So...Are Chelsea the Biggest Club in The World Yet?

[Lynk]

Is Milan's success tainted? If it's not than I see no reason why Chelsea's should be.

Milan were always a big club.

 

[crappycraperson]

Milan were always a big club.

I have always found that logic absurd. Clubs like Milan can spend money of their owner because of their 'history'. But for Chelsea to do it is not allowed.

 

[crappycraperson]

Arsenal and Chelsea are nowhere near comparable.

Winning a Champions League makes you 'successful'. Being the biggest club is more than just success. You can't buy history.

For all that Chelsea win, it's not going to change the fact that the seeds were planted by a rich guy and they went from 4th-5th place to competing for the title over night due to a lot of money.

Manchester City are the same.

I would say the original big clubs of football will remain the only big clubs, as long as they maintain their success.

Chelsea and City are writing their history now if that makes sense. In 50 years not many will care how it all started. Arsenal themselves were upto some shenanigans when they started off, I don't see anyone crying about that now.

 

[crappycraperson]

On a request of a newbie's -- expanding on Arsenal's paying their way to top league

From wiki-

"The club controversially rejoined the First Division in 1919,[18][19] despite only finishing sixth in 1914–15, the last season of competitive football before the First World War had intervened — although an error in the calculation of goal average meant Arsenal had actually finished fifth,[20] an error which was corrected by the Football League in 1975.[21] The First Division was being expanded from 20 teams to 22, and the two new entrants were elected at an AGM of the Football League. One of the extra places was given to Chelsea, who had finished 19th in the First Division and thus had been already relegated. The other spot could have gone to 20th-placed Tottenham Hotspur (also relegated), or to Barnsley or Wolves, who had finished third and fourth in the Second Division respectively.[20]
Instead, the League decided to promote sixth-placed Arsenal, for reasons of history over merit; Norris argued that Arsenal be promoted for their "long service to league football", having been the first League club from the South.[19] The League board agreed; they voted eighteen votes to eight to promote Arsenal ahead of their local rivals Tottenham Hotspur,[18] which has fuelled the long-standing enmity between the two clubs. If "long service to league football" was the criterion for promoting Arsenal instead of Tottenham then Wolves, who finished two points ahead of Arsenal and were founder members of the Football League, would appear to have a stronger claim. It has been alleged that this was due to backroom deals or even outright bribery by Sir Henry Norris,[18]colluding with his friend John McKenna, the chairman of Liverpool and the Football League, who recommended Arsenal's promotion at the AGM.[18]"

 

[Donaldo]

Chelsea FC are cnuts, and that will be their legacy 50 years on.

 

[Balu]

I have always found that logic absurd. Clubs like Milan can spend money of their owner because of their 'history'. But for Chelsea to do it is not allowed.

Always thought that's strange as well. Moratti at Inter is the worst example in recent years. You barely hear anyone saying Inter bought their CL title in 2010, often they're even praised for their brilliant transfers that season, yet they spend City-like in the 10 years prior to the win, I think it was around €700m which Moratti gave of his own money and Inter made a loss of around €250m during the two years Mourinho managed them. There's really no difference, imo. I prefer that no one is allowed to do it, but I don't think Chelsea's CL title is less deserved than most of Milan's, Inter's or even Real's in the 50's.

 

[crappycraperson]

Always thought that's strange as well. Moratti at Inter is the worst example in recent years. You barely hear anyone saying Inter bought their CL title in 2010, often they're even praised for their brilliant transfers that season, yet they spend City-like in the 10 years prior to the win, I think it was around €700m which Moratti gave of his own money and Inter made a loss of around €250m during the two years Mourinho managed them. There's really no difference, imo. I prefer that no one is allowed to do it, but I don't think Chelsea's CL title is less deserved than most of Milan's, Inter's or even Real's in the 50's.

I do not this it is practical to allow no one to do it. Suppose if I as a multi-billionaire was to buy United when they are in a bad way. I would invest in the youth but if I have money to buy top quality players needed, would I avoid it just because some people will think it is not the right way? Of course not, that would be idiotic.

If you want to stop what likes of Chelsea, City and PSG are upto then you have to change the whole football economy. It may be too socialist for some people but I don't see any reason why you can not cap the ticket prices, wages and then eventually the transfer spending. Infact even the cap the amount broadcasters are allowed to charge for showing football matches.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Nice to see some people in here finally coming round and looking at facts rather than bandwagon jumping!

