I can take the no history, the oily CL and that crap but calling me a plastic fan I can assure you I supported Chelsea because I'm London born and bred and only really had a choice of Arsenal and Chelsea at a young age and I idolised my dad who was a life long Blues fan so at young age you try and copy your dad and that was that. Does that make me a plastic fan? Lol.
Yeah yeah, is that printed on the back of those plastic flags as all the dickwad chavs say the same thing.
You're asking a Liverpool fan about history You have a right to wallow in the success Roman has brought - why not - but 'history' to me suggests trophies, great nights, Europe, steady match attendances, all of which we've had - Chelsea's attendances ebb and flow depending on success. There's almost a direct correlation between league finish position and attendance figures. Your years in the 2nd div saw woeful attendances - we were still drawing in just short of 40,000 when we were holding up the 2nd div.
So by your reasoning there are only a handful of clubs with history? Delusion or misguided arrogance, can't quite decide.
Where did he say or insinuate that? He merely put our history up against Chelsea's and pointed out that from our years in division 2 until present day our attendances haven't fluctuated as much as Chelsea's despite the lack of success.
A tad desperate to attempt to use attendance averages as a justification of having a 'history' that in some way eclipses that of a current rival. In any case, if he'd have researched it properly, he'd have seen that over both clubs entire attendance histories, Liverpool have only averaged what equates to around 3,000 per game extra, which when you consider that Chelsea were formed 13 years later & have a current ground that holds a couple of thousand less, is hardly light years away.
The timescale was since we were last in the 2nd Division late 50s, at which time Chelsea's ground held more than ours, their ground was smaller in the 80's and early 90's yet they struggled to fill it. Our average attendance is roughly between 55k-44k during that timescale i reckon.
We didn't fill our ground during the 80's either & we we won the league twice! The early 90's were even worse. But that doesn't equate to us not having a 'history' does it? That was my point mate.
Of course not, but it's the Chelsea supporter that was banging on about attendances in the first place.
His words were:- 'history' to me suggests trophies, great nights, Europe, steady match attendances, all of which we've had. So if Chelsea don't qualify as having 'history' on that criteria, 95% of the other clubs in this country wouldn't either. So clearly he did insinuate that (unless of course Chelsea have to satisfy a much harsher 'history' test than all other clubs just so some Scouser can have a stick to beat us with). Why exactly don't you sing your history song to the likes of Fulham, West Ham, Coventry etc etc???
Just so we are clear, when did Liverpool start to have history?? When they won a league title, 5 titles, 10???? Also when does our success over the last 15 years count as 'history' so we can finally enjoy having some??
Don't need to mate, and to be honest i couldn't give a flying one about Chelsea's past, present or future or how many watched them in the past. All that matters in football terms to me is Liverpool Football Club.
"Of course not, but it's the Chelsea supporter that was banging on about attendances in the first place. " Which is the only reason I mentioned attendance at all.
PMK already said this but the reason I mentioned attendance was in answer to a point made about attendance! I further added that Liverpool's attendances have been consistent whether we were successful or not - drawing in 40,000 while sitting at the bottom of the 2nd div or winning the 1st div - no difference in attendances. And who in their right mind averages attendances over a club's entire history - that's the most pointless thing on this thread.
That's not a fact though. During Shankly's first season the attendances ranged from 19,000 to 49,000, so to say they've always remained consistent is false. Averaging attendances across 2 comparable clubs entire histories (it was HISTORY you were refering to wasn't it?) is a way of showing how the 2 clubs have compared over their lifetimes & not just a selected period of it, it's probably the fairest method of defining 'history' in the context you were alluding to.
