comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 52 minutes ago
"Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever."
Really disagree with this. If we sold him and look a hit, that would hit the P&L straight away and presumably diminish our ability to invest in the squad to comply with FFP. This summer we need to invest given the players who have left. Sure, we will take a hit at some point... But this summer isn't the right time to do it. Let a bit of his value amortise through the usual cost spreading first. It's allowing us to buy quality in sterling and koulibaly and I'm guessing one or two others before the end of the window.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's if it want cleared as part of the debt that's was paid off in full as part of the purchase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 52 minutes ago
"Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever."
Really disagree with this. If we sold him and look a hit, that would hit the P&L straight away and presumably diminish our ability to invest in the squad to comply with FFP. This summer we need to invest given the players who have left. Sure, we will take a hit at some point... But this summer isn't the right time to do it. Let a bit of his value amortise through the usual cost spreading first. It's allowing us to buy quality in sterling and koulibaly and I'm guessing one or two others before the end of the window.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's if it want cleared as part of the debt that's was paid off in full as part of the purchase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not?
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 13 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 57 minutes ago
Just koulibaly and sterling makes it a better window than spurs tbh. Spurs have been big on numbers in but low on quality. I suspect Chelsea and spurs aren't done spending yet, but my gut instinct says Chelsea will get a better calibre of player, and finish above spurs next year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you compare everything to Tottenham ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called fear mate. A very well known defense mechanism when you see a real challenge.
Belittle everything they do, and at the same time try to tell everyone that what you are doing or have is better than what they are doing or have.
An average Chelsea fan would not have given a t*ss what Spurs were doing a couple of years ago. Now they have a constant opinion on everything.
We are coming up behind them fast, and they know it.
As for their "we are back in the game" Chairman ?
Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever.
Considering buying Ronny when the other 18 Chairman had the sense to not touch it with a barge pole is not clever.
Offering a player no doubt obscene wages util he is 36, which he WILL hold you to, is not clever.
And as for Sterling. Well if, as the poster said, they don't need him, then why waste more money buying him. As I have already said, not clever. I would have thought the bigger question is why were City happy to offload him ?
Still, I am sure your progressive Chairman is "on it"
Just hope someone on the board has told him we don't call it soccer over here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So thick. That poster is not Chelsea
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Arsenal shat it on 16/01/22 - Todger (U18109)
posted 12 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
Chelsea are no longer financially doped, so it stands to reason that without their massive financial advantage of the past 20 years, they will quickly come back to the pack.
We shall see, but Chelsea aint going to be hoovering up trophies like under the Russian.
Big reality check coming up for all their modern fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet they will finish above spurs
Where your nuts at saan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will have some of that action, we will finish above them - state your terms of the bet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just seen this
Ok name change for the off season
Happy to listen any ideas you have.
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 13 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 57 minutes ago
Just koulibaly and sterling makes it a better window than spurs tbh. Spurs have been big on numbers in but low on quality. I suspect Chelsea and spurs aren't done spending yet, but my gut instinct says Chelsea will get a better calibre of player, and finish above spurs next year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you compare everything to Tottenham ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called fear mate. A very well known defense mechanism when you see a real challenge.
Belittle everything they do, and at the same time try to tell everyone that what you are doing or have is better than what they are doing or have.
An average Chelsea fan would not have given a t*ss what Spurs were doing a couple of years ago. Now they have a constant opinion on everything.
We are coming up behind them fast, and they know it.
As for their "we are back in the game" Chairman ?
Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever.
Considering buying Ronny when the other 18 Chairman had the sense to not touch it with a barge pole is not clever.
Offering a player no doubt obscene wages util he is 36, which he WILL hold you to, is not clever.
And as for Sterling. Well if, as the poster said, they don't need him, then why waste more money buying him. As I have already said, not clever. I would have thought the bigger question is why were City happy to offload him ?
Still, I am sure your progressive Chairman is "on it"
Just hope someone on the board has told him we don't call it soccer over here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So thick. That poster is not Chelsea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah everyone else knew that, but this melt loves a conspiracy theory
and as for fear about Spurs? Don't make me laugh, they couldn't handle us back in the days of Dixon and Co. so why should we worry about them these days? I'm not saying that they won't ever have a good day against us but generally we have been in the ascendancy against them for a very long time. It must be a contender for the most one-sided fixture in Premiership history.
