Can you provide proof that Norris spent a lot of money on Arsenal as you state its indisputable, yet don't provide any figures to substantiate your claim. You go on to say that there is no difference between Norris and Roman Abramovich but again fail to show how they are the same besides stating that they both have spent loads on their clubs, which is indisputable in the case of RA and Chelsea but not in the case of Norris and Arsenal.
See Piskie's comment above. It's not my fault that you don't know your own club's history. It's really not a point of contention that Norris spent a lot of money on Arsenal.
Piskie mate please add to point 2) that Chelsea were also promoted at the expense of Spurs, and the records from that time show that Spurs didn't receive any votes for their inclusion in the expanded league. So Spurs fans should hate Chelsea as much as Arsenal, or is it a case of twisted logic in that Roman nearly bought Spurs so they nearly became a big club and nearly won something and that's why all these Spurs fans are cheering for Chelsea. Also did you know Spurs first team kit was Blue shirts, like Chelsea wear.
Chelsea were also promoted despite being relegated before the war. But that may have been due to the fact that they ended up in the bottom two because of the match fixing from Utd and Liverpool (the only confirmed corruption at the time) What Spurs fans don't like is that when it came to that vote to expand the league, they had very little friends in football because they had ****ed off almost the whole of the southern league before the war by trying to leave it and constantly changing fixtures and generally making arses of themselves. When it then came to them then wanting support from the football community, they didn't get it and threw their toys out of the pram.
It's hilarious watching you two discussing the Arsenal corruption that you actually brought up yourselves! Still no attempt to answer the bloody question, though. Care to try again?
I've read them, unfortunately. Still no answer. It was a long time ago and it took longer because Arsenal were ****ter than Chelsea are not answers.
You've got no answer. Your attempts to justify it are as obviously flawed as they are desperate. Nice to see you talking up Norris again, though. You'd absolutely despise him if he wasn't connected to Arsenal.
You don't like my answer, fair enough. I don't expect you to. Trying to dismiss it out of hand though, just reveals your own bias. That's your problem to deal with
Your answer isn't an answer. I just pointed out the obvious flaws in it. It's an excuse to bash somebody for doing the same thing that you did, by finding any minimal difference and trying to focus on it. You'd do the same if somebody pointed out the parallels between you and MK Dons, despite the same criticism being applied at the time.
No you didn't, my answer is valid, you just didn't like it. That's your opinion, mine clearly differs from yours.
It wasn't "investment" in Chelsea and City; they each had a lottery win. A load of money landed in their laps which they could never have dreamt of earning and suddenly they're rubbing shoulders with football's elite. They got lucky when their sugar daddies chose them to bankroll them. Whatever the rights or wrongs of this in terms of the financial structure, regulation and competition within the game, there is no comparison between what happened to them and And she doesn't care much for you please log in to view this image
Exactly. Most of those posts have been about Arsenal and Spurs anyway. The rest have been pointing out what a **** Maureen has made of himself again
I never realised just how morally bankrupt Arsenal are as a club! It's been a real eye-opener for me. At least the Russian and the Arabs acted within the law, when they flooded their clubs with cash and bought Chelsea and £ity glory and honours; Norris was nothing more than a crook! I can understand why the likes of PISKIE and G4E are in denial over this. I would be, too.
You're digging a hole HAIG Carry on mate, I'm going to let you get just deep enough so that you can't climb out before I give you the facts
What is evident that (like many if not all the 'big' clubs), Arsenal have received assistance and outside influence during their lifetime to get to the position where they could compete for honours, win trophies, build the club up, increase the fan base etc. Nothing wrong with that save for the hypocrisy of moaning about other clubs getting investment just because it happened in recent memory rather than decades ago.
