Desailly - "Bale should go"
- Thread starter Bodinki
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
And just wtf are we supposed to glean from your posts Spurf?
Thats some **** that happened 20 years ago in Russia has **** all to do with a thread about Desailly saying Bale should leave Spurs?
I get it, NSIS is saying Roman Abramovich did some dirty stuff in Russia to make his money.....Its not that I dont understand, its that I dont give a ****, or see its relevance to Gareth Bale.
Thats some **** that happened 20 years ago in Russia has **** all to do with a thread about Desailly saying Bale should leave Spurs?
I get it, NSIS is saying Roman Abramovich did some dirty stuff in Russia to make his money.....Its not that I dont understand, its that I dont give a ****, or see its relevance to Gareth Bale.
Is that the Tea-Boy looking for plan-B?
Nah he's looking for the milk and tea bag's.
I think if you had asked someone in 1966, West Ham, who had just won the FA Cup and the Cup winners Cup and supplied three key members of the England World Cup team would have definitely been ahead of you. It amazes me how few of you realise how poor Chelsea have been historically. We are clearly worse than you currently but we have finished top 5 for four seasons running, as we did in the 60s and Arsenal did in the 30s. Chelsea never achieved this prior to Abramovitch.
How desperate are you? You've mentioned 1 year out of over 100. We haven't been out the top 6 since 1996 which is some time before RA.
Not really. Chelsea were miles better than West Ham throughout the 60s, and Arsenal too. We had a great young, entertaining side with A-Listers across the world coming to watch us. As I said, Spurs only had 2 good years that decade. What you win doesn't necessarily determine how big you are as a club.
You're boring mate we have more major trophies than you spuds so our history >>> yours
Arsenal were **** in the 60's and it's about the only time Spurs have outperformed us, that says it all really
Arsenal were **** in the 60's and it's about the only time Spurs have outperformed us, that says it all really
If you want to mash any Spud mention the 90s and how truly **** they were through most of it .
DL - that really isn't right: In the sixties Chelsea's average league position was 11th and you only once finished in the top three. Spurs averaged 4th and Arsenal 10th.
You had a decent team in the late sixties/early seventies but you were never in the top 2 London clubs back then. West Ham were slightly worse than you in the league, averaging 12th but did win two good trophies.
One thing that really shows how the game has changed recently is the amazing run of consistent top five finishes from the big sides recently. Shows how much money matters these days. Not really sure that the PL was intended to have that outcome
Indeed. Spurs' average league position in the 90s was 10th. Chelsea were out of sight averaging 9th!
We also won two trophies in the early 70's (FA Cup and European Cup Winners' Cup in 70 and 71 respectively).
You're boring mate we have more major trophies than you spuds so our history >>> yours
There is no doubt that your trophy haul is now better both in quantity and quality. As is Arsenal's and Spurs are now clearly the third best team in London. I was just pointing out that this wasn't the case before recently.
- Status