comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 8 hours, 20 minutes ago
Biggest club in London, Chelsea? That's not what your mum said!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another great point More
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 10 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 6 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by (U21957)
posted 1 minute ago
PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by (U21957)
posted 14 minutes ago
Pawl, what's is your average in a80k stadium?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
67,953. Premership average 17/18
---
So, that's less than 80% of the stadium then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think United Liverpool Arsenal and Chelsea would all get 80k average, especially at those Spurs' prices
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a chance you would get 80,000 prawnies turn up for 19 games a season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our core following is bigger than yours. That’s why we sell out Carling and Europa games (40k) and you got sub 30k crowds for Europa and Carling games at the Lane.
And we have more prawnies too!
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 5 minutes ago
Big clubs play in the champions league 🤷🏽♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big clubs get past group stage
Biggest club:
North - Tottenham
East - West Ham
South - Arsenal
West - Chelsea
London’s finest - Tottenham. League table doesn’t lie and we were top boys. Hence why we ply our trade in the elite completion.
We’ll see what happens this season.
Not sure how “big” is defined but in terms of importance to the city: biggest games in the capital for each:
Tottenham: Arsenal
Arsenal: Tottenham
Chelsea: Tottenham
West Ham : Tottenham
comment by Under The Bridge (U21614)
posted 9 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 7 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by (U21957)
posted 1 minute ago
Pawl, what's is your average in a80k stadium?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is safe to say that Arsenal and Chelsea would get bigger crowds at Wembley than Spurs or West Ham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eer no it isn't. Remember when Chelsea used to get gates of 8,000. A few years out of the CL, and your gates will plummet. Arsenal also had a gate of 4,000 in my lifetime. The terraces used to be empty at both Stamford Bridge and Highbury back in the day. As good as your support is now, it don't take a lot to lose it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs got about 8,000 for a league match vs Birmingham in the 80's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs still have the third biggest average attendance since football started. Behind United and a fraction behind Liverpool, who have leapfrogged Spurs due to the capacity at WHL only being 36,000 for the past 20 years. Expect Spurs to go back into the top two best supported clubs when the new stadium opens.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
Arsenal are the biggest Club in London still IMO.
Chelsea and Spurs have vied for the second place over the years, depending on WHEN historically you look at it would decide who is currently in the ascendancy. There have been times when Spurs have clearly been in front and there have been times when Chelsea have clearly been in front.
Spurs with their new big ground have struck a big blow but Chelsea with their big ground plans and regular big trophy winning habits have also struck big blows, so it all comes down to interpretation, bias and who you support.
Whatever your persuasion is, the one thing on here that neither set of supporters should be disputing is that BOTH are big Clubs.
Then comes West Ham.
Then comes all the rest IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
Le Ar$e are still Londons biggest club, having the largest fan base of any of the big 4 - which were traditionally Le Ar$e, $purs, Spammers and us!
They still retain popularity from fans who rallied to the banner in their dominance in London under Graham and reinforced under early Wenger.
Ironically, we were probably a bigger club up until the early 70's than we are now in terms of fan base, when gates of 70,000+ were not unusual.
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
But at the end of the day, if you support Yoonited or Accrington Stanley, does it really matter if you love your club?
Those that boast that their club are the biggest usually only follow them for that reason only anyway!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brummie, Spurs are above Arsenal as the best supported club in the country throughout the entirety of football since the 1880s.
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Under The Bridge (U21614)
posted 9 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 7 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by (U21957)
posted 1 minute ago
Pawl, what's is your average in a80k stadium?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is safe to say that Arsenal and Chelsea would get bigger crowds at Wembley than Spurs or West Ham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eer no it isn't. Remember when Chelsea used to get gates of 8,000. A few years out of the CL, and your gates will plummet. Arsenal also had a gate of 4,000 in my lifetime. The terraces used to be empty at both Stamford Bridge and Highbury back in the day. As good as your support is now, it don't take a lot to lose it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs got about 8,000 for a league match vs Birmingham in the 80's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs still have the third biggest average attendance since football started. Behind United and a fraction behind Liverpool, who have leapfrogged Spurs due to the capacity at WHL only being 36,000 for the past 20 years. Expect Spurs to go back into the top two best supported clubs when the new stadium opens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Chelsea were the fifth highest supported club Pre Abramovich despite only one league title whenRomna took over in 2003.
Ahead of Newcastle etc.
