The other countries think it? I'm from India. Plenty of Chelsea fans here, but no one I speak to ranks Chelsea along side the clubs with real history -- Manchester United and Liverpool.
So...Are Chelsea the Biggest Club in The World Yet?
- Thread starter Mockney
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Don't know about that..Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest are quite big English clubs to be fair
This is it though really, big means big around the World, go to India, Middle & Far East, South America etc and ask who are the biggest clubs in World. In Europe they have always called United simply 'Manchester', they now call Shitty 'The Citizens' in France.
Wasn't there that old joke in the 70's that you could go into the deepest, darkest jungle in Central Africa and mention Manchester United and you'd get a big smile and a reply of 'Ahhh! Bobby Charlton!'
See my post at the bottom of the previous page.
We are brilliant though to be fair (Smug, patronising look given to every other poster)
There are loads of really significant clubs in the UK.
I know that Arsenal are considered to be one of the biggest, but I never really think about it and I really do not care. Whenever we play Aston Villa at home, for example, I respect the fact that they have their own set of supporters and their own values and they represent another part of the country. I don't ever consider how 'big' my club is in comparison, because who really cares?
I know that Arsenal are considered to be one of the biggest, but I never really think about it and I really do not care. Whenever we play Aston Villa at home, for example, I respect the fact that they have their own set of supporters and their own values and they represent another part of the country. I don't ever consider how 'big' my club is in comparison, because who really cares?
Top Gunner!
Ah no seriously, you're right. The whole bigger club argument is stupid. You support who you support and thats it.
Practically every person I encountered in America last month who asked where I was from, when hearing 'Manchester', immediately started talking about United.
City may eventually get out of our shadow but it's going to take a while.
Is EssexRob seriously comparing Chelsea and City's scattergun approach to transfers, which very coincidentally happened to involve making ridiculous bids for either their rivals players or transfer targets, only to sit them on the bench for most of the season, to United buying two good players from a lesser team, implementing them in their first team, and taking interest in two other good players, obviously with a view to implementing them in the first team?
In my opinion the biggest factor in a big club is what they have achieved in the recent history, combined with other factors obviously. Kids thesedays will grow up thinking City to be a big club. It's very hard to differentiate between big and good. In the future when you look back on the current PL era, you won't say the good clubs were City, United and Chelsea however the big clubs were United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
Aston Villa has always been a big club where I'm concerned. They obviously don't have the stature and money of Utd, Liverpool or Arsenal but I've always considered them as a top English club. People who mention Man City and big club in the same sentence shouldn't be allowed to speak about football.
No, I wasnt.
Could have fooled me.
Being a big club is not just about historical success and fanbase, current success plays a part, otherwise history cannot be created. Clubs arent born with history, it is created.
I clearly did! I was making the point that it was very hard for clubs to reach the top level without a sugar daddy because whenever a club got to a certain level all its best players were poached off by the top clubs.
Its very easy to sit there already at the top and look down upon those who are deemed morally inferior for getting success without doing it the 'right way', but thats a very bigoted way of looking at it, and if you transferred that view to normal life you would find yourself shocked at what you were saying.
Plus in 1999 when United were completing their treble, we were 4 points off the title winners, 4 points. Hardly the sort of club that's doing poorly without an investor!
I've always hated Villa. I think it was Gordon Cowans nose that really got me angry though....and being called 'sid'.
Chelsea and City aren't big clubs, and their recent successes however great will never be respected. I agree with peterstorey, in that United Arsenal and of course Liverpool are the big clubs in this country. There's a long, long list of clubs that are bigger than Chelsea.
I would personally stop supporting United if they were owned by someone like Abramovich. The magic would die.
The argument about us restricting opportunities for lower-placed teams by EssexRob is ridiculous, and if it wasn't such an upsetting situation (as clubs like Everton, Spurs and Liverpool genuinely deserve to do well) I would find the idea of a Chelsea supporter accusing us of that hilarious... One only needs to look at the players Abramovich poached in his first season:
Parker,J Cole, Bridge, Duff, Wirght-Phillips... they've gone on to pinch Ba, Mereiles, Moses, Cahill, Sidwell, A Cole etc...
So their solution to us signing the other teams' best players.... is to sign other teams' best players?
