comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy the Super Cup as I see it is highly exclusive. The only 2 Clubs that are even allowed to compete are either the Champions League Winners and formerly The Cup-Winners Cup Winners (now the UEFA Cup winners). No-one else in the whole of Europe is deemed good enough to take part.
Until they did away with that competition it was viewed as the second most important competition in Europe which is why the winners of that and not the UEFA Cup Winners always were entered. You have to win the first competition to even qualify for the second one, so only the cream are even allowed to enter. We were the cream and so qualified to take part and you boys also won it in 1963, but I don't think that they had the Super Cup then or else you may well have put it on the CV.
ps. I liked the comparision with the Emirates CupYou've still got your wumming talents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little like a glorified Charity Shield really isn't it!!
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy the Super Cup as I see it is highly exclusive. The only 2 Clubs that are even allowed to compete are either the Champions League Winners and formerly The Cup-Winners Cup Winners (now the UEFA Cup winners). No-one else in the whole of Europe is deemed good enough to take part.
Until they did away with that competition it was viewed as the second most important competition in Europe which is why the winners of that and not the UEFA Cup Winners always were entered. You have to win the first competition to even qualify for the second one, so only the cream are even allowed to enter. We were the cream and so qualified to take part and you boys also won it in 1963, but I don't think that they had the Super Cup then or else you may well have put it on the CV.
ps. I liked the comparision with the Emirates CupYou've still got your wumming talents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little like a glorified Charity Shield really isn't it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't know Brummie, Spurs haven't played in the Charity Shield for About 30 years.
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy the Super Cup as I see it is highly exclusive. The only 2 Clubs that are even allowed to compete are either the Champions League Winners and formerly The Cup-Winners Cup Winners (now the UEFA Cup winners). No-one else in the whole of Europe is deemed good enough to take part.
Until they did away with that competition it was viewed as the second most important competition in Europe which is why the winners of that and not the UEFA Cup Winners always were entered. You have to win the first competition to even qualify for the second one, so only the cream are even allowed to enter. We were the cream and so qualified to take part and you boys also won it in 1963, but I don't think that they had the Super Cup then or else you may well have put it on the CV.
ps. I liked the comparision with the Emirates CupYou've still got your wumming talents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little like a glorified Charity Shield really isn't it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't know Brummie, Spurs haven't played in the Charity Shield for About 30 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No Charity Shield - can't be a big club then!!
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy the Super Cup as I see it is highly exclusive. The only 2 Clubs that are even allowed to compete are either the Champions League Winners and formerly The Cup-Winners Cup Winners (now the UEFA Cup winners). No-one else in the whole of Europe is deemed good enough to take part.
Until they did away with that competition it was viewed as the second most important competition in Europe which is why the winners of that and not the UEFA Cup Winners always were entered. You have to win the first competition to even qualify for the second one, so only the cream are even allowed to enter. We were the cream and so qualified to take part and you boys also won it in 1963, but I don't think that they had the Super Cup then or else you may well have put it on the CV.
ps. I liked the comparision with the Emirates CupYou've still got your wumming talents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little like a glorified Charity Shield really isn't it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't know Brummie, Spurs haven't played in the Charity Shield for About 30 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No Charity Shield - can't be a big club then!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 10 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Spurs had won more of every trophy. Your revenue had hit rock bottom in the 1990s, that is why the club nearly went bankrupt, borrowed money you didn`t have coming in, and had to be bailed out.
You can dress it up how you like but Spurs and Arsenal were the two biggest clubs in London prior to the Russian takeover, despite Chelsea having a few decent years just prior to the Russian, but that was because of the money borrowed, that they had no way of paying back. Basically spending money they didn`t have to gain a couple of cups.
