho was treated.

PHB

They were singing Jose Mourinho, so I think they were booing Roman Ambramovich

Mr Alan

think it was definately to do wit todays performance as opposed to the treatment, for the majority of fans, if they went out and appointed Van Basten or if Grant was to hit the ground running and start winning straight away, they would quickley forget about Jose imo.

As was said, their success was bought for them...all they want, is that success to be maintained. they are a club without soul imo.

bullpost

Not true. Whats not acknowledged by those that are jealous of whats happening at Chelsea is the progess made in the ten years leading up to the Abramovixch era. We did win trophies before Roman.
To say we're a club without soul is bull**** and betrays your lack of knowledge of our history. I'm not naive enough to believe we're on a par with Man utd or liverpool but i think we've been moving in the right direction since the Glen hoddle era.

millersangel wrote:

think it was definately to do wit todays performance as opposed to the treatment, for the majority of fans, if they went out and appointed Van Basten or if Grant was to hit the ground running and start winning straight away, they would quickley forget about Jose imo.

As was said, their success was bought for them...all they want, is that success to be maintained. they are a club without soul imo.

LegacyUser

MillersAngel is just a complete troll anyway, always causing trouble and stirring the pot with his absolute horse **** that comes out his mouth.

And for the record MillersAngel, the reason everyone hates Chelsea is because while United and Arsenal and even Liverpool at a time developed their prestige and wealth and fanbase over the years with playing stylish football and also won things, Chelsea were just bought over by a man who is clearly a clown who is once again applying absolutely none of the business sense that made him the wealthy man he is today and is completely acting like a kid by owning a club and trying to play with it. Abramovich is a fool and that is why Chelsea are hated...

And don't even attempt to come here and say "Yeah but Utd were bought over and given money so there's no difference between how they do/did business and Chelsea..."

Save it.

Savman

It's far from over for Chelsea, but they are quite obviously on a downward spiral. IMHO their stranglehold on the Top 4 was blown away when they got rid of Jose, I can see them struggling. I also think Grant will be kicked out in the near future, yes they'll spend ridiculous money on "flair" players but in the end my gut feeling is that Abramovich will just walk out when he realises you can't just buy success.

All the good teams buy the players they want and need, Chelsea were buying expensive players they never needed. Man U buying Nani and Anderson is not the same as Chelsea buying Shevchenko - one is buying to strengthen, the other to profit. 10 years ago people suggested Jack Walkers money bought Blackburn the Premiership, never mind the fact they had one of England's greatest Strikers scoring for fun.

Anyway, truth is it's pretty hard to feel any sympathy for a club who have shown no class nor respect to their peers. The way they have conducted themselves in recent years is disgraceful.

I liked Mourinho and his Chelsea team spirit but as long as that Russian mafia chief is in charge then sorry but I won't be shedding a tear.

Pepe LeFrits

cheesedude wrote:

And for the record MillersAngel, the reason everyone hates Chelsea is because while United and Arsenal and even Liverpool at a time developed their prestige and wealth and fanbase over the years with playing stylish football and also won things, Chelsea were just bought over by a man who is clearly a clown who is once again applying absolutely none of the business sense that made him the wealthy man he is today and is completely acting like a kid by owning a club and trying to play with it. Abramovich is a fool and that is why Chelsea are hated...

Speak for yourself.

ROCKMAN

Savman wrote:

It's far from over for Chelsea, but they are quite obviously on a downward spiral. IMHO their stranglehold on the Top 4 was blown away when they got rid of Jose, I can see them struggling. I also think Grant will be kicked out in the near future, yes they'll spend ridiculous money on "flair" players but in the end my gut feeling is that Abramovich will just walk out when he realises you can't just buy success.

All the good teams buy the players they want and need, Chelsea were buying expensive players they never needed. Man U buying Nani and Anderson is not the same as Chelsea buying Shevchenko - one is buying to strengthen, the other to profit. 10 years ago people suggested Jack Walkers money bought Blackburn the Premiership, never mind the fact they had one of England's greatest Strikers scoring for fun.

Anyway, truth is it's pretty hard to feel any sympathy for a club who have shown no class nor respect to their peers. The way they have conducted themselves in recent years is disgraceful.

I liked Mourinho and his Chelsea team spirit but as long as that Russian mafia chief is in charge then sorry but I won't be shedding a tear.

I agree with 98% of what you have said
Personally I cannot see Abramovich walking .I just think a successful man like him has a bit more bottle about him that to just walk away.
I never liked Mourinho but I did repect him as a winning manager. Yes I hated his style or brand of football. When he was successful it with Porto most football fans admire what he achieved with a smallier club and no big wallet.

Savman

ROCKMAN wrote:

Personally I cannot see Abramovich walking .I just think a successful man like him has a bit more bottle about him that to just walk away.

I dunno, everything so far has indicated that Chelsea really is a toy to the man and he's not really acting like a sensible investor. I read a while back that it will take Chelsea nearly 10 years to starting making profits again due to their spending policy in recent times.

I do believe Roman will walk eventually, mainly because I think Jose was the catalyst for their success and I think the Chelsea job is now the poisoned chalice.

Mourinho:
-Chelsea's first title in 50 years
-won Premiership in his first season(!)
-5 trophies in 3 years(!)

If Jose wasn't good enough for Abramovich, then frankly nobody will be.

growler

I don't think this is anything remotely like a final nail in chelsea's coffin, in fact i don't think they've even been measured by the undertakers for a coffin fitting, more a case of teenage angst than terminal cancer: but I admire your sensationalism, perhaps a career in the tabloids would suit?