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 4 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Arsenal shat it on 16/01/22 - Todger (U18109)
posted 12 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
Chelsea are no longer financially doped, so it stands to reason that without their massive financial advantage of the past 20 years, they will quickly come back to the pack.
We shall see, but Chelsea aint going to be hoovering up trophies like under the Russian.
Big reality check coming up for all their modern fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet they will finish above spurs
Where your nuts at saan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will have some of that action, we will finish above them - state your terms of the bet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just seen this
Ok name change for the off season
Happy to listen any ideas you have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on then, where’s your nuts
Come out come out wherever you are
Strike gone all spursy
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 11 hours, 39 minutes ago
Come out come out wherever you are
Strike gone all spursy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have some respect...he's the smartest person you know...
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 11 hours, 39 minutes ago
Come out come out wherever you are
Strike gone all spursy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have some respect...he's the smartest person you know...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottled it~rofl>
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯✯ (U1561)
posted 2 days, 17 hours ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 13 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 57 minutes ago
Just koulibaly and sterling makes it a better window than spurs tbh. Spurs have been big on numbers in but low on quality. I suspect Chelsea and spurs aren't done spending yet, but my gut instinct says Chelsea will get a better calibre of player, and finish above spurs next year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you compare everything to Tottenham ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called fear mate. A very well known defense mechanism when you see a real challenge.
Belittle everything they do, and at the same time try to tell everyone that what you are doing or have is better than what they are doing or have.
An average Chelsea fan would not have given a t*ss what Spurs were doing a couple of years ago. Now they have a constant opinion on everything.
We are coming up behind them fast, and they know it.
As for their "we are back in the game" Chairman ?
Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever.
Considering buying Ronny when the other 18 Chairman had the sense to not touch it with a barge pole is not clever.
Offering a player no doubt obscene wages util he is 36, which he WILL hold you to, is not clever.
And as for Sterling. Well if, as the poster said, they don't need him, then why waste more money buying him. As I have already said, not clever. I would have thought the bigger question is why were City happy to offload him ?
Still, I am sure your progressive Chairman is "on it"
Just hope someone on the board has told him we don't call it soccer over here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So thick. That poster is not Chelsea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah everyone else knew that, but this melt loves a conspiracy theory
and as for fear about Spurs? Don't make me laugh, they couldn't handle us back in the days of Dixon and Co. so why should we worry about them these days? I'm not saying that they won't ever have a good day against us but generally we have been in the ascendancy against them for a very long time. It must be a contender for the most one-sided fixture in Premiership history.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite. I think the Chelsea v Spurs matches at Stamford Bridge between 1913-14 and 1952-53 take that record, where Chelsea won just one home game against Spurs in 39 seasons. Ouch.
Admittedly they did not meet that many times, but safe say on the games they did meet at Stamford Bridge, and Spurs winning eight games to one, it definitely was the most one sided fixture between the two sides.
Sandy I’m not even gna bother with that mate. I’ve done my research on this and the best case I could make for Spurs was about a 6 year period from memory and certainly nothing like the period’s that we have. You’re even including the Second World War in your claims. 😂
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯✯ (U1561)
posted 31 minutes ago
Sandy I’m not even gna bother with that mate. I’ve done my research on this and the best case I could make for Spurs was about a 6 year period from memory and certainly nothing like the period’s that we have. You’re even including the Second World War in your claims. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer, you don`t have to do any research, I have given you the facts, even allowing for 10 years of war, that was still 29 years and Chelsea only beat Spurs ONCE at Stamford Bridge over that period.
That`s why I don`t get all the modern fans going on about Spurs bad record against Chelsea, as if it is unique. It isn`t. Chelsea were just as bad against Spurs for an even longer period at Stamford Bridge.
Just looking that up. It was actually three home wins in that timeframe (if you're including the 52-53 season), and you very conveniently missed out a 15 year stretch where we didn't play each other, so your claim of "39 seasons" is misleading at best & a bare faced lie at worst - as opposed to us actually owning you every season for over 30 years.