The list went:
United
Liverpool
Spurs
Arsenal
Chelsea
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
Chelsea are the biggest club in London for sure. Ask any player or manager which club they’d rather go to, Chelsea or Arsenal, and even if money wasn’t a factor they’d all say Chelsea. That’s the clearest indicator of who’s the biggest club. Only fans (and not even all of them) prioritise history to such a huge extent when judging how big a club is, the people actually in football treat it as a factor, but not the biggest factor. History is a part of it, but so is modern success, financial strength, the quality of player currently at the club and the strength of the current squad, even who the manager is contributes. It’s not history history history like some fans like to claim it is.
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe you me finishing in the top 4 and playing CL footie causes very little frustration regardless of whether it leads to trophies or not.
Frustration was the 90's when we twice saved ourselves from relegation in the penultimate game and could only of dreamed of eating at the top table as we now do.
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Chelsea are the biggest club in London for sure. Ask any player or manager which club they’d rather go to, Chelsea or Arsenal, and even if money wasn’t a factor they’d all say Chelsea. That’s the clearest indicator of who’s the biggest club. Only fans (and not even all of them) prioritise history to such a huge extent when judging how big a club is, the people actually in football treat it as a factor, but not the biggest factor. History is a part of it, but so is modern success, financial strength, the quality of player currently at the club and the strength of the current squad, even who the manager is contributes. It’s not history history history like some fans like to claim it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is the argument for Spurs, no? We're currently the best team in London.
Uh... no? I don’t think Tottenham have been the best team in London for like decades now if ever.
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Chelsea are the biggest club in London for sure. Ask any player or manager which club they’d rather go to, Chelsea or Arsenal, and even if money wasn’t a factor they’d all say Chelsea. That’s the clearest indicator of who’s the biggest club. Only fans (and not even all of them) prioritise history to such a huge extent when judging how big a club is, the people actually in football treat it as a factor, but not the biggest factor. History is a part of it, but so is modern success, financial strength, the quality of player currently at the club and the strength of the current squad, even who the manager is contributes. It’s not history history history like some fans like to claim it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is the argument for Spurs, no? We're currently the best team in London.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How?
Embarrassing England in CL, and below Arsenal and Chelsea in the Prem
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 15 minutes ago
Uh... no? I don’t think Tottenham have been the best team in London for like decades now if ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last season?
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 9 minutes ago
Uh... no? I don’t think Tottenham have been the best team in London for like decades now if ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a strange thing to think.
We all know that your final league position is the barometer of how good you are as everybody plays the same teams home and away. We were Londons top club in 17/18, what don't you understand about that?
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe you me finishing in the top 4 and playing CL footie causes very little frustration regardless of whether it leads to trophies or not.
Frustration was the 90's when we twice saved ourselves from relegation in the penultimate game and could only of dreamed of eating at the top table as we now do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pawl I was including the 90's in my assessment when I said recent years, and that is when I believe Spurs became more active and your Champions League annually qualifying is only over the most recent seasons, I believe it is 3 or so? Please correct me if I have got that wrong.
1 European Cup between the lot of them means this whole argument is moot tbh.
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe you me finishing in the top 4 and playing CL footie causes very little frustration regardless of whether it leads to trophies or not.
Frustration was the 90's when we twice saved ourselves from relegation in the penultimate game and could only of dreamed of eating at the top table as we now do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pawl I was including the 90's in my assessment when I said recent years, and that is when I believe Spurs became more active and your Champions League annually qualifying is only over the most recent seasons, I believe it is 3 or so? Please correct me if I have got that wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair play I didn't realise that you meant the 90's. I guess we have a different take on what recent means.
Seeing as you brought up active firms and I get the feeling from previous threads you know your stuff on this. Why do people who associate hooliganism in London with Millwall, West Ham and Chelsea? I would of thought Feyenoord 74 and Chelsea at the Lane in 75 would have put us in the same category. What are your thoughts?
Yeah Pawl the trouble is that I am such a fossil that the 90's to me is recent.
I do know about what goes on through keeping bad company previously, but not these days (apart from Brummie) and yes Spurs are a major player in that sphere, they just didn't get quite as much publicity as WH, Millwall and Chelsea.
You may have a years on me 69 but I'm old enough to remember watching us against West Ham and having to ask my dad why many of the Hammers fans didn't seem to be watching the game? Haha
Big clubs play in the champions league
-----------------------------------------------------------
Big club establish themselves in the Champions League, we did that between 05-12 and we're still reaping the rewards of it in terms of how we're viewed worldwide. It's the reason City are still struggling to establish a strong fanbase outside of England, there CL record is dreadful.
Spurs need to do something significant in it, whatever that be reach at least the quarters consistently, or have a run to the final like Pool have three times in the last 13 years, until they'll be viewed as a big deal outside of England which is a big factor in defining the term 'big club'. IMO anyway.