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 10 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLUBS THAT ALMOST FOLDED
CHELSEA: 1982 and 2003
Long before the embarrassment of riches oil tycoon Roman Abramovich brought to Chelsea, they were terribly close to folding in the early '80s. Prior to Ken Bates buying the club (and all its debts) for £1 in 1982, the Blues' reputation was plummeting because of trouble with hooliganism, while the cost of building the new East Stand (see video below) sent their finances into the red. Relegation threatened to the old Division Three (third tier) loomed, too, when they were forced to cash in on their best players, but Bates managed to avert the club going under and gradually got the team moving in the right direction. The Bates era wasn't all good, however, and towards the end of his reign Chelsea were once more teetering on the edge of a financial abyss, saved by the arrival of Roman Abramovich and his vast wealth. While Bates had overseen refurbishments to Stamford Bridge, trophies and impressive finishes in the Premier League, mounting debts nearing £80m meant a top four finish, which they secured on the final day of the 2002/03 season, was crucial to the club's survival, before white knight Abramovich swept in a new era of unprecedented riches.
We almost folded but you can get bent.
soccer?lol.
No mention of the late Mathew Harding then...he was building stuff ten years before Roman was on the scene
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
No mention of the late Mathew Harding then...he was building stuff ten years before Roman was on the scene
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP Matthew Harding: got us back in the big time
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 6 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true. With the backing of Harding and Bates, excursions in Europe, the buying of players like Zola, Vialli,LeBeouf, Desailly and Lampard among numerous others and a few cup wins Chelsea were definitely a fair distance ahead of us by the late 90's and early 00's.
Any Spurs fan that says we were the bigger better club until one day Uncle Roman turned up is, I'm afraid, deluded.
They'd finished inside the top 6 every year (going as high as 3rd) from 1996 until Roman's takeover in 2003/04, and won the FA Cup twice, the League Cup and the European Cup Winners Cup in that time. 7 straight top 6 finishes and 4 trophies. What had we done round that time? One poxy lucky Carling Cup win and numerous 14th - 17th place finishes. Absolutely fack all under that malingering fat little cuuunt Sugar, that's what.
They were much better positioned than us to push on that's for sure. Yes, they got lucky in that Bates pushed it to the limit and RA saved them, but that doesn't afford us any smugness - we were genuinely abysmal around this time and lucky not to have been relegated. I'd rather we'd been on the verge of bankruptcy while winning trophies then saved by a bent oil baron than winning fack all under Sugar only to be bought by ENIC and winning yet more fack all for the following two decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace you are missing the point, yes they were better than Spurs at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s before Abramovich arrived. But that was due to the fact they had borrowed lots of money to get in that position, and had absolutely no way of paying it back. It was a completely false economical way of running a club. All clubs could have done what Chelsea did, but they would then run the very serious risk of going out of business.
Chelsea got lucky, and were bailed out big time. I believe Abramovich pumped in something like a billion to get them back on an even keel, and save them from going under. I think if he sells up, he may be wanting some of the £1 billion loans he put into the club back. That could cause Chelsea a major problem.
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 7 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true. With the backing of Harding and Bates, excursions in Europe, the buying of players like Zola, Vialli,LeBeouf, Desailly and Lampard among numerous others and a few cup wins Chelsea were definitely a fair distance ahead of us by the late 90's and early 00's.
Any Spurs fan that says we were the bigger better club until one day Uncle Roman turned up is, I'm afraid, deluded.
They'd finished inside the top 6 every year (going as high as 3rd) from 1996 until Roman's takeover in 2003/04, and won the FA Cup twice, the League Cup and the European Cup Winners Cup in that time. 7 straight top 6 finishes and 4 trophies. What had we done round that time? One poxy lucky Carling Cup win and numerous 14th - 17th place finishes. Absolutely fack all under that malingering fat little cuuunt Sugar, that's what.
