There's some tripe on here today DL, how can you post what you have with no hint of irony? Chelsea are the epitome of glory hunters. The club was modestly supported and had minimal success before Abramovich splashed his own cash and bought you success, which otherwise would have been far beyond the club's reach. Utd, however, have been the best supported team for decades, even in the days when the club was not successful. The club was unique before SAF. Firstly, no other club suffered the Munich air disaster. It was a tragedy that so many players were killed in their prime- players who had been blazing a trail for English clubs in Europe. The disaster gained Utd huge public sympathy and support in the aftermath and many people here and abroad took to supporting the club. Utd's support across the UK, in particular, was forged then and was maintained in the 70s and 80s when other clubs enjoyed much greater success. Secondly, Utd rebuilt quickly and Busby assembled a team which was seen as exciting and glamorous. Utd again blazed a trail for English clubs in Europe and were successful, of course, with Best, Law and Charlton to the fore. It was easy for fans then to identify with the club and its rise to prominence again after Munich. Utd have a fanbase around the world, but so do all the leading European clubs. Spurs rely on a fanbase which stretches wider than a district in north London. Our game has global appeal. People in China or the USA, for example, will associate themselves with clubs for many different reasons. SAF has always ensured that the appeal Utd had in the 60s has been maintained- no success based on 1-0 scorelines, but relentless attacking play, drama and exciting, talented players. Not many Koreans want to celebrate Arsenal's great defence by wearing Bould & Keon shirts, but you can still sell them ones bearing the names of Cantona or Beckham. Fans want to be part of that culture. SAF has had phenomenal success. Some fans of other clubs will naturally feel bitterness and resentment towards the successful; that's human nature. But I think many others feel the game is enriched by his contribution. How many nailbiting dramas has his team delivered? He would not have been so successful without being so committed and determined to the point of being self centred and blinkered at times. He will defend his players without compromise even when he perhaps shouldn't. But few will speak against him because he is or has been loyal, generous and supportive towards them. Almost all his fellow managers speak highly of him; almost all say that he has helped them, giving his time and advice and often publicly supporting those under pressure. None will give up so much of their own time for others. He wouldn't get the best out of so many individuals for so long if he didn't have great qualities, which others recognise and respond to. Like most high achievers though, he tends to show his frustrations when other people don't live up to his standards and feels a great sense of injustice when he's been wronged. But on balance, the positives far outweigh the negatives. You'd have him as your manager tomorrow if he was available.
Arsenal and to a lesser extent Liverpool and Chelsea are bad but not nearly as bad as United but I agree with you Spurf
LDL - The facts don't support your argument. Chelsea are the 5th most supported club of all time and the largest attendances came before the club had ever won a trophy, conversely United's largest attendances have come at a time where they've enjoyed the most successful spell in their history. Chelsea also had the largest average attendance of any London club two years running before Abramovich stepped foot at the club. Even George Best admitted he preferred Stamford Bridge to any other ground and during the 60s and 70s the larger attendances when the two sides met were more often than not at SW6. Where I do agree with you LDL is your point on fandom/culture and the glamour side of things. Unfortunately that relies upon the Sky era and people forgetting about the history of the clubs. I'd wager a bet that few United fans could remember who managed them before Ferguson, equally I don't think many Arsenal fans would know who Rioch is or who the Chelsea manager was before Ranieri. Ultimately I thinks the core fanbase will always be the real/proper fans, the people with a connection to the club.
George Best only said that when his favourite hostelry was in the King's Rd. It was the only one within practical reach.
But he did say Chelsea were the only other club he'd have signed for and that Stamford Bridge had packed crowds etc but I think most of us know what his attraction to the Old Kings Road was
I wish that Chelsea fans would stop pretending that their vast overspending started with Abramovich. We all know that it started with Matthew Harding's cash injection under Ken Bates, who nearly bankrupted the club. They went from signing Mark Stein and Gavin Peacock being managed by Ian Porterfield and David Webb to Ruud Gullit and Mark Hughes being managed by Glenn Hoddle. Then came the likes of Di Matteo, Zola, Vialli and Le Bouef and a wage bill that the club simply couldn't afford, prior to the arrival of dodgy Roman. As for having a large support, I give you Chelsea v Orient 1982 at Stamford Bridge. A league game attended by 6,006 hearty souls.