Obviously our success isnt tainted and no-one in 30 years time will care or remember where the money came from, in fact I don't think anyone outside of bitter rivals even think about it now. You still have to build and gel a team, bring in a top manager, and play 38 games like everyone else.

The economy of football changed, get over it, right now all of you would welcome a RA with open arms, and not care about anything else. The difference is you guys have had no idea what its like to be a higher echelons of the table club that cant get that extra level higher like we were in the late 90;s and early 00's, you were there at the right place at the right time to be self sufficient.

In the long run owners like RA will be seen as a positive thing, because it enabled more top talent to be brought onto our shores, increasing the strength of the EPL. Instead of a SPL and LL style 2 team title race we have more options. In an ideal world of course more clubs would have rich owners thus playing even more on a level field.

 

[KM]

They're not in top5 of the world right now.

Bayern, Barcelona, Madrid, Us and Juventus/Milan are honestly quite bigger clubs than Chelsea.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Peters words were obviously stupid as it was almost impossible to become the biggest by 2014, seeing as even if we had swept the board with trophies in that period we would not match the biggest clubs. We certainly are a big club now and comfortably punching our weight with Arsenal, regardless of what Arsenal did many decades ago.

 

[Mockney]

For all that Chelsea win, it's not going to change the fact that the seeds were planted by a rich guy and they went from 4th-5th place to competing for the title over night due to a lot of money.

Manchester City are the same.

City went from 4th-5th to competing for the title? I don't remember that.

 

[crappycraperson]

Nice to see some people in here finally coming round and looking at facts rather than bandwagon jumping!

Obviously our success isnt tainted and no-one in 30 years time will care or remember where the money came from, in fact I don't think anyone outside of bitter rivals even think about it now. You still have to build and gel a team, bring in a top manager, and play 38 games like everyone else.

The economy of football changed, get over it, right now all of you would welcome a RA with open arms, and not care about anything else. The difference is you guys have had no idea what its like to be a higher echelons of the table club that cant get that extra level higher like we were in the late 90;s and early 00's, you were there at the right place at the right time to be self sufficient.

In the long run owners like RA will be seen as a positive thing, because it enabled more top talent to be brought onto our shores, increasing the strength of the EPL. Instead of a SPL and LL style 2 team title race we have more options. In an ideal world of course more clubs would have rich owners thus playing even more on a level field.

Let's be clear I don't think it is on that likes of Chelsea and City can make multiple big money signing without any consequences. Meaning your 50m striker stank the shop, yet you are now gearing up to spend a similar amount on another one. That's something very few clubs can afford.

There is some truth to Chelsea's mini dominance forcing everyone in PL to raise their standards. English clubs' marked improvement in Europe was a testament to that .

 

[Spiersey]

Let's be clear I don't think it is on that likes of Chelsea and City can make multiple big money signing without any consequences. Meaning your 50m striker stank the shop, yet you are now gearing up to spend a similar amount on another one. That's something very few clubs can afford.

There is some truth to Chelsea's mini dominance forcing everyone in PL to raise their standards. English clubs' marked improvement in Europe was a testament to that .

Bear in mind that it's three years we've had Torres and he simply hasn't worked. We have tried changing numerous things to get him firing. I don't think us spending big on another striker three years later is that ridiculous. Nor was his move without consequense. It clearly affected our ability to sign another top quality striker. United replaced Berbatov with RVP.

 

[Snow]

Nice to see some people in here finally coming round and looking at facts rather than bandwagon jumping!

Obviously our success isnt tainted and no-one in 30 years time will care or remember where the money came from, in fact I don't think anyone outside of bitter rivals even think about it now. You still have to build and gel a team, bring in a top manager, and play 38 games like everyone else.

The economy of football changed, get over it, right now all of you would welcome a RA with open arms, and not care about anything else. The difference is you guys have had no idea what its like to be a higher echelons of the table club that cant get that extra level higher like we were in the late 90;s and early 00's, you were there at the right place at the right time to be self sufficient.

In the long run owners like RA will be seen as a positive thing, because it enabled more top talent to be brought onto our shores, increasing the strength of the EPL. Instead of a SPL and LL style 2 team title race we have more options. In an ideal world of course more clubs would have rich owners thus playing even more on a level field.

Not true. The club was run right. Manchester United was a football world leader in the marketing department. Many Germany clubs have done well to self-sustain but United back in the 90's took a step that no other club did in their expansion abroad. It's evident now in the sheer merch sale and fan base.

Clubs like Liverpool could be as massive as United had they done the same. They have a huge fanbase but haven't capitalized nearly as well as United have.