They were much better positioned than us to push on that's for sure. Yes, they got lucky in that Bates pushed it to the limit and RA saved them, but that doesn't afford us any smugness - we were genuinely abysmal around this time and lucky not to have been relegated. I'd rather we'd been on the verge of bankruptcy while winning trophies then saved by a bent oil baron than winning fack all under Sugar only to be bought by ENIC and winning yet more fack all for the following two decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow an honest post from a Spurs fan
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 6 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true. With the backing of Harding and Bates, excursions in Europe, the buying of players like Zola, Vialli,LeBeouf, Desailly and Lampard among numerous others and a few cup wins Chelsea were definitely a fair distance ahead of us by the late 90's and early 00's.
Any Spurs fan that says we were the bigger better club until one day Uncle Roman turned up is, I'm afraid, deluded.
They'd finished inside the top 6 every year (going as high as 3rd) from 1996 until Roman's takeover in 2003/04, and won the FA Cup twice, the League Cup and the European Cup Winners Cup in that time. 7 straight top 6 finishes and 4 trophies. What had we done round that time? One poxy lucky Carling Cup win and numerous 14th - 17th place finishes. Absolutely fack all under that malingering fat little cuuunt Sugar, that's what.
They were much better positioned than us to push on that's for sure. Yes, they got lucky in that Bates pushed it to the limit and RA saved them, but that doesn't afford us any smugness - we were genuinely abysmal around this time and lucky not to have been relegated. I'd rather we'd been on the verge of bankruptcy while winning trophies then saved by a bent oil baron than winning fack all under Sugar only to be bought by ENIC and winning yet more fack all for the following two decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace you are missing the point, yes they were better than Spurs at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s before Abramovich arrived. But that was due to the fact they had borrowed lots of money to get in that position, and had absolutely no way of paying it back. It was a completely false economical way of running a club. All clubs could have done what Chelsea did, but they would then run the very serious risk of going out of business.
Chelsea got lucky, and were bailed out big time. I believe Abramovich pumped in something like a billion to get them back on an even keel, and save them from going under. I think if he sells up, he may be wanting some of the £1 billion loans he put into the club back. That could cause Chelsea a major problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? He will sell the club for £1bn plus and get his cash back
Well said Ace, poor old Sandy's mooching around the market now,steam coming outa his ears ! laugh>laugh>
Ace you are missing the point, yes they were better than Spurs at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s before Abramovich arrived. But that was due to the fact they had borrowed lots of money to get in that position, and had absolutely no way of paying it back. It was a completely false economical way of running a club. All clubs could have done what Chelsea did, but they would then run the very serious risk of going out of business.
Chelsea got lucky, and were bailed out big time. I believe Abramovich pumped in something like a billion to get them back on an even keel, and save them from going under. I think if he sells up, he may be wanting some of the £1 billion loans he put into the club back. That could cause Chelsea a major problem.
--------------------------------------------------------
Good first paragraph, poor second one.
We were lucky that Roman came when he did otherwise there was a genuine risk of us becoming another Leeds, that's completely true. But (a) the debts were nowhere near a billion pounds, Roman decided to further invest to make us the club we are today, to just keep us functioning as a stable top 6 outfit (cos as Ace so brilliantly said the team was more than decent, had a fantastic young spine) he could've cut his invest in half. The billions he's invested over the years was his choice. And (b), there's zero chance of us plummeting back into debt with our next ownership takeover, worse case scenario we'll wind up with a bad owner once the takeover happens but the takeover itself won't end us.
I know very little about the ownership situation at Spurs, I remember Ace calling me out on my ignorance awhile ago, but the circumstances in which made us attractive to Roman over Spurs in the first place speaks to the biggest inherit difference between our clubs since the mid 90's, the way I see it anyway. We're risk takers, we gamble with our investments, managers and business model, and we've done well for it. And conversely Spurs have been one of the most 'play it safe' clubs during that time and it's only recently it's begun paying off, to the point where if you pushed the boat out just a little you genuinely might win something big within 5 years - but I don't believe you will take that risk.
Ace I have got to say that you talk a lot of sense, and clearly can detach Club loyalty from the reality of the situation.