I can remember Chelsea with pathetic crowds and not long ago either! Spurs and Arsenal fans turned up to support their teams.The Chelsea locals only turned up to get themselves out of the house away from their everlovings. In other words,Chelsea "fans" weren't really interested.Now down the road at Fulham.......
Just a little something to think about as the year ends... An Australian court has ruled that a bureaucrat who was injured while having sex on a business trip is eligible for workers compensation benefits. The Full Bench of the Federal Court ruled Dec 13 in favour of the woman,rejecting the appeal of the federal government's insurer. The woman was injured when a glass light fitting was torn from its mount above the bed and landed on her face,injuring her nose and mouth.She later suffered depression and was unable to continue working for the goverment. ....and a Happy New Year to you all!!!!!!!
I've never been one of those. It's a media myth that our overspending started with Abramovich but hey-ho. As for the attendances, we got 42,000 at home to Spurs the same year. If I live to be 100 I will never understand why rival fans dig us out over our low attendances but fail to ignore our average and larger gates. Even Liverpool got 14,000 and less for European Cup games in the 80s when they were at the peak of their powers. As for the wage bill, it was manageable (just about), what plunged us into the financial abyss was the renovation of the Stadium, something which led to our demise in both the 70s and 00s (when we were the glamour club and one of the best in the country). We went from being Cup winners to 2nd division in no time. Not all Chelsea fans were boneheads, many went to support their team but were put off by the behaviour of an increasing minority in the 80s. My Mum wasn't even happy about me going to football in the 90s due to all the hysteria, had I of been around in the 80s there's no way I'd have ever been allowed to step foot in Stamford Bridge, that probably applies to many others especially those of non-white heritage. Chelsea (when in Division 2) still had the largest away support behind only Liverpool and United (successful 1st Division clubs) so this idea the fans were never around simply isn't true. Chelsea fans love the club just like Arsenal and Spurs fans love theirs but heck you didn't have Ken Bates as your owner and constant fights just stay in your own ground and keep afloat. If people are going to look at history and judge a club, you have to look at all of it not just pick out bits here and there.
Your average attendances plummeted though, DL. In the early 80s you had a few years of utterly abysmal figures. 81/82: 13,132, 28th in the country. 82/83: 12,672, 27th in the country. The first Premier League season, prior to the investment of the Harding cash, you also struggled, relatively speaking: 18,787. Things steadily increased as you overspent and attracted more glamorous players that you basically couldn't afford.
Actually the Chelsea nutters were around well before the 80's. The Chelsea "Bovver Boys" in their "Bovver Boots" were to be seen and heard and felt around the Wilkins playing era. Mind you,the crime must have been down around the Fulham Road area when their team played away. Whether they were there for the football is another question. But then we were chased to the station when we supported Spurs at Liverpool and Manchester.Such nice lads!!!!?
That is true but what is ignored is in the 15 years of relatively poor home attendances we had outstanding away figures, the best in the country arguably given the lack of success the club had. In contrast Arsenal for instance had large home games but had a poor away following. Taking only hundreds where Chelsea took Thousands. 20,000 to Arsenal 15,000 to Brighton (5 months after the club nearly went out of business) 8,000 to Newcastle (midweek) 12,000+ to Man City (midweek) 15,000 to Grimsby That's just to name a few, my point is that this wasn't a poorly supported club before the money as some have suggested. People also forget we had the largest gates of any London club 2 years running before RA came in, we took 40,000 to Wembley no problem in the 94 Cup Final (could quite easily have taken more). It doesn't surprise me our lowest gates came during that 80s/early 90s period (i.e when attendances plummeted across the board, even Man U's fell by about 13,000 one year)
So no chance for us or Everton then, Lawro has spoken. Arsenal's squad is better than all except top 3?
I see that SAF has been charged with misconduct by the FA for his rant in the last match. Oh hang on a minute, that didn't happen. I must have been thinking about any other manager that had done the same thing.
We'll finish above Chelsea unless they make some crazy signings in January. What I said at the start of the season stands, they've lost their two main strengths: being clinical in front of goal, and the rock solid defense they had up until Ancelotti was sacked, and have improved only their midfield. Torres has had false dawns before, and has yet to score a decisive goal in more than 1 or 2 games. Unless David Luiz changes his position permanently to DM he should surely be remembered as one of the most overrated defenders in recent memory. I really don't know how so much hype has been built on such a shambolic defender (Guardian put him in their top 100 players ). He makes our leftbacks look composed.
