Everton, basically.
1 Like
But they had overspent and were in debt, and if Abramovich hadn’t bought them they would have been going out of business.
The reason why I can’t stand them is because if a club overspends and do not have the fan base to make enough profit to get them out of trouble, then how do they then deserve to become one of the richest clubs in Europe?
1 Like
You just come across as incredibly bitter that Chelsea are now a big and successful club. It’s the modern game. Who the hell cares about their lack of history? I highly doubt Chelsea fans do.
1 Like
Im pretty sure a lot of clubs have been in this situation and then sold on to bigger backers. Bournemouth were on there way out of league football and rescued. The up turn in success has had little to do with 12,000 a week fanbase, more to do with new owners.
Really?!
Sorry to be that dude asking for evidence, I just didn’t know we are richer than them despite our financial improvements in recent years.
1 Like
It’s nothing to do with their history. it’s to do with their fan base not being big enough to deserve the status they have.
Man U are successful because of the support they get which enables them to buy the best players.
Chelsea were going out of business and, because of one Russian billionaire who had no links to Chelsea, they are now one of the richest clubs in Europe.
How do they deserve that, while we can’t keep up with them, even though we run the club properly?
Their success is built on dirty money made from a Russian crook, and they are the epitome of a plastic club.
If you think I’m bitter about that, you’re right.
2 Likes
No links with our owners to us, Glazers, John Henry, Thai owners at Leciester, or citys, Bournemouths. On the other hand Mike Ashley got strong links to Newcastle.
Is this true? Their first turning point came in around 96 when Gullit took over. From then on, they were competing for the European places and also won a couple of FA Cups in the 10 years pre-Roman. Meanwhile, the season before he took over - Chelsea finished fourth while West Ham got relegated! Hardly think you can compare the two clubs!
The “you ain’t got no history” chant directed at Chelsea is a bit far off the mark too in my opinion. But even if it were true, who the hell cares - they’re making history now.
2 Likes
Before Abramovich Chelsea had attendances comparable with West Ham and quite a way behind spurs and us.
They were never a big club and had only won the League once.
I don’t understand how people can defend how they have got their success.
It’s not built on hard work, or a massive fan base or history.
It’s built because they got lucky when an oil rich businessman took over.
I’m clearly on my own on this, so I’ll leave it at that.
2 Likes
Hope his dogs tries to bite him in the arse if he tries to leave for Chelsea. C’mon Atom and Humber, convince him to stay :mustafi:
I agree with you @InvincibleDB10
It’s very subjective unless the exact yardsticks are defined, but for me Chelsea were no bigger than West Ham in the 90s
Back then the domestic support base was more telling of how big a club is. Now it’s all a bit murkier as the English Premiiiiiiier League is basically a global competition that merely happens to be played on English soil.
Tottenham have traditionally been a bigger club than Chelsea, really not sure how that could be argued against. I guess they overtook them at some undefined point in the 2000s, with Abramovich being key to it, altho they did enjoy more Cup success than the scum in the years prior to that.
Arsenal are a different kettle of fish, but assuming Chelsea win a few more league titles before we get near our next one, as the years roll by you’d have to say they’re getting close to our size now. N00b fans would say already bigger of course 
History and heritage IS important with a club, success is success but with the chavs it’s all recent and until its sustained over a bit longer time period they won’t be seen in the same light as traditional big clubs.
2 Likes
Tbh though there is not really that many big clubs historically. Ourselves, Liverpool, united spuds, Villa and Everton.
Think they have pretty much rivalled the last 3 with their relative success in the past and dominance now.
Leeds dont really measure up imo and Forest was very brief in a century of playing.
Your not on your own, I agree with you 100%.
Realistically that just isn’t true. They were still a solid PL club and someone would have bought them if Roman hadn’t. They got very lucky with their new owner but they were never in danger going out of business.
They still have a history though. After they won the league in 55 they were regularly competing for it in the 60s/early 70s. And as, has been mentioned, in the 10 years prior to Roman coming along, they were on the up.
No one is disputing (or defending) that they become more successful after Abramovich came alone - that’s pretty obvious for everyone to see, but it wasn’t quite the instant zero to sixty move that you seem to be implying.
2 Likes
They were a club that had been relegated into the old second division.
In fact, up until they were bought by Abramovich, they had won the second division trophy more often than the League title.
For me, they were no bigger than West Ham, Newcastle spurs, Everton etc, in terms of support, and I find their glory hunting supporters even more irritating than ones from Man U.
So although they haven’t come from nothing to be one of the biggest clubs in Europe, they were a mid table team for many decades.
I’d have a bit more respect for them if the changed their name from Chelsea to Abramovich Wanderers.
Because every top player and manager that has gone there, hasn’t gone there because of there history or status, they have gone there for one reason, and that is Abramovich and his money.
Well they’re one of the highest generating clubs in terms of revenue and Abramovich has noticeably tightened the purse strings over the last few seasons. Outside of Torres, I think pretty much Mustafi, Ozil, Xhaka and Sanchez all cost more than the next person on Chelsea list (Hazard at 32m).
So we’re spending more than them these days which means we can compete with them. Which makes your line about us not being able to compete false.
Batshuayi was £33m I believe. Pointlessly pedantic but there you go haha
I mean, you say that we are spending more than them these days but that’s not exactly true tbh. The net spend is in their favour but I don’t believe that it’s fees received that allow them to spend so much, I think they could still out spend us anyway, all the fees received are just a happy bonus for them, as well as of course being a sign that they are much better run these days.
Put it this way, Spurs have spent more than us but that is clearly only possible because they have made so much from player sales, I don’t believe that to be the case with Chelsea.
I still think financially Chelsea have the edge on us (though that’s up for review of Craigie gets back to me), but the gap isn’t great at all and it’s certainly no excuse for us not challenging them. We are more than capable of doing that now.
If you like Wenger so much then sign a new contract instead of mouthing off at the fans.
9 Likes
Bizarre theory.
Arsenal can buy everyone, you’re right, but the wages?
Costa earns 180k, 55k more than Alexis.
Hazard earns 200k per week. Only Kantè has an accesible wage for Arsenal, but it’s impossible to compare Chelsea and Arsenal in term of financial power.
They have reserves with a wage higher than our stars or starters (Fabregas earns more money then Mesut and Alexis, Michy earns 90k and how many games has played this season? In our team some starters as Bellerin, Monreal, Koscielny earn less than him) etc…
It’s not a fact if Chelsea spend 30M (more or less) than us, despite Arsenal’s wage bill increased from £166 million in 2014 to £180 million in 2015 while it reached club reached club record 192 million during 2015-16 season.
1 Like