I also like to believe that I talk a lot of sense also and I would be the first to admit that many times in the previous histories of the 2 Clubs Spurs have been well in front of us also. I remember being well jel when they were winning FA Cups in '81 and '82 and we were a Club that had potential because of our geography but on the surface of it were shi it and languishing in Div 2 with no prospects of generating any movement anywhere any top table in Football.
On the subject of being "lucky" and "Winning the Lottery" I have never bought into that concept. The only luck we have ever had is to be situated where we are. We are always gna have rich suitors from far flung parts of the globe interested in buying us because we have always had the potential to be a big Club and Abramovich has now given us the boost to fully realise that potential. I am not in the slightest bit worried if RA leaves (although I would like him to stay because he has shown himself to be a good custodian) because as a Club there is no closing Pandora's box here. We are here to stay as a major player.
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 minute ago
Ace I have got to say that you talk a lot of sense, and clearly can detach Club loyalty from the reality of the situation.
I also like to believe that I talk a lot of sense also and I would be the first to admit that many times in the previous histories of the 2 Clubs Spurs have been well in front of us also. I remember being well jel when they were winning FA Cups in '81 and '82 and we were a Club that had potential because of our geography but on the surface of it were shi it and languishing in Div 2 with no prospects of generating any movement anywhere any top table in Football.
On the subject of being "lucky" and "Winning the Lottery" I have never bought into that concept. The only luck we have ever had is to be situated where we are. We are always gna have rich suitors from far flung parts of the globe interested in buying us because we have always had the potential to be a big Club and Abramovich has now given us the boost to fully realise that potential. I am not in the slightest bit worried if RA leaves (although I would like him to stay because he has shown himself to be a good custodian) because as a Club there is no closing Pandora's box here. We are here to stay as a major player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep we are an established elite club with huge commercial revenue and would have no problem finding a buyer
Bates knew that as they said in the film "Field of Dreams" "Build it and he will come!".
He did, and indeed HE did come. The rest is history.
On a side note with no offence intended or no bites wanted, Forgetting the silverware which makes spurs argument to be a big club non-existent, they really need to get rid of that stupid logo of a chicken standing on a fkin beach ball before they want to be a part of the world elite
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Oscar. #TeamFury, 2018 RETURN OF THE MACK! (U12980)
posted 4 minutes ago
On a side note with no offence intended or no bites wanted, Forgetting the silverware which makes spurs argument to be a big club non-existent, they really need to get rid of that stupid logo of a chicken standing on a fkin beach ball before they want to be a part of the world elite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand the argument about silverware being the benchmark for being a big club.
$purs trophy cabinet might have been closed for renovations for the best part of 30 years and Levy probably slept with the League cup under his bed, but there is more to a big club than silverware.
The size and infrastructure of a club for me far outweigh what's in the trophy cabinet and only a fool would try and claim $purs do not qualify as a big club on those counts.
Not many of us are true giants of the game such as the parasites from Madrid or Barca and the Red part of Manchester, Dorset, Norfolk, Devon & Cornwall, Somerset and Lincolnshire - but it doesn't bother us does it?
If it did, you're following the wrong club here anyway!
Sign in if you want to comment
Biggest Club In London
Page 8 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 11/10/18
.....and here he is
posted on 11/10/18
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy the Super Cup as I see it is highly exclusive. The only 2 Clubs that are even allowed to compete are either the Champions League Winners and formerly The Cup-Winners Cup Winners (now the UEFA Cup winners). No-one else in the whole of Europe is deemed good enough to take part.
Until they did away with that competition it was viewed as the second most important competition in Europe which is why the winners of that and not the UEFA Cup Winners always were entered. You have to win the first competition to even qualify for the second one, so only the cream are even allowed to enter. We were the cream and so qualified to take part and you boys also won it in 1963, but I don't think that they had the Super Cup then or else you may well have put it on the CV.
ps. I liked the comparision with the Emirates CupYou've still got your wumming talents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little like a glorified Charity Shield really isn't it!!
posted on 11/10/18
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy the Super Cup as I see it is highly exclusive. The only 2 Clubs that are even allowed to compete are either the Champions League Winners and formerly The Cup-Winners Cup Winners (now the UEFA Cup winners). No-one else in the whole of Europe is deemed good enough to take part.
