It's hilarious that you'd make that claim, as I've already demonstrated you doing exactly this time and again on this thread alone! Astounding hypocrisy. Again. Next you'll be criticising MK Dons fans for following a club that deserted it's traditional support and moved.
You've demonstrated nothing, other than tying yourself up in knots and trying to squirm when I've pressed you to substantiate your claims
There's an easy answer to this. Comparing Norris is like saying Matthew Harding funded Chelsea's revival. There's the difference between them and having Roman Blofeld Abramovich. It's just stupid to latch on to anyone who just happened to fund a club. There's clearly a difference between Arsenal and Chelsea. Just like there's clearly a fcking difference between Harding and Abramovich as well
What's the difference? I'd suggest that Norris and Abramovich have more in common than Norris and Harding. Harding was a fan of Chelsea. Norris was a fan of Fulham. Harding did fund Chelsea's revival, anyway. Bates vastly overspent after the initial investment, though.
I read a lot of your posts mate and think you're a pretty sound poster. I'm surprised you're convincing yourself of any of that. I can only guess bcos of the rivalry or it's just banter. The way arsenal have built and established themselves as one of the best clubs in the country is a marked difference to Chelsea having billions spunked on them. It's not even close. And I have no axe to grind with either club.
You're not giving any reason why the investment by Norris is any different to that of Abramovich. Nobody has. It happened a long time ago. Is that it? Why was it right then, but wrong now? I'm not saying that I agree with the way that Chelsea have gone about things, but nobody's pointing out why Arsenal did it any different. They're all just saying that they did it a long time ago. So what?
What I always find telling in this sort of debate is the way Chelsea fans and City fans always feel the need to try and convince everyone they're no different to anyone else. Why not just admit that you've built your success differently. Be proud that you've had a rich sugardaddy come in and give you the money to go on and win trophies. It's as if they're ashamed or embarrassed by their club and their owner! And their history.
Bcos all clubs have investment. Investment from sponsorship or from individuals or businessmen etc. Nothing to do with how long ago it happened. As I said Matthew Harding did for Chelsea. Had Chelsea gone on to build success over the next 2 decades as a result of that NOBODY in their right mind would be saying "oh Harding was a sugar daddy." Nor would they see Chelsea as any different to Arsenal in the way they built said success. So to do that with Norris and Arsenal is equally ridiculous. It's that simple really. Just take a step back and look at what Roman Blofeld has done at Chelsea. The amount he's invested, the manner in which he has invested. It just doesnt compare.
Because Chelsea knocked them off their perch. If only Roman came 100 years ago or if Chelsea died of like Blackburn did and jack walker
I don't think I'm getting the distinction. Is it about the amount of money? Norris was done for illegal payments for players, so that would make him more comparable to Abramovich, wouldn't it?
Maybe Chelsea are ashamed as they are Nouveau Riche and have no class or history unlike United and Arsenal. I don't know why PNP and other Spurs fans are getting so hot under the collar about Chelsea - is it unrequited love for someone who nearly bought Spurs but changed his mind, and how their team could be like Chelsea and have bought their glory.
Hot under the collar? That's the definition of most of your comments. As for my love for Chelsea, that couldn't be further from the truth. Nobody can tell me how Arsenal are any different to them, though.
So, still no answer, then? Far better to just accuse me of being angry. Much easier than answering a straightforward question. Very poor WUM attempt. D-.
What's the difference between Arsenal having a rich owner who invested a load of money into a failing club and Chelsea doing the same?
About 90 years and The Truth (rather than just supposition). Also you are ignoring the indisputable fact that Chelsea also got a place in the newly expanded league in 1919 as well as Arsenal, despite the fact that they should also have been relegated along with Spurs to league two. Again as none of us were there at the time to verify the events, who can say truly what happened then. Whereas I was alive when Roman bought Chelsea and so were you so we both can discuss what happened then and the rumours surrounding his past and his business empire, but again they are only rumours!
What's untrue about what I said? As I thought, it's just about time. You bought your place a long time ago, so how dare they do the same now. What does this have to do with the question that I asked? I didn't mention anything about any alleged or even proven corruption by Norris. He spent a lot of money on the club. That's indisputable. Why is that different to what Abramovich has done? Why can't anyone answer this bloody question without going off on a massive tangent about things I haven't said?
Exactly. A lot of clubs have had investment from businessmen, organisations, investment companies etc. Whether it's Norris at Arsenal in 1910, Jack Walker at Blackburn, Randy Lerner at Villa, Alan Sugar or ENIC at Spurs, the Glazers etc the list goes on. It's not exclusive to one or two clubs. What you have to remember with Spurs is that there is an added dimension of bitterness towards Henry Norris, because (1) He successfully moved Arsenal from Woolwich to Highbury, which spurs had a hissy fit about because they thought it would steal their fans. (2) Norris successfully lobbied for Arsenal to be promoted to the first division, which was in part at Spurs' expense (despite the fact that they had been relegated before the war broke out) (3) He built a new stadium and a successful club based on the brilliant appointment of Herbert Chapman as Arsenal manager. (note it wasn't until the 1930's that Spurs started making allegations about bribery despite nothing being mentioned at the time, or any evidence ever being presented to this day) This last detail is probably one of the biggest differences between Abramovich pumping his money into Chelsea and Norris at Arsenal. Arsenal and Norris didn't buy instant success, they developed the club together and the brilliance of Herbert Chapman propelled Arsenal into the unbroken domination of North London which lasts until today. It was an evolution and it was based on astute investment, building a new stadium, helping to revive Arsenal after many of their players were killed in the war and then appointing a brilliant manager who did the rest. It took 20 years for that project to come to fruition. Unlike Abramovich who simply took £80m debt ridden Chelsea and simply pumped it full of cash, threw buckets of money at transfers, skewed the whole transfer market in the process and hired and fired a plethora of managers. It was a case of 'throw as much mud at the wall and see what sticks' It's taken £1bn to get Chelsea to where they are today and in the process UEFA had to bring in FPP to try and stop it happening again, such was it's negative effect of the rest of football. Comparing Norris to Abramovich seems based on little more that bitterness that Spurs fans still harbour even after a Century has passed and even though Arsenal have demonstrated since that they have built their top club status time and time again, are well run and self sufficient and have a long history littered with Trophies and success. It just comes across as sour grapes because Spurs didn't get their own way when Norris was around.
