Poyet at chelsea

[macky]

I very much doubt he's got the finances to aim any higher.

so you think hes put his last few quid in then ?
the more we climb the more money will come in
and im sure as we climb upward someone else will come along to help him with the finances and im sure tony aims high which is why hes where he is

 

[British Bulldog]

anyway if you dont have a dream how are you going to make that dream come true

Yeah thank you Captain Sensible, Keep on Happy Talking.

 

[macky]

You keep saying this but, as has been pointed out many times, it's just not true.

The league positions in the four years before Abramovitch's money came in were 3rd, 5th, 6th and 6th - they also won the League Cup, FA Cup and the Cup Winners Cup in that period. OK, they didn't win the league but they were a long way from a mid-table team.

They were, as someone pointed out earlier, an Aston Villa, Tottenham or an Everton, rather than a Blackpool or Burnley.

and that was hardings money the start of it
and i never said they were a blackpool or burnley
saying that i would hope that we wil be far bigger than either of those two

 

[les dynam]

You keep saying this but, as has been pointed out many times, it's just not true.

The league positions in the four years before Abramovitch's money came in were 3rd, 5th, 6th and 6th - they also won the League Cup, FA Cup and the Cup Winners Cup in that period. OK, they didn't win the league but they were a long way from a mid-table team.

They were, as someone pointed out earlier, an Aston Villa, Tottenham or an Everton, rather than a Blackpool or Burnley.

no. they enjoyed a period of success. they were not and never will be 'an aston villa or a spurs or an everton'.

 

[Gwylan]

good post. this is what the other guy is trying to say (i think!). chelsea are a product of their time. their rise (including well before abramovich turned up) coincides with a period of incredible financial growth in the south east, centered on london. right place right time. they attracted city boys AND the newly wealthy workers.

but historically they have been a club with a mixed history - some big times and some small times.

But Macky's not trying to say that: he's saying that Chelsea were nothing without Abramovitch's money when they were clearly better than that. Yes, Chelsea have had some big times and small times but you could say the same about most teams: I remember Man Utd being in the Second Division. The fact is that Chelsea have been in the top division for most of the history, were previous winners of the 1st Division and, while they had some low gates in the 80s (like a lot of teams) they've historically been well supported, including an attendance of 82,000, the second biggest league gate in English football.

They were an incredibly glam club in the 60s, with many film and pop star followers and a high profile image not really justified by on-field performances.

 

[macky]

Yeah thank you Captain Sensible, Keep on Happy Talking.

well it seems to be about right
f*** me life would be horrible without dreams

 

[Gwylan]

no. they enjoyed a period of success. they were not and never will be 'an aston villa or a spurs or an everton'.

Sorry. That was clumsily phrased. I didn't mean Chelsea have the history of those teams but that they'd finish in the same sorts of positions as these, hovering between 5th (or even 4th) and 8th every season.

 

[les dynam]

But Macky's not trying to say that: he's saying that Chelsea were nothing without Abramovitch's money when they were clearly better than that. Yes, Chelsea have had some big times and small times but you could say the same about most teams: I remember Man Utd being in the Second Division. The fact is that Chelsea have been in the top division for most of the history, were previous winners of the 1st Division and, while they had some low gates in the 80s (like a lot of teams) they've historically been well supported, including an attendance of 82,000, the second biggest league gate in English football.

They were an incredibly glam club in the 60s, with many film and pop star followers and a high profile image not really justified by on-field performances.

sorry, didn't make it very clear in my post. i was saying that Macky was trying to articulate what the other poster contributed - not that it really matters!

whatever

what i would add is that... IF they were to be relegated from the prem then their support would melt away. they would average 20 - 25 k in the championship. hopefully we'll get to find out in the next 5 years!

 

[les dynam]

Sorry. That was clumsily phrased. I didn't mean Chelsea have the history of those teams but that they'd finish in the same sorts of positions as these, hovering between 5th (or even 4th) and 8th every season.

agreed.

 

[El Presidente]

well it seems to be about right
f*** me life would be horrible without dreams

I have those about Girls Aloud (excluding the ginger one of course), but I don't try to pretend that they may come true one day.

 

[macky]

But Macky's not trying to say that: he's saying that Chelsea were nothing without Abramovitch's money when they were clearly better than that. Yes, Chelsea have had some big times and small times but you could say the same about most teams: I remember Man Utd being in the Second Division. The fact is that Chelsea have been in the top division for most of the history, were previous winners of the 1st Division and, while they had some low gates in the 80s (like a lot of teams) they've historically been well supported, including an attendance of 82,000, the second biggest league gate in English football.