Until they did away with that competition it was viewed as the second most important competition in Europe which is why the winners of that and not the UEFA Cup Winners always were entered. You have to win the first competition to even qualify for the second one, so only the cream are even allowed to enter. We were the cream and so qualified to take part and you boys also won it in 1963, but I don't think that they had the Super Cup then or else you may well have put it on the CV.
ps. I liked the comparision with the Emirates CupYou've still got your wumming talents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little like a glorified Charity Shield really isn't it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't know Brummie, Spurs haven't played in the Charity Shield for About 30 years.
posted on 11/10/18
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy the Super Cup as I see it is highly exclusive. The only 2 Clubs that are even allowed to compete are either the Champions League Winners and formerly The Cup-Winners Cup Winners (now the UEFA Cup winners). No-one else in the whole of Europe is deemed good enough to take part.
Until they did away with that competition it was viewed as the second most important competition in Europe which is why the winners of that and not the UEFA Cup Winners always were entered. You have to win the first competition to even qualify for the second one, so only the cream are even allowed to enter. We were the cream and so qualified to take part and you boys also won it in 1963, but I don't think that they had the Super Cup then or else you may well have put it on the CV.
ps. I liked the comparision with the Emirates CupYou've still got your wumming talents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little like a glorified Charity Shield really isn't it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't know Brummie, Spurs haven't played in the Charity Shield for About 30 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No Charity Shield - can't be a big club then!!
posted on 12/10/18
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 6 hours, 56 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
Sandy the Super Cup as I see it is highly exclusive. The only 2 Clubs that are even allowed to compete are either the Champions League Winners and formerly The Cup-Winners Cup Winners (now the UEFA Cup winners). No-one else in the whole of Europe is deemed good enough to take part.
Until they did away with that competition it was viewed as the second most important competition in Europe which is why the winners of that and not the UEFA Cup Winners always were entered. You have to win the first competition to even qualify for the second one, so only the cream are even allowed to enter. We were the cream and so qualified to take part and you boys also won it in 1963, but I don't think that they had the Super Cup then or else you may well have put it on the CV.
ps. I liked the comparision with the Emirates CupYou've still got your wumming talents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a little like a glorified Charity Shield really isn't it!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't know Brummie, Spurs haven't played in the Charity Shield for About 30 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No Charity Shield - can't be a big club then!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 12/10/18
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
posted on 12/10/18
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 10 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Spurs had won more of every trophy. Your revenue had hit rock bottom in the 1990s, that is why the club nearly went bankrupt, borrowed money you didn`t have coming in, and had to be bailed out.
You can dress it up how you like but Spurs and Arsenal were the two biggest clubs in London prior to the Russian takeover, despite Chelsea having a few decent years just prior to the Russian, but that was because of the money borrowed, that they had no way of paying back. Basically spending money they didn`t have to gain a couple of cups.
posted on 12/10/18
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 10 hours, 45 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CLUBS THAT ALMOST FOLDED
CHELSEA: 1982 and 2003
Long before the embarrassment of riches oil tycoon Roman Abramovich brought to Chelsea, they were terribly close to folding in the early '80s. Prior to Ken Bates buying the club (and all its debts) for £1 in 1982, the Blues' reputation was plummeting because of trouble with hooliganism, while the cost of building the new East Stand (see video below) sent their finances into the red. Relegation threatened to the old Division Three (third tier) loomed, too, when they were forced to cash in on their best players, but Bates managed to avert the club going under and gradually got the team moving in the right direction. The Bates era wasn't all good, however, and towards the end of his reign Chelsea were once more teetering on the edge of a financial abyss, saved by the arrival of Roman Abramovich and his vast wealth. While Bates had overseen refurbishments to Stamford Bridge, trophies and impressive finishes in the Premier League, mounting debts nearing £80m meant a top four finish, which they secured on the final day of the 2002/03 season, was crucial to the club's survival, before white knight Abramovich swept in a new era of unprecedented riches.