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe you me finishing in the top 4 and playing CL footie causes very little frustration regardless of whether it leads to trophies or not.
Frustration was the 90's when we twice saved ourselves from relegation in the penultimate game and could only of dreamed of eating at the top table as we now do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pawl I was including the 90's in my assessment when I said recent years, and that is when I believe Spurs became more active and your Champions League annually qualifying is only over the most recent seasons, I believe it is 3 or so? Please correct me if I have got that wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair play I didn't realise that you meant the 90's. I guess we have a different take on what recent means.
Seeing as you brought up active firms and I get the feeling from previous threads you know your stuff on this. Why do people who associate hooliganism in London with Millwall, West Ham and Chelsea? I would of thought Feyenoord 74 and Chelsea at the Lane in 75 would have put us in the same category. What are your thoughts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the press, Chelsea were/are a better story.
Although we were very active in 80s and 90s.
Two peaks for us imo: mid 80s and again mid 90s.
Depends on what metric you are using. History and Trophies won are all in the past & wont mean shlt come the next Saturday. Spurs right now have the biggest stadium in London, are the only team playing in the Champions league and had more players in the Semis of the World cup than any other team in Europe. We have the World Cup Winning Captain in Goal, Englands center forward/ one of the most in demand players in the world and a manager who has managed to outperform his peers with a "nothing" net spend (while stadium built) over the past 3/4 years while being in demand for some of Europe's biggest clubs. .... Perhaps that counts for more than some random cup final win 20 years ago??????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an excellent argument illustrating Spurs being the best club in London right now, not the biggest.
Sign in if you want to comment
Biggest Club In London
Page 6 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 11/10/18
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 8 hours, 20 minutes ago
Biggest club in London, Chelsea? That's not what your mum said!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another great point More
posted on 11/10/18
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 10 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 6 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by (U21957)
posted 1 minute ago
PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
comment by (U21957)
posted 14 minutes ago
Pawl, what's is your average in a80k stadium?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
67,953. Premership average 17/18
---
So, that's less than 80% of the stadium then?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think United Liverpool Arsenal and Chelsea would all get 80k average, especially at those Spurs' prices
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a chance you would get 80,000 prawnies turn up for 19 games a season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our core following is bigger than yours. That’s why we sell out Carling and Europa games (40k) and you got sub 30k crowds for Europa and Carling games at the Lane.
And we have more prawnies too!
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 5 minutes ago
Big clubs play in the champions league 🤷🏽♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big clubs get past group stage
posted on 11/10/18
Biggest club:
North - Tottenham
East - West Ham
South - Arsenal
West - Chelsea
posted on 11/10/18
London’s finest - Tottenham. League table doesn’t lie and we were top boys. Hence why we ply our trade in the elite completion.
We’ll see what happens this season.
Not sure how “big” is defined but in terms of importance to the city: biggest games in the capital for each:
Tottenham: Arsenal
Arsenal: Tottenham
Chelsea: Tottenham
West Ham : Tottenham
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Under The Bridge (U21614)
posted 9 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 7 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by (U21957)
posted 1 minute ago
Pawl, what's is your average in a80k stadium?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is safe to say that Arsenal and Chelsea would get bigger crowds at Wembley than Spurs or West Ham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eer no it isn't. Remember when Chelsea used to get gates of 8,000. A few years out of the CL, and your gates will plummet. Arsenal also had a gate of 4,000 in my lifetime. The terraces used to be empty at both Stamford Bridge and Highbury back in the day. As good as your support is now, it don't take a lot to lose it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs got about 8,000 for a league match vs Birmingham in the 80's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs still have the third biggest average attendance since football started. Behind United and a fraction behind Liverpool, who have leapfrogged Spurs due to the capacity at WHL only being 36,000 for the past 20 years. Expect Spurs to go back into the top two best supported clubs when the new stadium opens.
posted on 11/10/18
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 13 hours, 18 minutes ago
Arsenal are the biggest Club in London still IMO.
Chelsea and Spurs have vied for the second place over the years, depending on WHEN historically you look at it would decide who is currently in the ascendancy. There have been times when Spurs have clearly been in front and there have been times when Chelsea have clearly been in front.
Spurs with their new big ground have struck a big blow but Chelsea with their big ground plans and regular big trophy winning habits have also struck big blows, so it all comes down to interpretation, bias and who you support.
Whatever your persuasion is, the one thing on here that neither set of supporters should be disputing is that BOTH are big Clubs.
Then comes West Ham.
Then comes all the rest IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on.
Le Ar$e are still Londons biggest club, having the largest fan base of any of the big 4 - which were traditionally Le Ar$e, $purs, Spammers and us!