I would personally stop supporting United if they were owned by someone like Abramovich. The magic would die.
The argument about us restricting opportunities for lower-placed teams by EssexRob is ridiculous, and if it wasn't such an upsetting situation (as clubs like Everton, Spurs and Liverpool genuinely deserve to do well) I would find the idea of a Chelsea supporter accusing us of that hilarious... One only needs to look at the players Abramovich poached in his first season:
Parker,J Cole, Bridge, Duff, Wirght-Phillips... they've gone on to pinch Ba, Mereiles, Moses, Cahill, Sidwell, A Cole etc...
So their solution to us signing the other teams' best players.... is to sign other teams' best players?
Being honest the big clubs in England these days are United, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea all for different reasons. Liverpool because of their history and European prowess and fanbase and fame. United because they are the most successful English club of all time, and their fame and fan base. Arsenal because of their titles, history and general famous appeal, and Chelsea because of their recent history in Europe especially, and new found increase in fan base and fame.
City will get there but as of yet they haven't achieved enough to counter the lack of historical achievements. No-one other than some groups of rival fans believe that the owners present a barrier to a club bettering itself, its all about the players, and trophies. Villa/Forest/Leeds etc were all big in their day, but I doubt many outside of the purists would refer to them as big now simply because they have fallen, the size of a club includes recent events too.
City will get there but as of yet they haven't achieved enough to counter the lack of historical achievements. No-one other than some groups of rival fans believe that the owners present a barrier to a club bettering itself, its all about the players, and trophies. Villa/Forest/Leeds etc were all big in their day, but I doubt many outside of the purists would refer to them as big now simply because they have fallen, the size of a club includes recent events too.
It's funny that you have no idea how wrong you are. I've been here for over 5 years and I don't think I've criticised the way Chelsea are run at all in that time, but I have no interest in having someone like Abramovich owning my club.
Obviously you arent a true fan then. You deal with whatever comes your way, good or bad.
I hate these threads, they always turn into United/Liverpool/ Arsenal love-ins, full of bigotry and ignorance!
You say that because United have always been run excellently, and have been competing at the top for the last 2 decades without one.
When you spend a decade as nearly men who come close to the title, win the odd cup now and then, despite playing good football and having good players you will yearn to compete at the top again, then a rich owner will be what you want.
You can all claim the moral high ground that you wouldnt but secretly 99% of you , would.
The odd thing about it as well is that you would rather have parasites with no interest in the sport running your club than someone who puts his own money into it, who goes to matches all the time and loves football?
And they say we are the ones who helped took the soul out of the game!
I don't want Usmanov, no one wants their club run by a gangster.
You talk about the moral high ground, but come on, there are limits.
How many have died for the money you've bought your hollow cups with? I assume you know what I'm talking about. If not, read up. A nice place to start is googling "aluminium wars".
I actually find it quite fecking ignorant that a reasonably sensible poster like yourself can spout such amazing shite. "99 % of us would..." feck it, there are things more important in life than your favourite footballing team fluking a CL.
People being killed to amass money for it's owners, for instance.
Football is becoming less about the clubs and more about the owners which is depressing.
We could be a midtable club for the rest of my life and I wouldn't be yearning out for it. My brother was about 4 years old when Arsenal last won a title and I've never heard him say "I wish we had an owner like him". I've got mates who support Spurs, Liverpool, Southend, Wimbledon and Everton and they've never given me the impression they crave that in any way. I'm not sure why you need to convince yourself that what you're saying is true but it just isn't I'm afraid. I'm sure plenty of people would like that, but 100%, 99%? You're living in a dreamworld.
I don't want the Glazer's, I also don't want Abramovich. They're both bad owners that do nothing positive for the game. It makes no difference to me whether they steal money from the club or pile money into it, I'm not interested in that at all. I don't sit here wishing we had enough money to buy Ronaldo, Falcao and Modric this January. I don't think the PL spending shitloads of money to buy foreign superstars is something to be proud of or something that's somehow positive for football. There were great players playing before millionaires got involved with the game.
I genuinely find it absurd that this is your ideal world.
Do you still remember Jimmy Rimmer being substituted for Nigel Spinks in the European Cup Final against Bayern Munich, and from that day on, Spink made that goalkeeping position his own. Strange face, but he was a good keeper in those days. A bit harsh on Rimmer too.