posted on 12/10/18
We almost folded but you can get bent.
soccer?lol.
posted on 12/10/18
No mention of the late Mathew Harding then...he was building stuff ten years before Roman was on the scene
posted on 12/10/18
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
No mention of the late Mathew Harding then...he was building stuff ten years before Roman was on the scene
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RIP Matthew Harding: got us back in the big time
posted on 13/10/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/10/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/10/18
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 6 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true. With the backing of Harding and Bates, excursions in Europe, the buying of players like Zola, Vialli,LeBeouf, Desailly and Lampard among numerous others and a few cup wins Chelsea were definitely a fair distance ahead of us by the late 90's and early 00's.
Any Spurs fan that says we were the bigger better club until one day Uncle Roman turned up is, I'm afraid, deluded.
They'd finished inside the top 6 every year (going as high as 3rd) from 1996 until Roman's takeover in 2003/04, and won the FA Cup twice, the League Cup and the European Cup Winners Cup in that time. 7 straight top 6 finishes and 4 trophies. What had we done round that time? One poxy lucky Carling Cup win and numerous 14th - 17th place finishes. Absolutely fack all under that malingering fat little cuuunt Sugar, that's what.
They were much better positioned than us to push on that's for sure. Yes, they got lucky in that Bates pushed it to the limit and RA saved them, but that doesn't afford us any smugness - we were genuinely abysmal around this time and lucky not to have been relegated. I'd rather we'd been on the verge of bankruptcy while winning trophies then saved by a bent oil baron than winning fack all under Sugar only to be bought by ENIC and winning yet more fack all for the following two decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace you are missing the point, yes they were better than Spurs at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s before Abramovich arrived. But that was due to the fact they had borrowed lots of money to get in that position, and had absolutely no way of paying it back. It was a completely false economical way of running a club. All clubs could have done what Chelsea did, but they would then run the very serious risk of going out of business.
Chelsea got lucky, and were bailed out big time. I believe Abramovich pumped in something like a billion to get them back on an even keel, and save them from going under. I think if he sells up, he may be wanting some of the £1 billion loans he put into the club back. That could cause Chelsea a major problem.
posted on 13/10/18
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 7 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true. With the backing of Harding and Bates, excursions in Europe, the buying of players like Zola, Vialli,LeBeouf, Desailly and Lampard among numerous others and a few cup wins Chelsea were definitely a fair distance ahead of us by the late 90's and early 00's.
Any Spurs fan that says we were the bigger better club until one day Uncle Roman turned up is, I'm afraid, deluded.
They'd finished inside the top 6 every year (going as high as 3rd) from 1996 until Roman's takeover in 2003/04, and won the FA Cup twice, the League Cup and the European Cup Winners Cup in that time. 7 straight top 6 finishes and 4 trophies. What had we done round that time? One poxy lucky Carling Cup win and numerous 14th - 17th place finishes. Absolutely fack all under that malingering fat little cuuunt Sugar, that's what.
They were much better positioned than us to push on that's for sure. Yes, they got lucky in that Bates pushed it to the limit and RA saved them, but that doesn't afford us any smugness - we were genuinely abysmal around this time and lucky not to have been relegated. I'd rather we'd been on the verge of bankruptcy while winning trophies then saved by a bent oil baron than winning fack all under Sugar only to be bought by ENIC and winning yet more fack all for the following two decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow an honest post from a Spurs fan
posted on 13/10/18
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 59 minutes ago
comment by Ace (U18814)
posted 6 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by CFC: FFP Champions (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 25 minutes ago
comment by sandy YNWA (U20567)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Erik (U21750)
posted 1 hour, 27 minutes ago
comment by Flashy flibble (U10324)
posted 4 hours, 41 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol, finishing higher in the league for the odd season or two while never really achieving anything in particular doesn't make Tottenham better than Chelsea. You have to be either consistently finishing above the other team for a large period of time or winning big trophies, like Chelsea have in the last few years (two league titles).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeh well Chelsea won the lottery, so that is why all their trophies have come in the past 15 years. Before that they had very little on their CV. Less trophies of everything than Spurs had. Shows you that money does buy success.