They still retain popularity from fans who rallied to the banner in their dominance in London under Graham and reinforced under early Wenger.
Ironically, we were probably a bigger club up until the early 70's than we are now in terms of fan base, when gates of 70,000+ were not unusual.
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
But at the end of the day, if you support Yoonited or Accrington Stanley, does it really matter if you love your club?
Those that boast that their club are the biggest usually only follow them for that reason only anyway!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brummie, Spurs are above Arsenal as the best supported club in the country throughout the entirety of football since the 1880s.
posted on 11/10/18
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Under The Bridge (U21614)
posted 9 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 7 hours, 52 minutes ago
comment by (U21957)
posted 1 minute ago
Pawl, what's is your average in a80k stadium?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is safe to say that Arsenal and Chelsea would get bigger crowds at Wembley than Spurs or West Ham
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eer no it isn't. Remember when Chelsea used to get gates of 8,000. A few years out of the CL, and your gates will plummet. Arsenal also had a gate of 4,000 in my lifetime. The terraces used to be empty at both Stamford Bridge and Highbury back in the day. As good as your support is now, it don't take a lot to lose it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs got about 8,000 for a league match vs Birmingham in the 80's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs still have the third biggest average attendance since football started. Behind United and a fraction behind Liverpool, who have leapfrogged Spurs due to the capacity at WHL only being 36,000 for the past 20 years. Expect Spurs to go back into the top two best supported clubs when the new stadium opens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Chelsea were the fifth highest supported club Pre Abramovich despite only one league title whenRomna took over in 2003.
Ahead of Newcastle etc.
The list went:
United
Liverpool
Spurs
Arsenal
Chelsea
posted on 11/10/18
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
posted on 11/10/18
Chelsea are the biggest club in London for sure. Ask any player or manager which club they’d rather go to, Chelsea or Arsenal, and even if money wasn’t a factor they’d all say Chelsea. That’s the clearest indicator of who’s the biggest club. Only fans (and not even all of them) prioritise history to such a huge extent when judging how big a club is, the people actually in football treat it as a factor, but not the biggest factor. History is a part of it, but so is modern success, financial strength, the quality of player currently at the club and the strength of the current squad, even who the manager is contributes. It’s not history history history like some fans like to claim it is.
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe you me finishing in the top 4 and playing CL footie causes very little frustration regardless of whether it leads to trophies or not.
Frustration was the 90's when we twice saved ourselves from relegation in the penultimate game and could only of dreamed of eating at the top table as we now do.
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Chelsea are the biggest club in London for sure. Ask any player or manager which club they’d rather go to, Chelsea or Arsenal, and even if money wasn’t a factor they’d all say Chelsea. That’s the clearest indicator of who’s the biggest club. Only fans (and not even all of them) prioritise history to such a huge extent when judging how big a club is, the people actually in football treat it as a factor, but not the biggest factor. History is a part of it, but so is modern success, financial strength, the quality of player currently at the club and the strength of the current squad, even who the manager is contributes. It’s not history history history like some fans like to claim it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is the argument for Spurs, no? We're currently the best team in London.
posted on 11/10/18
Uh... no? I don’t think Tottenham have been the best team in London for like decades now if ever.
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 7 minutes ago
Chelsea are the biggest club in London for sure. Ask any player or manager which club they’d rather go to, Chelsea or Arsenal, and even if money wasn’t a factor they’d all say Chelsea. That’s the clearest indicator of who’s the biggest club. Only fans (and not even all of them) prioritise history to such a huge extent when judging how big a club is, the people actually in football treat it as a factor, but not the biggest factor. History is a part of it, but so is modern success, financial strength, the quality of player currently at the club and the strength of the current squad, even who the manager is contributes. It’s not history history history like some fans like to claim it is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is the argument for Spurs, no? We're currently the best team in London.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How?
Embarrassing England in CL, and below Arsenal and Chelsea in the Prem
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 15 minutes ago
Uh... no? I don’t think Tottenham have been the best team in London for like decades now if ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last season?
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 9 minutes ago
Uh... no? I don’t think Tottenham have been the best team in London for like decades now if ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a strange thing to think.
We all know that your final league position is the barometer of how good you are as everybody plays the same teams home and away. We were Londons top club in 17/18, what don't you understand about that?
posted on 11/10/18
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe you me finishing in the top 4 and playing CL footie causes very little frustration regardless of whether it leads to trophies or not.