With Jose gone and this freakshow currently promoted beyond his wildest abilities, its going to be a very tough time for chelsea players, staff and fans. Will this spell the end of a club thats been around for over 100 years?, NO, (sorry lads).

I see two possibile scenarios, (a)Roman realises Grant is a buffoon and gets in a proper manager, hopefully this will be by jan but if not there'll be someone who knows a bit about football back in charge by June 2008. Most fans (and probably the players too) have now resigned themselves to achieving nothing this season, and the next few months are likely to see us go (officially) out of the PL title race and screw up a shot at the CL again(expecting Valencia spanking on Wednesday). Hopefully the quality of the players will prevent a total balls up of the season, I'd settle for a top 10 finish now. My main worry is that Grant / RA / Kenyon allow a real rift to form between mgt and players and that we are forced into leaving them go at christmas or next summer, if that happens rebuliding will be a nightmare, even staying in the PL could be a challenge shoud Drogba, Terry, Cole etc. lose heart.


(b) Roman decides that this reality version of championship manager is more difficult than on his PC, gets sick of the abuse of the disgruntled chelsea faithful and buggers off to buy tottenham where his cadre of jewish advisers will feel more at home (idealy taking that kenyon **** with him) .

He won't do this (sell up) without it making business sense, he can't asset strip the club, as the fans own the pitch, so someone else with the cash will have to come in, perhaps an african dictator or exiled south american general would be a natural progression for us (and give the Arse, Spurs, Pool fans something else to wail about). In fact I don't care who takes over , should that happen, as long as they leave the footballing decisions to those capable.


I'll be the first to admit, RA's money has turned out to be a slightly poisoned pill, I like the man's cash, the success it delivered, the players we could now afford, the chance to beat gooners, mancs and scousers in their "own" league; but the behind the scenes nonsense has really taken the gloss of it all, losing Jose, bringing in Arnesen, Kenyon, Zahavi, Grant & co. were very bad decisions and will have a negative, short term, impact on my club.

To be honest as a fan, I find myself missing the good old days when we would go and get beaten away at burnley and the highlight of our season was winning an away game at 3 Point Lane etc., all this politics makes concentrating on the football difficult.

growler

[QUOTE=cheesedude
And for the record MillersAngel, the reason everyone hates Chelsea is because while United and Arsenal and even Liverpool at a time developed their prestige and wealth and fanbase over the years with playing stylish football and also won things, Chelsea were just bought over by a man who is clearly a clown who is once again applying absolutely none of the business sense that made him the wealthy man he is today and is completely acting like a kid by owning a club and trying to play with it. Abramovich is a fool and that is why Chelsea are hated...

.[/QUOTE]


errrr no, chelsea have been hated by lots of clubs for a lot longer than since RA turned up, ongoing hate hate relationships with Liverpool, West Ham, Leeds, Spurs, QPR, Man U. to name the main ones. This was largely down to their long standing reputation as the Champagne Charlies of football during the 6's and 70's , their movie star fans and posh west london location when most football was based in the working class areas of the cities, then reinforced by the antics of our less than passive hooligan arm during the 80's, and again by the spending of Bates/ harding in the early 90's, reinforced with a large dollop of jealousy because we had Dennis Wise and no one else did.

therecklessone

growler wrote:

gets sick of the abuse of the disgruntled chelsea faithful and buggers off to buy tottenham where his cadre of jewish advisers will feel more at home

:rolleyes:

You know RA is Jewish himself, yeah? Must grate for the knuckledraggersHeadhunters to know their beloved club is owned by a Yid.

Mr Alan

cheesedude wrote:

MillersAngel is just a complete troll anyway, always causing trouble and stirring the pot with his absolute horse **** that comes out his mouth.

mate, calling me a troll at every given opportunity is personal abuse, something which is against the rules on here.

LegacyUser

I don't hate Chelsea because of that Growler, to be honest, I don''t a problem with those issues. I hate them because of the way in which they try do things, they think they can just buy a history and make themselves as a great United or Liverpool or Real Madrid etc....

Well they can't...

~Rebel~

cheesedude wrote:

I don't hate Chelsea because of that Growler, to be honest, I don''t a problem with those issues. I hate them because of the way in which they try do things, they think they can just buy a history and make themselves as a great United or Liverpool or Real Madrid etc....

Well they can't...

thats all well and good, and to be honest, my reasons for disliking the new chelsea are pretty similar to your own. however, you did say

And for the record MillersAngel, the reason everyone hates Chelsea

which obviously isn't true.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Cheesedude banned for a week

growler

cheesedude wrote:

I don't hate Chelsea because of that Growler, to be honest, I don''t a problem with those issues. I hate them because of the way in which they try do things, they think they can just buy a history and make themselves as a great United or Liverpool or Real Madrid etc....

Well they can't...

guess this a rhetorical reply, but ... of course chelsea have every right to make history now, its the sam eold circular argument, man u, liverpool and co have their great big trophy cabinets because of their then wealth, they are capable of going down the notts forest route like anyone else.. talk to me in another 100 years and we'll compare relative histories.


personally, as a chelsea fan, i don't care about history, i'm far more interested in the present, our recent league wins will be fondly looked back on in years to come no doubt , but doesn't give us a divine right to silverware like Arsenal, Liverpool, Man u fans seem to believe they are always due. Or particularly in the case of liverpool fans ..seem to think actually affects the team.