Not knocking you boys, but you know without the money Spurs and Arsenal would both be streets ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posssibly Arsenal, but not Spurs.
Our revenue was tenth biggest in Europe when Roman took over. And we had won Facup, cup winners cup, competed in CL and were better than Spurs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true. With the backing of Harding and Bates, excursions in Europe, the buying of players like Zola, Vialli,LeBeouf, Desailly and Lampard among numerous others and a few cup wins Chelsea were definitely a fair distance ahead of us by the late 90's and early 00's.
Any Spurs fan that says we were the bigger better club until one day Uncle Roman turned up is, I'm afraid, deluded.
They'd finished inside the top 6 every year (going as high as 3rd) from 1996 until Roman's takeover in 2003/04, and won the FA Cup twice, the League Cup and the European Cup Winners Cup in that time. 7 straight top 6 finishes and 4 trophies. What had we done round that time? One poxy lucky Carling Cup win and numerous 14th - 17th place finishes. Absolutely fack all under that malingering fat little cuuunt Sugar, that's what.
They were much better positioned than us to push on that's for sure. Yes, they got lucky in that Bates pushed it to the limit and RA saved them, but that doesn't afford us any smugness - we were genuinely abysmal around this time and lucky not to have been relegated. I'd rather we'd been on the verge of bankruptcy while winning trophies then saved by a bent oil baron than winning fack all under Sugar only to be bought by ENIC and winning yet more fack all for the following two decades.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace you are missing the point, yes they were better than Spurs at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s before Abramovich arrived. But that was due to the fact they had borrowed lots of money to get in that position, and had absolutely no way of paying it back. It was a completely false economical way of running a club. All clubs could have done what Chelsea did, but they would then run the very serious risk of going out of business.
Chelsea got lucky, and were bailed out big time. I believe Abramovich pumped in something like a billion to get them back on an even keel, and save them from going under. I think if he sells up, he may be wanting some of the £1 billion loans he put into the club back. That could cause Chelsea a major problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? He will sell the club for £1bn plus and get his cash back
posted on 13/10/18
Well said Ace, poor old Sandy's mooching around the market now,steam coming outa his ears ! laugh>laugh>
posted on 13/10/18
posted on 13/10/18
Ace you are missing the point, yes they were better than Spurs at the end of the 1990s and early 2000s before Abramovich arrived. But that was due to the fact they had borrowed lots of money to get in that position, and had absolutely no way of paying it back. It was a completely false economical way of running a club. All clubs could have done what Chelsea did, but they would then run the very serious risk of going out of business.
Chelsea got lucky, and were bailed out big time. I believe Abramovich pumped in something like a billion to get them back on an even keel, and save them from going under. I think if he sells up, he may be wanting some of the £1 billion loans he put into the club back. That could cause Chelsea a major problem.
--------------------------------------------------------
Good first paragraph, poor second one.
We were lucky that Roman came when he did otherwise there was a genuine risk of us becoming another Leeds, that's completely true. But (a) the debts were nowhere near a billion pounds, Roman decided to further invest to make us the club we are today, to just keep us functioning as a stable top 6 outfit (cos as Ace so brilliantly said the team was more than decent, had a fantastic young spine) he could've cut his invest in half. The billions he's invested over the years was his choice. And (b), there's zero chance of us plummeting back into debt with our next ownership takeover, worse case scenario we'll wind up with a bad owner once the takeover happens but the takeover itself won't end us.