If you're gunna keep posting "facts" like this, you might wanna remember we live in the internet age where this stuff can be checked in literally less than two minutes
Further research which took less than two minutes. Half of that period football was suspended because of the Second World War, and the other half was because the "always superior to Chelsea pre-Roman" Spurs was in Div 2
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 2 minutes ago
Further research which took less than two minutes. Half of that period football was suspended because of the Second World War, and the other half was because the "always superior to Chelsea pre-Roman" Spurs was in Div 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs eight wins at Stamford Bridge to Chelsea winning just the one over a period covering nearly 40 years is the only stat that matters.
Imagine winning just one home game against Spurs in 38 years.
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 6 minutes ago
Further research which took less than two minutes. Half of that period football was suspended because of the Second World War, and the other half was because the "always superior to Chelsea pre-Roman" Spurs was in Div 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ouch one hone win in 38 years. Suck it up petal.
Nah Sandy, its a truly awful record vs Chelsea.
We began to turn it around in recent years, but seasons like the last one when they beat us 4 times was just painful and continues the narrative.
Got a sneaky feeling we'll do OK at SB this season. 2nd game and feel that we're quite settled while they are bit disturbed by key departures which they havent quite filled yet.
Now admittedly this one took me approx five minutes to research.
Between 1987 & 2002, Spurs didn't beat us at WHL in 14 games in all comps!
Just gunna throw that out there
Also you're right Devonshirespur, you have improved vs. us recently, last season was actually a bit of a blip. It's been more even than I realized the last 5-6 years
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 2 minutes ago
Further research which took less than two minutes. Half of that period football was suspended because of the Second World War, and the other half was because the "always superior to Chelsea pre-Roman" Spurs was in Div 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs eight wins at Stamford Bridge to Chelsea winning just the one over a period covering nearly 40 years is the only stat that matters.
Imagine winning just one home game against Spurs in 38 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would that matter at all? Let alone be the only one that matters? It certainly wouldn’t to most people as they are not old enough. Spurs have beaten chelsea about 5 times in my life compared to about 30 the other way.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 31 minutes ago
Nah Sandy, its a truly awful record vs Chelsea.
We began to turn it around in recent years, but seasons like the last one when they beat us 4 times was just painful and continues the narrative.
Got a sneaky feeling we'll do OK at SB this season. 2nd game and feel that we're quite settled while they are bit disturbed by key departures which they havent quite filled yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not discussing the recent record. We are discussing the record over the 38 years pre world war 1 up until the early 1950s, where Chelsea won just ONE game on their own ground against Spurs.
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 18 minutes ago
Now admittedly this one took me approx five minutes to research.
Between 1987 & 2002, Spurs didn't beat us at WHL in 14 games in all comps!
Just gunna throw that out there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stick to the period I am talking about, we can discuss the modern era another time. Including Spurs 100 per cent FA Cup final win record over Chelsea.
Modern? That was 1967 ffs
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 18 minutes ago
Now admittedly this one took me approx five minutes to research.
Between 1987 & 2002, Spurs didn't beat us at WHL in 14 games in all comps!
Just gunna throw that out there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stick to the period I am talking about, we can discuss the modern era another time. Including Spurs 100 per cent FA Cup final win record over Chelsea.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You know if I wasn't extremely hot you might've had me in the wum vortex here.
I really like your subtle modification of language as your argument shifts - "39 seasons" becoming "39 years", a pre-Roman stat being referred to as the "modern era", etc... Quality stuff this
Sign in if you want to comment
Life Without Abramovich
Page 3 of 4
posted on 15/7/22
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 52 minutes ago
"Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever."
Really disagree with this. If we sold him and look a hit, that would hit the P&L straight away and presumably diminish our ability to invest in the squad to comply with FFP. This summer we need to invest given the players who have left. Sure, we will take a hit at some point... But this summer isn't the right time to do it. Let a bit of his value amortise through the usual cost spreading first. It's allowing us to buy quality in sterling and koulibaly and I'm guessing one or two others before the end of the window.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's if it want cleared as part of the debt that's was paid off in full as part of the purchase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
posted on 15/7/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by jesus6662 (U8600)
posted 52 minutes ago
"Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever."