United and Bayern are on their own in that regards. Real, Barca and the Italian big clubs haven't done as well financially. They've all gone down in the net red.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

City went from 4th-5th to competing for the title? I don't remember that.

To be fair, I dont think ours is quite the same as Citys in that we were a much more attractive prospect than City, being a club that already challenged for the title a couple of years before and won trophies, plus having a recent history of continental flair. Ours was more gaining that extra level, than jumping form nobodies to the very top. We were winning European cups whilst City were in the second or third division.

 

[crappycraperson]

Bear in mind that it's three years we've had Torres and he simply hasn't worked. We have tried changing numerous things to get him firing. I don't think us spending big on another striker three years later is that ridiculous. Nor was his move without consequense. It clearly affected our ability to sign another top quality striker. United replaced Berbatov with RVP.

It is not just that. You bought likes of Parker and SWP simply IMO to stop your domestic rivals from getting them.

 

[thegregster]

Nice to see some people in here finally coming round and looking at facts rather than bandwagon jumping!

Obviously our success isnt tainted and no-one in 30 years time will care or remember where the money came from, in fact I don't think anyone outside of bitter rivals even think about it now. You still have to build and gel a team, bring in a top manager, and play 38 games like everyone else.

The economy of football changed, get over it, right now all of you would welcome a RA with open arms, and not care about anything else. The difference is you guys have had no idea what its like to be a higher echelons of the table club that cant get that extra level higher like we were in the late 90;s and early 00's, you were there at the right place at the right time to be self sufficient.

In the long run owners like RA will be seen as a positive thing, because it enabled more top talent to be brought onto our shores, increasing the strength of the EPL. Instead of a SPL and LL style 2 team title race we have more options. In an ideal world of course more clubs would have rich owners thus playing even more on a level field.

Bobs general logic.

Chelsea success isnt plastic because they can spend more than anybody else. Why? Because you have to build a team spirit and cohesiveness.

Bob after Sir alex retired.

United need to be careful with the next manager. They cant afford mistakes in the transfer market because unlike Chelsea/City they cant just keep buying till they get it right.

 

[Spiersey]

It is not just that. You bought likes of Parker and SWP simply IMO to stop your domestic rivals from getting them.

Parker was an odd one but I'm not sure he was signed to stop others. However I'm sure Mourinho would rather have spent the money on strengthening his team so I'm unsure whether he really would have been signed for adverse reasons. SWP was actually a signing I was strangely excited about. The price was extreme though. There was a time when he actually looked good. he made 27 league appearances in all three of his seasons here so I'm not sure you could argue he wasn't needed.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Success is only plastic if its earnt through subtefuge.

If it was proven club A paid off referees or chairmen to win games, then club A's success can be considered plastic.

Simply having a lot of money is not reason to call a clubs success plastic.

Its like saying someone who won the lottery after working all their life doesn't deserve to have what they do or whatever they spend it on.

 

[Mockney]

To be fair, I dont think ours is quite the same as Citys in that we were a much more attractive prospect than City, being a club that already challenged for the title a couple of years before and won trophies, plus having a recent history of continental flair. Ours was more gaining that extra level, than jumping form nobodies to the very top. We were winning European cups whilst City were in the second or third division.

I agree with you. I'll always defend Chelsea from being lumped in with City. City were taken from obscurity and made unrecognisable. You were taken from a respectable position, akin to a Spurs now only with several high profile cup wins and given a (very hearty) leg up, keeping much of your spine, including Lampard and Terry. Fans ignoring this just like throwing mud.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Also you only have to look at United dismantling of up asnd coming clubs that are trying to make their way up naturally to make the whole point moot.

As soon as Spurs were getting a decent team United poach Berbatov and Carrick then develop an interest in Modric and Bale.

Now Everton are getting better they took Fellaini, and have an interest in Barkley and Baines.

Thats ok though since its Uniteds own money?

Bigger clubs will always do things that keep the lower ones down whether its with their own money or not.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

I agree with you. I'll always defend Chelsea from being lumped in with City. City were taken from obscurity and made unrecognisable. You were taken from a respectable position, akin to a Spurs now only with several high profile cup wins and kept much of your spine, including Lampard and Terry. Fans ignoring this just like throwing mud.

I maintain that the only reason City were chosen was to create stories and history with City being the rival to the most successful team in England. There were plenty more attractive options.