Frustration was the 90's when we twice saved ourselves from relegation in the penultimate game and could only of dreamed of eating at the top table as we now do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pawl I was including the 90's in my assessment when I said recent years, and that is when I believe Spurs became more active and your Champions League annually qualifying is only over the most recent seasons, I believe it is 3 or so? Please correct me if I have got that wrong.
posted on 11/10/18
1 European Cup between the lot of them means this whole argument is moot tbh.
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe you me finishing in the top 4 and playing CL footie causes very little frustration regardless of whether it leads to trophies or not.
Frustration was the 90's when we twice saved ourselves from relegation in the penultimate game and could only of dreamed of eating at the top table as we now do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pawl I was including the 90's in my assessment when I said recent years, and that is when I believe Spurs became more active and your Champions League annually qualifying is only over the most recent seasons, I believe it is 3 or so? Please correct me if I have got that wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair play I didn't realise that you meant the 90's. I guess we have a different take on what recent means.
Seeing as you brought up active firms and I get the feeling from previous threads you know your stuff on this. Why do people who associate hooliganism in London with Millwall, West Ham and Chelsea? I would of thought Feyenoord 74 and Chelsea at the Lane in 75 would have put us in the same category. What are your thoughts?
posted on 11/10/18
who* should read only.
posted on 11/10/18
Yeah Pawl the trouble is that I am such a fossil that the 90's to me is recent.
I do know about what goes on through keeping bad company previously, but not these days (apart from Brummie) and yes Spurs are a major player in that sphere, they just didn't get quite as much publicity as WH, Millwall and Chelsea.
posted on 11/10/18
You may have a years on me 69 but I'm old enough to remember watching us against West Ham and having to ask my dad why many of the Hammers fans didn't seem to be watching the game? Haha
posted on 11/10/18
Big clubs play in the champions league
-----------------------------------------------------------
Big club establish themselves in the Champions League, we did that between 05-12 and we're still reaping the rewards of it in terms of how we're viewed worldwide. It's the reason City are still struggling to establish a strong fanbase outside of England, there CL record is dreadful.
Spurs need to do something significant in it, whatever that be reach at least the quarters consistently, or have a run to the final like Pool have three times in the last 13 years, until they'll be viewed as a big deal outside of England which is a big factor in defining the term 'big club'. IMO anyway.
posted on 11/10/18
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
I've always had an opinion that we lost out on a generation, or more, of young supporters during our dark days which lasted a quarter of a century. In the late 70s and 80s it became more fashionable for young supporters to follow the successful teams, (hence Liverpool's rise to what they are now).
-------------------------------------------
That is very true Brum, and that is also why during that period Chelsea had a very active firm and hardcore passionate (though diminished) fanbase. Big Club's that fall on hard times and have a great deal of unspent frustration will find it manifests itself in the wrong sort of ways. Once that fanbase start winning things, their numbers swell (with plastics) and the need to vent those frustrations in the wrong ways become less. Chelsea's firm these days is soft compared to what it used to be.
IMO that is the same reason why Spurs firm are a lot more active in recent years than previously, because of the frustration levels of not being able to land any silverware. Once they move into their nice new ground and start winning things (which at some time or another they must) then you may find that it may change also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe you me finishing in the top 4 and playing CL footie causes very little frustration regardless of whether it leads to trophies or not.
Frustration was the 90's when we twice saved ourselves from relegation in the penultimate game and could only of dreamed of eating at the top table as we now do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pawl I was including the 90's in my assessment when I said recent years, and that is when I believe Spurs became more active and your Champions League annually qualifying is only over the most recent seasons, I believe it is 3 or so? Please correct me if I have got that wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair play I didn't realise that you meant the 90's. I guess we have a different take on what recent means.
Seeing as you brought up active firms and I get the feeling from previous threads you know your stuff on this. Why do people who associate hooliganism in London with Millwall, West Ham and Chelsea? I would of thought Feyenoord 74 and Chelsea at the Lane in 75 would have put us in the same category. What are your thoughts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the press, Chelsea were/are a better story.
Although we were very active in 80s and 90s.
Two peaks for us imo: mid 80s and again mid 90s.
posted on 11/10/18
Depends on what metric you are using. History and Trophies won are all in the past & wont mean shlt come the next Saturday. Spurs right now have the biggest stadium in London, are the only team playing in the Champions league and had more players in the Semis of the World cup than any other team in Europe. We have the World Cup Winning Captain in Goal, Englands center forward/ one of the most in demand players in the world and a manager who has managed to outperform his peers with a "nothing" net spend (while stadium built) over the past 3/4 years while being in demand for some of Europe's biggest clubs. .... Perhaps that counts for more than some random cup final win 20 years ago??????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an excellent argument illustrating Spurs being the best club in London right now, not the biggest.
Page 6 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10