Really disagree with this. If we sold him and look a hit, that would hit the P&L straight away and presumably diminish our ability to invest in the squad to comply with FFP. This summer we need to invest given the players who have left. Sure, we will take a hit at some point... But this summer isn't the right time to do it. Let a bit of his value amortise through the usual cost spreading first. It's allowing us to buy quality in sterling and koulibaly and I'm guessing one or two others before the end of the window.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's if it want cleared as part of the debt that's was paid off in full as part of the purchase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not?
posted on 15/7/22
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 13 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 57 minutes ago
Just koulibaly and sterling makes it a better window than spurs tbh. Spurs have been big on numbers in but low on quality. I suspect Chelsea and spurs aren't done spending yet, but my gut instinct says Chelsea will get a better calibre of player, and finish above spurs next year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you compare everything to Tottenham ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called fear mate. A very well known defense mechanism when you see a real challenge.
Belittle everything they do, and at the same time try to tell everyone that what you are doing or have is better than what they are doing or have.
An average Chelsea fan would not have given a t*ss what Spurs were doing a couple of years ago. Now they have a constant opinion on everything.
We are coming up behind them fast, and they know it.
As for their "we are back in the game" Chairman ?
Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever.
Considering buying Ronny when the other 18 Chairman had the sense to not touch it with a barge pole is not clever.
Offering a player no doubt obscene wages util he is 36, which he WILL hold you to, is not clever.
And as for Sterling. Well if, as the poster said, they don't need him, then why waste more money buying him. As I have already said, not clever. I would have thought the bigger question is why were City happy to offload him ?
Still, I am sure your progressive Chairman is "on it"
Just hope someone on the board has told him we don't call it soccer over here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So thick. That poster is not Chelsea
posted on 16/7/22
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Arsenal shat it on 16/01/22 - Todger (U18109)
posted 12 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
Chelsea are no longer financially doped, so it stands to reason that without their massive financial advantage of the past 20 years, they will quickly come back to the pack.
We shall see, but Chelsea aint going to be hoovering up trophies like under the Russian.
Big reality check coming up for all their modern fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet they will finish above spurs
Where your nuts at saan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will have some of that action, we will finish above them - state your terms of the bet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just seen this
Ok name change for the off season
Happy to listen any ideas you have.
posted on 16/7/22
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 13 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 57 minutes ago
Just koulibaly and sterling makes it a better window than spurs tbh. Spurs have been big on numbers in but low on quality. I suspect Chelsea and spurs aren't done spending yet, but my gut instinct says Chelsea will get a better calibre of player, and finish above spurs next year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you compare everything to Tottenham ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called fear mate. A very well known defense mechanism when you see a real challenge.
Belittle everything they do, and at the same time try to tell everyone that what you are doing or have is better than what they are doing or have.
An average Chelsea fan would not have given a t*ss what Spurs were doing a couple of years ago. Now they have a constant opinion on everything.
We are coming up behind them fast, and they know it.
As for their "we are back in the game" Chairman ?
Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever.
Considering buying Ronny when the other 18 Chairman had the sense to not touch it with a barge pole is not clever.
Offering a player no doubt obscene wages util he is 36, which he WILL hold you to, is not clever.
And as for Sterling. Well if, as the poster said, they don't need him, then why waste more money buying him. As I have already said, not clever. I would have thought the bigger question is why were City happy to offload him ?
Still, I am sure your progressive Chairman is "on it"
Just hope someone on the board has told him we don't call it soccer over here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So thick. That poster is not Chelsea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah everyone else knew that, but this melt loves a conspiracy theory
and as for fear about Spurs? Don't make me laugh, they couldn't handle us back in the days of Dixon and Co. so why should we worry about them these days? I'm not saying that they won't ever have a good day against us but generally we have been in the ascendancy against them for a very long time. It must be a contender for the most one-sided fixture in Premiership history.
posted on 16/7/22
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 4 hours, 54 minutes ago
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - Arsenal shat it on 16/01/22 - Todger (U18109)
posted 12 hours, 41 minutes ago
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 4 hours, 5 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 10 minutes ago
Chelsea are no longer financially doped, so it stands to reason that without their massive financial advantage of the past 20 years, they will quickly come back to the pack.
