Not really like for like though is it. We've won as many trophies as United under Roman where as QPR have won nowt and even with money, it would be a massive ask for them to be competative in the next 3 years. Chelsea are many (not mine) favourites for next years title even without Rooney. Of course Rooney moving to us from United would be a step down in terms of the statures of the clubs historically but this is not the only factor. City are not a big club in European terms but have been able to attract lots of good players because they have a real chance of winning things now (and pay well!!)
This. People make the mistake of thinking players give a **** about a clubs history. As long as they are playing in a team that is competitive and is paying them a good salary, do you really think they give a **** how many league titles the club won in the 60's? If that was the case, Liverpool would have all the best players.
Well you have got a point. Why else would a player agree to sign for the likes of Chelsea rather than more illustrious teams ? Must make you so happy to be a Chelsea fan. please log in to view this image
No you are right, we would almost certainly have found it hard under Roman in his first few seasons to attract players like Veron (not that he helped), Crespo, Makalele etc
And the sun is hot Who ever thought that history got you signings, players move up and on or when they are not happy or family reasons amongst other reasons like tax free reasons You couldn't share more obvious thoughts m8. Players want to play with other good players play in the top competitions and win trophies and medals, how's that for obvious. History is only mentioned by players to flatter fans
And Liverpool fans, who hyperventilate and have an epileptic fit if they dont bring it up at least 60 times a day
To be fair some Chelsea fans are so keen to emphasise the club's history they reference it in their username.
You were still blathering stuff a 6 year old understands regardless of your failed wummage or the lack of you quoting your own obviousness
Especially when it's a history not worth going on about. Londons's only EC winner, talk about narrowing it down to portray some sort of esteem
Classic modern Chelsea fan bollox. 23 years since their last league title but Liverpool are still a bigger club than Chelsea.
You moan about Liverpool fans talking about it's great history and you are talking up things about Chelsea that have not even happened yet Priceless Nostradamus FC
So whats wrong with being proud of your clubs history? I really don't get this 'history' debate. Us Liverpool fans recognise we've fallen - but **** me I'm extremely proud of my clubs history, extremely. Can you please explain why that seems to be an issue with other clubs fans - or you can speak solely for yourself? In 10 years time, when I believe (due to rich owners of other clubs) Utd fans will be looking back at their history - and they should do to, they have dominated recent years, exactly like we did in the years previous to that. Maybe when or If Chelsea go through a 20 year dominance and then start to decline, which tends to be a footballing pattern - will you not be proud of your clubs achievements? I talk to my kids about the old Liverpool, we watch old games together - I want them to understand the history and heritage of their club. I really don't get what the the issue is, it's not like we're claiming we're title challenges due to our history...?? If your great Grandfather invented the wheel would you be proud? and would you talk about him to your kids? With regards to the 'History debate' - there is NO debate, we're proud of our clubs achievements. It really is that simple.