They were an incredibly glam club in the 60s, with many film and pop star followers and a high profile image not really justified by on-field performances.

no see your missing the point i was trying to make which was that with
the russian money i would hope that we wouldnt be far off of them in the future i know the past we cannot compete with but i see no reason why we couldnt one day be not to far off of them
before he and harding came along they averaged 10 in the league
which has been pointed out i hope that one day we can be a mid table prem team nopt as far fetch as some on here think i never said chelsea were nothing without his money know they were a mid table team
who sometimes would do well in cups
tel me why cant brighton be that in the future

 

[macky]

I have those about Girls Aloud (excluding the ginger one of course), but I don't try to pretend that they may come true one day.

so you dont se ebrighton in the prem holding their own
perhaps winning a cup or two
i feel sorry for you because thats a dream that is very much within reach

 

[Hiney]

before he and harding came along they averaged 10 in the league

They've never averaged that low.

 

[macky]

They've never averaged that low.

make your mind up
it was you who said their average was 10th

 

[Hiney]

make your mind up
it was you who said their average was 10th

I thought you meant 10,000 average attendance, not average 10th in the league

 

[Yoda]

Says the bloke who calls another poster a ****.

Nice one.

As for Chelsea being a 'lower prem' team, up to 2002, their average top division position was, in fact 10th.

This suggests to me that they are very much in the 'higher Prem' category.

I stand by my previous comment, although looking at your date of birth, it would appear that you are, in fact, incredibly STUPID

And considering 19 of those season were outside the top flight, and it also includes Accrington's (NOT Stanley) 5 year history from 1888-1893, that's pretty good going. Only Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton, Aston Villa, Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Newcastle United and Manchester City above them. All of them apart from Spurs have at least 12 more season's than Chelsea.

Oh, and for the record, Gus WAS there at half time. Asked a STH who went to the game tonight about it.

 

[Mental Lental]

do you think chelsea are that much a bigger club than us ?

before the russian came i would say they were smaller than wigan are

if it werent tony blooms (money) it would have been someone elses

chelsea i think are on the decline a little ??

Absolute comedy GOLD!!!!

 

[Brovion]

Absolute comedy GOLD!!!!

Blimey is this thread still going? Fair play to macky for sticking at it, but the problem is he's made so many posts arguing a weak position that he's bound to have contradicted himself.

However there is a grain of truth in what he's saying. IF, with luck, investment, a fair wind and a following tide etc etc we could indeed maximise our potential and end up as a 'top half' premiership team. We'd have gates of 35000 in an extended Falmer, hopefully take the cups seriously enough to have won one or two, had European football in the Europa League, hell we may have even had the odd season of Champions' League football. But that is really as far as we can go. At the end of the day we are a provincial club in a seaside town and there is a limit as to how 'big' we can get. Or to put it another way there will never be a debate as to whether Barcelona, Bayern Munich or Brighton is the biggest club in Europe. Chelsea on the other hand, because they're a city club and start from a higher base than us could potentially be the biggest club in Europe, perhaps the world.

The reverse is also true. If we fall on hard times, lack of investment, bad decisions, etc, we could well end up back in the fourth tier. Chelsea would consider bumping along in the lower reaches of the Championship to be 'bad'.

So yes, we could be as big as a slightly-bigger-than-medium sized Chelsea.

 

[macky]

Blimey is this thread still going? Fair play to macky for sticking at it, but the problem is he's made so many posts arguing a weak position that he's bound to have contradicted himself.

However there is a grain of truth in what he's saying. IF, with luck, investment, a fair wind and a following tide etc etc we could indeed maximise our potential and end up as a 'top half' premiership team. We'd have gates of 35000 in an extended Falmer, hopefully take the cups seriously enough to have won one or two, had European football in the Europa League, hell we may have even had the odd season of Champions' League football. But that is really as far as we can go. At the end of the day we are a provincial club in a seaside town and there is a limit as to how 'big' we can get. Or to put it another way there will never be a debate as to whether Barcelona, Bayern Munich or Brighton is the biggest club in Europe. Chelsea on the other hand, because they're a city club and start from a higher base than us could potentially be the biggest club in Europe, perhaps the world.

The reverse is also true. If we fall on hard times, lack of investment, bad decisions, etc, we could well end up back in the fourth tier. Chelsea would consider bumping along in the lower reaches of the Championship to be 'bad'.

So yes, we could be as big as a slightly-bigger-than-medium sized Chelsea.

i thought we were a city ?
f*** me looks like you are all right i am stupid
al i as saying was chelsea were until a few seasons ago a mid table club
just like i hope that we can be in the near future
i never said we would win as much as they have

 

[macky]

Absolute comedy GOLD!!!!

cant remeber writing chelsea were a smaller club that wigan ?
never mind