We shall see, but Chelsea aint going to be hoovering up trophies like under the Russian.
Big reality check coming up for all their modern fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet they will finish above spurs
Where your nuts at saan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will have some of that action, we will finish above them - state your terms of the bet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just seen this
Ok name change for the off season
Happy to listen any ideas you have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on then, where’s your nuts
posted on 16/7/22
Come out come out wherever you are
Strike gone all spursy
posted on 17/7/22
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 11 hours, 39 minutes ago
Come out come out wherever you are
Strike gone all spursy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have some respect...he's the smartest person you know...
posted on 17/7/22
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by Pranks - Going for the JA LFC FF 3peat (U22336)
posted 11 hours, 39 minutes ago
Come out come out wherever you are
Strike gone all spursy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have some respect...he's the smartest person you know...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottled it~rofl>
posted on 19/7/22
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯✯ (U1561)
posted 2 days, 17 hours ago
comment by CFC: Quad stoppers (U20729)
posted 16 hours, 43 minutes ago
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 13 hours, 38 minutes ago
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 13 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by FootyMcfootfoot (U21853)
posted 57 minutes ago
Just koulibaly and sterling makes it a better window than spurs tbh. Spurs have been big on numbers in but low on quality. I suspect Chelsea and spurs aren't done spending yet, but my gut instinct says Chelsea will get a better calibre of player, and finish above spurs next year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you compare everything to Tottenham ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's called fear mate. A very well known defense mechanism when you see a real challenge.
Belittle everything they do, and at the same time try to tell everyone that what you are doing or have is better than what they are doing or have.
An average Chelsea fan would not have given a t*ss what Spurs were doing a couple of years ago. Now they have a constant opinion on everything.
We are coming up behind them fast, and they know it.
As for their "we are back in the game" Chairman ?
Loaning out the most expensive flop in football history, whilst still retaining the £100m liability, knowing it wont be recouped, is really not that clever.
Considering buying Ronny when the other 18 Chairman had the sense to not touch it with a barge pole is not clever.
Offering a player no doubt obscene wages util he is 36, which he WILL hold you to, is not clever.
And as for Sterling. Well if, as the poster said, they don't need him, then why waste more money buying him. As I have already said, not clever. I would have thought the bigger question is why were City happy to offload him ?
Still, I am sure your progressive Chairman is "on it"
Just hope someone on the board has told him we don't call it soccer over here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So thick. That poster is not Chelsea
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah everyone else knew that, but this melt loves a conspiracy theory
and as for fear about Spurs? Don't make me laugh, they couldn't handle us back in the days of Dixon and Co. so why should we worry about them these days? I'm not saying that they won't ever have a good day against us but generally we have been in the ascendancy against them for a very long time. It must be a contender for the most one-sided fixture in Premiership history.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not quite. I think the Chelsea v Spurs matches at Stamford Bridge between 1913-14 and 1952-53 take that record, where Chelsea won just one home game against Spurs in 39 seasons. Ouch.
Admittedly they did not meet that many times, but safe say on the games they did meet at Stamford Bridge, and Spurs winning eight games to one, it definitely was the most one sided fixture between the two sides.
posted on 19/7/22
Sandy I’m not even gna bother with that mate. I’ve done my research on this and the best case I could make for Spurs was about a 6 year period from memory and certainly nothing like the period’s that we have. You’re even including the Second World War in your claims. 😂
posted on 19/7/22
comment by Chelsea_since_summer_1969 ✯✯ (U1561)
posted 31 minutes ago
Sandy I’m not even gna bother with that mate. I’ve done my research on this and the best case I could make for Spurs was about a 6 year period from memory and certainly nothing like the period’s that we have. You’re even including the Second World War in your claims. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer, you don`t have to do any research, I have given you the facts, even allowing for 10 years of war, that was still 29 years and Chelsea only beat Spurs ONCE at Stamford Bridge over that period.