@EssexRob. Perhaps Forest will never again hit those heady heights ever again, but you are so wrong about them. This is what it says about Nottingham Forest:
All those promotions and trophies in three years and you call them a small club and they cannot be considered big in "recent times." Football was not invented when Chelsea won their first Premier league you know. You need to understand that football was invented well before you or I were born. I hate the attitude that it is only recent football that counts. Let us take Real Madrid and their last European success (I am sure @Vato will agree here) which was back in 2001-02. Since then they have made progress but have not won a final since then. If we were to apply your logic then, Real Madrid haven't really been that successful in terms of trophies. However, in reality whether you like it or not, Real Madrid had success and gained notoriety because of the wins in the 1950s and 60s with special players like Puskas, Gento and Di Stefano. You have to accept that the history of a club begins from the very first day, and not in the 21st century.
They've been knocking around at the top for ten years now, and they've won a Champions League. British and European players in their teens and early 20s will think they're a big club. The media think they're a big club.
They're still playing catch-up with the old giants when it comes to fanbase or glamour. There's a prestige associated with clubs like United, Barcelona, Madrid, Milan, Bayern that Chelse don't have. If Roman leaves them, they still look like they'll stumble back to being also-rans.
But still. Not the biggest in the world, not even top 5, but probably now only on the next rung down.
They're still playing catch-up with the old giants when it comes to fanbase or glamour. There's a prestige associated with clubs like United, Barcelona, Madrid, Milan, Bayern that Chelse don't have. If Roman leaves them, they still look like they'll stumble back to being also-rans.
But still. Not the biggest in the world, not even top 5, but probably now only on the next rung down.
True. But you'd accept the status quo eventually.
This is gold !
Bigotry? 
Correct.
Nah, he's right. You got very lucky that your success started when it did (just before the Premier League era).
I quote=".Rossi, post: 14811611, member: 66348"][/quote]
I'd rather listen to Miley Cyrus
[/quote]I'd rather listen to Miley Cyrus
I assume you are referring to United 2 CL wins not Chelseas?
Who says that a rich owner has to have some gangster, mafia, murderous theme behind it?
Some people got rich other ways you know.
I was at Highbury when Spink got sent off and Platt had to go in goal. I think he only let one in and had some banter with the crowd. There were so many good English keepers at that time.
Yeah Ill take that, prestige is a different thing.
Im not sure Arsenal fit into the same category though, like I say a lot of continentals wont accept you as a big club unless you have won Europes top competition.
You are not wrong there Grinner, not wrong at all. There are very few left and the standards will keep on dropping I guess. Still, the best English goalkeeper ever over the last 20-30 years was Seaman without a shadow of a doubt. Not many keepers these days are capable of matching that guys performances.
Yes it does, but recent success has to come into it as well. Real madrid have still been a top side in that period, they havent regressed to the level Forest or Leeds regressed. Everyone still knows their names, but there are a multitude of things that matter.
To be fair, they have/are:
The last English club to win the Champions League
The last English club to win the Europa League
The last English club to win the Cup Winners Cup
The record holders for most points in a 38 game season
The record holders for most goals scored in a 38 game season
The record holders for fewest goals conceded in a 38 game season
They've won 4 of the last 7 FA Cups.
They are fecking cnuts
The last English club to do the Double.
etc
The last English club to win the Champions League
The last English club to win the Europa League
The last English club to win the Cup Winners Cup
The record holders for most points in a 38 game season
The record holders for most goals scored in a 38 game season
The record holders for fewest goals conceded in a 38 game season
They've won 4 of the last 7 FA Cups.
They are fecking cnuts
The last English club to do the Double.
etc
Even Charlton had Bob Bolder, Oggy at Coventry, Shilts was still doing it for Derby. I don't know why we are troubled with that position these days.
So, you should actually retract your statement then:
A contradiction somewhat of what you said earlier, that I just quoted. Which one is it Rob? Normally, you are a decent poster. Just for information, Villa has won it as many times as Chelsea and Forest have won one more than Chelsea and in two successive seasons, therefore in your mind, they should be accepted because the have won "Europes top competition."