Board index ‹ Other Sports ‹ Other Sports ‹ Football Chat Thread - Euro 2012 edition

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Suppose it depends on your age.....To me, minus the Abramovich years, Chelsea are a yo-yo mid table side, in the West Ham mould, winning very little.....Spurs were/are a regular top 6 side, with a very good pedigree in the Cups.

1993 11th - 8th
1994 14th - 15th
1995 11th - 7th
1996 11th - 8th
1997 6th - 10th
1998 4th - 14th
1999 3rd - 11th
2000 5th - 10th
2001 6th - 12th
2002 6th - 9th
2003 4th - 10th

So in the 11 years of the PL before Abramovich came to Chelsea, Chelsea finished above Spurs 8 times, Spurs finished higher 3 times. Chelsea had finished above Spurs for the previous 7 years.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Before Abramovich came Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1997 and 2000, the Cup Winners Cup in 98, the League Cup in 98.

Spurs last won the FA Cup in 91 and the League Cup in 99.

Chelsea had just qualified for the Champions League. They'd already played in the CL in 99. Tottenham had never played in the CL.

Like I said, Premier League era, in which Chelsea have been probably the most ambitious side in the country.

I'm from an earlier era, where they were a relatively mediocre side....I certainly acknowledge that it all depends on when you were born - Anybody under 25 probably rates Chelsea above Spurs, anybody older its probably vice versa.

But you made out that the change in fortunes was purely down to Abramovich, when Chelsea had clearly overtaken Spurs well before Abramovich.

In the first 25 years of my life Spurs were clearly bigger and better than us. In the last 13 we have managed to rise above them.

In the histories of both clubs we are both of a similar size, although they were far more successful than we were.

To say that we were more of a West Ham is pure BS.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

To say that we were more of a West Ham is pure BS.

Why??.....They, like you, were a bit of a yo-yo club, winning the odd Cup, not really troubling the title race, having a reputation for playing nice footy, but with no real substance to it all.

Christ on a bike! Roll on the season.

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Why??.....They, like you, were a bit of a yo-yo club, winning the odd Cup, not really troubling the title race, having a reputation for playing nice footy, but with no real substance to it all.

Are you just trolling, or do you actually believe this s**t?

1. Size of club. Their highest ever attendance is close to what we get every week now.

2. We'd won the league title. They never have.

3. West Ham are a 2nd tier club who occasionally visit the top tier. We are a top tier club who have occasionally visited the 2nd tier.

Can't we just settle on ''Chelsea would most likely still be garbage and would have been nowhere near the title if it wasn't for Roman's cash'' and move on?

Proscution say Terry accepts using "f off, f off", "f black c**t" & "f nobhead" but defence will be "sarcastic exclamation"”

Ah that's alright then!!

[John_D]

Smiggs wrote:

Proscution say Terry accepts using "f off, f off", "f black c**t" & "f nobhead" but defence will be "sarcastic exclamation"”

Ah that's alright then!!

He's claiming to be Jimmy Carr?

If that's what Terry has said, does it really need taking through the legal system? I'm certainly not condoning his behaviour but it does seem a bit like hammer and nutshell.