That`s why I don`t get all the modern fans going on about Spurs bad record against Chelsea, as if it is unique. It isn`t. Chelsea were just as bad against Spurs for an even longer period at Stamford Bridge.
posted on 19/7/22
Just looking that up. It was actually three home wins in that timeframe (if you're including the 52-53 season), and you very conveniently missed out a 15 year stretch where we didn't play each other, so your claim of "39 seasons" is misleading at best & a bare faced lie at worst - as opposed to us actually owning you every season for over 30 years.
If you're gunna keep posting "facts" like this, you might wanna remember we live in the internet age where this stuff can be checked in literally less than two minutes
posted on 19/7/22
Further research which took less than two minutes. Half of that period football was suspended because of the Second World War, and the other half was because the "always superior to Chelsea pre-Roman" Spurs was in Div 2
posted on 19/7/22
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 2 minutes ago
Further research which took less than two minutes. Half of that period football was suspended because of the Second World War, and the other half was because the "always superior to Chelsea pre-Roman" Spurs was in Div 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs eight wins at Stamford Bridge to Chelsea winning just the one over a period covering nearly 40 years is the only stat that matters.
Imagine winning just one home game against Spurs in 38 years.
posted on 19/7/22
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 6 minutes ago
Further research which took less than two minutes. Half of that period football was suspended because of the Second World War, and the other half was because the "always superior to Chelsea pre-Roman" Spurs was in Div 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ouch one hone win in 38 years. Suck it up petal.
posted on 19/7/22
. You're funny mate.
posted on 19/7/22
Nah Sandy, its a truly awful record vs Chelsea.
We began to turn it around in recent years, but seasons like the last one when they beat us 4 times was just painful and continues the narrative.
Got a sneaky feeling we'll do OK at SB this season. 2nd game and feel that we're quite settled while they are bit disturbed by key departures which they havent quite filled yet.
posted on 19/7/22
Now admittedly this one took me approx five minutes to research.
Between 1987 & 2002, Spurs didn't beat us at WHL in 14 games in all comps!
Just gunna throw that out there
posted on 19/7/22
Also you're right Devonshirespur, you have improved vs. us recently, last season was actually a bit of a blip. It's been more even than I realized the last 5-6 years
posted on 19/7/22
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 2 minutes ago
Further research which took less than two minutes. Half of that period football was suspended because of the Second World War, and the other half was because the "always superior to Chelsea pre-Roman" Spurs was in Div 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spurs eight wins at Stamford Bridge to Chelsea winning just the one over a period covering nearly 40 years is the only stat that matters.
Imagine winning just one home game against Spurs in 38 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would that matter at all? Let alone be the only one that matters? It certainly wouldn’t to most people as they are not old enough. Spurs have beaten chelsea about 5 times in my life compared to about 30 the other way.
posted on 19/7/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 31 minutes ago
Nah Sandy, its a truly awful record vs Chelsea.
We began to turn it around in recent years, but seasons like the last one when they beat us 4 times was just painful and continues the narrative.
Got a sneaky feeling we'll do OK at SB this season. 2nd game and feel that we're quite settled while they are bit disturbed by key departures which they havent quite filled yet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not discussing the recent record. We are discussing the record over the 38 years pre world war 1 up until the early 1950s, where Chelsea won just ONE game on their own ground against Spurs.
posted on 19/7/22
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 18 minutes ago
Now admittedly this one took me approx five minutes to research.
Between 1987 & 2002, Spurs didn't beat us at WHL in 14 games in all comps!
Just gunna throw that out there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stick to the period I am talking about, we can discuss the modern era another time. Including Spurs 100 per cent FA Cup final win record over Chelsea.
posted on 19/7/22
Modern? That was 1967 ffs
posted on 19/7/22
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Devil (U6522)
posted 18 minutes ago
Now admittedly this one took me approx five minutes to research.
Between 1987 & 2002, Spurs didn't beat us at WHL in 14 games in all comps!
Just gunna throw that out there
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stick to the period I am talking about, we can discuss the modern era another time. Including Spurs 100 per cent FA Cup final win record over Chelsea.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You know if I wasn't extremely hot you might've had me in the wum vortex here.
I really like your subtle modification of language as your argument shifts - "39 seasons" becoming "39 years", a pre-Roman stat being referred to as the "modern era", etc... Quality stuff this
Page 3 of 4