 

[Eric'sCollar]

City and Chelsea are different but at the end of the day, their success has come from a sugar daddy. Chelsea can rightly argue that they might have pushed on without him but we will never know.

 

[Cina]

Also you only have to look at United dismantling of up asnd coming clubs that are trying to make their way up naturally to make the whole point moot.

As soon as Spurs were getting a decent team United poach Berbatov and Carrick then develop an interest in Modric and Bale.

Now Everton are getting better they took Fellaini, and have an interest in Barkley and Baines.

Thats ok though since its Uniteds own money?

Bigger clubs will always do things that keep the lower ones down whether its with their own money or not.

The Everton stuff is sheer nonsense. We took Fellaini cause Moyes wanted a player from his previous club, like most managers. Similar with Baines. Barkley? Pretty much every big club has been linked to him.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Either way for both clubs success still has to be earnt on the pitch, yes its easier to earn it with the money, but it doesn't guarantee it. In fact for City the simple lumping together of world class players was what held them back for the past 4 years.

1 league and 1 cup and 2 group stage CL exits is a poor return.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

The Everton stuff is sheer nonsense. We took Fellaini cause Moyes wanted a player from his previous club, like most managers. Similar with Baines. Barkley? Pretty much every big club has been linked to him.

Yeah its not just United that do it, but thats my point, all the higher clubs do things that push the smaller ones down, its easier to overlook when its done with your own money I guess, but it has the same outcome.

 

[alastair]

Chelsea are worse than anyone for buying players for the express purpose of stopping their rivals getting him. They literally spent £30m on Willian just so Spurs couldn't have him.

That's different from what United do - they buy players from lesser clubs to stop them rising up to challenge them. At least United use them when they join the club though, as opposed to Chelsea.

 

[Liam147]

I maintain that the only reason City were chosen was to create stories and history with City being the rival to the most successful team in England. There were plenty more attractive options.

Do you think? Like who? I always figured City had a massive (ahem) potential fanbase. They still got 30k in the third tier, based in a big City with the ability to attract more supporters. They're failing somewhat but it's there. The only others I could see would be Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Newcastle. And you could say that all of those were already pretty big clubs anyway. City weren't.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Do you think? Like who? I always figured City had a massive (ahem) potential fanbase. They still got 30k in the third tier, based in a big City with the ability to attract more supporters. They're failing somewhat but it's there. The only others I could see would be Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Newcastle. And you could say that all of those were already pretty big clubs anyway. City weren't.

They were the main 4 I was thinking of.

 

[peterstorey]

There are only three big clubs in England: Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

There are only three big clubs in England: Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.

Bless. I know that being a big club is more than just trophies, but it has to include a recent history of success as well!

Also its worth taking notice that to a lot of continentals winning the CL is absolutely vital to being a big club, so many dont view Arsenal as a big club at all. Simply having history , a good manager, big fanbase and being self sufficient is not nearly enough.

 

[Cina]

Yeah its not just United that do it, but thats my point, all the higher clubs do things that push the smaller ones down, its easier to overlook when its done with your own money I guess, but it has the same outcome.

My problem was that you were implying that we're intentionally trying to do to Everton what we did to Spurs or City did to Arsenal, which is nonsense.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

[q

My problem was that you were implying that we're intentionally trying to do to Everton what we did to Spurs or City did to Arsenal, which is nonsense.

No I dont really think that, but its self righteous to believe everything we or City do is wrong and everything United or other clubs do is fine purely because its their own money.

 

[Adzzz]

Success is only plastic if its earnt through subtefuge.

If it was proven club A paid off referees or chairmen to win games, then club A's success can be considered plastic.

Simply having a lot of money is not reason to call a clubs success plastic.

Its like saying someone who won the lottery after working all their life doesn't deserve to have what they do or whatever they spend it on.

You can keep telling yourself that.

 

[Adzzz]

There are only three big clubs in England: Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.

100% this.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

You can keep telling yourself that.

I will, because its the truth.

 

[crappycraperson]

There are only three big clubs in England: Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.

Only two really - United and Liverpool.

 

[Mockney]

To be honest, you're fighting against the tide if you refuse to accept Chelsea as a big club now. Players think it. Other countries think it. Sky thinks it. The next generation of football fan will certainly think it. It's only your own semantics keeping you warm at night.

 

[zing]

City went from 4th-5th to competing for the title? I don't remember that.

You actually don't understand what I've written?

 

[Sassy Colin]

It all comes down to what criteria you use to define 'big'.

You can come up with different criteria that would make Nottingham Forest & Aston Villa big.