I know very little about the ownership situation at Spurs, I remember Ace calling me out on my ignorance awhile ago, but the circumstances in which made us attractive to Roman over Spurs in the first place speaks to the biggest inherit difference between our clubs since the mid 90's, the way I see it anyway. We're risk takers, we gamble with our investments, managers and business model, and we've done well for it. And conversely Spurs have been one of the most 'play it safe' clubs during that time and it's only recently it's begun paying off, to the point where if you pushed the boat out just a little you genuinely might win something big within 5 years - but I don't believe you will take that risk.
posted on 13/10/18
Ace I have got to say that you talk a lot of sense, and clearly can detach Club loyalty from the reality of the situation.
I also like to believe that I talk a lot of sense also and I would be the first to admit that many times in the previous histories of the 2 Clubs Spurs have been well in front of us also. I remember being well jel when they were winning FA Cups in '81 and '82 and we were a Club that had potential because of our geography but on the surface of it were shi it and languishing in Div 2 with no prospects of generating any movement anywhere any top table in Football.
On the subject of being "lucky" and "Winning the Lottery" I have never bought into that concept. The only luck we have ever had is to be situated where we are. We are always gna have rich suitors from far flung parts of the globe interested in buying us because we have always had the potential to be a big Club and Abramovich has now given us the boost to fully realise that potential. I am not in the slightest bit worried if RA leaves (although I would like him to stay because he has shown himself to be a good custodian) because as a Club there is no closing Pandora's box here. We are here to stay as a major player.
posted on 13/10/18
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯ (U1561)
posted 1 minute ago
Ace I have got to say that you talk a lot of sense, and clearly can detach Club loyalty from the reality of the situation.
I also like to believe that I talk a lot of sense also and I would be the first to admit that many times in the previous histories of the 2 Clubs Spurs have been well in front of us also. I remember being well jel when they were winning FA Cups in '81 and '82 and we were a Club that had potential because of our geography but on the surface of it were shi it and languishing in Div 2 with no prospects of generating any movement anywhere any top table in Football.
On the subject of being "lucky" and "Winning the Lottery" I have never bought into that concept. The only luck we have ever had is to be situated where we are. We are always gna have rich suitors from far flung parts of the globe interested in buying us because we have always had the potential to be a big Club and Abramovich has now given us the boost to fully realise that potential. I am not in the slightest bit worried if RA leaves (although I would like him to stay because he has shown himself to be a good custodian) because as a Club there is no closing Pandora's box here. We are here to stay as a major player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep we are an established elite club with huge commercial revenue and would have no problem finding a buyer
posted on 13/10/18
Bates knew that as they said in the film "Field of Dreams" "Build it and he will come!".
He did, and indeed HE did come. The rest is history.
posted on 13/10/18
On a side note with no offence intended or no bites wanted, Forgetting the silverware which makes spurs argument to be a big club non-existent, they really need to get rid of that stupid logo of a chicken standing on a fkin beach ball before they want to be a part of the world elite
posted on 13/10/18
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 13/10/18
comment by Oscar. #TeamFury, 2018 RETURN OF THE MACK! (U12980)
posted 4 minutes ago
On a side note with no offence intended or no bites wanted, Forgetting the silverware which makes spurs argument to be a big club non-existent, they really need to get rid of that stupid logo of a chicken standing on a fkin beach ball before they want to be a part of the world elite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand the argument about silverware being the benchmark for being a big club.
$purs trophy cabinet might have been closed for renovations for the best part of 30 years and Levy probably slept with the League cup under his bed, but there is more to a big club than silverware.
The size and infrastructure of a club for me far outweigh what's in the trophy cabinet and only a fool would try and claim $purs do not qualify as a big club on those counts.
Not many of us are true giants of the game such as the parasites from Madrid or Barca and the Red part of Manchester, Dorset, Norfolk, Devon & Cornwall, Somerset and Lincolnshire - but it doesn't bother us does it?
If it did, you're following the wrong club here anyway!
Page 8 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10