Yeah perhaps the case. Just like with Chelsea against spurs, Spurs up their game against City and regularly win
--------------------------------------------------------------------
16-9 to City over the last 10 years, very loose interpretation of the word 'regularly' there.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 32 seconds ago
Yeah perhaps the case. Just like with Chelsea against spurs, Spurs up their game against City and regularly win
--------------------------------------------------------------------
16-9 to City over the last 10 years, very loose interpretation of the word 'regularly' there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering they have been champions 6 times in the last 10 years, yes I would say 9 wins is regular

OP, we will replace Conte with one of those gas stations floaty man - so as animated as Conte

comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 1 hour, 10 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 minutes ago
Chelsea used to be a crap, mostly bottom half of the table team before the lottery win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct Sandy between 1986-96 only the one top half finish. But it was only when the oligarch came in they actually started competing for honours in the modern era.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true. We won more in the 90s than spurs have won in 50 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1986/87: 14th
1986/88: 18th
1989/90: 5th
1990/91: 11th
1991/92: 14th
1992/93: 11th
1993/94: 14th
1994/95: 11th
1995/96: 11th

What exactly wasn’t true in what I originally stated?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
“It was only when the the oligarch came in they started competing for honours.”

Do you think Roman bought chelsea in 96?

comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
Or do you mean the one Fa cup and one league cup that also mirrored spurs trophies in the 90s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you actually think Roman bought chelssa in 96 which is stupid. Chelsea competed in fa cup final in 96.
97 fa cup win
98 league cup win
98 cup winners cup win
98 super cup win
2000 fa cup win
2002 fa cup final
Also finished 4 points off winning the league in 99 with our main striker and main midfielder getting injured.
So what do you mean by “competing for honours” if not the above?

96 should read 94*

Everyone knows chelsea would of win very little without being given more money than everyone else. It’s why I’ve never really been bothered about them, it’s not like they won real trophies is it? They just had a massive advantage over everyone else. I used to do it on championship manager. Just use the cheat code. Wasn’t real though, I didn’t actually beat the game. Same with city.

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
Or do you mean the one Fa cup and one league cup that also mirrored spurs trophies in the 90s
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless you actually think Roman bought chelssa in 96 which is stupid. Chelsea competed in fa cup final in 96.
97 fa cup win
98 league cup win
98 cup winners cup win
98 super cup win
2000 fa cup win
2002 fa cup final
Also finished 4 points off winning the league in 99 with our main striker and main midfielder getting injured.
So what do you mean by “competing for honours” if not the above?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still like I said one FA cup and 1 league cup win in the 90s, which was the date you referred to. Two second rate European trophies. Which if you’re counting your claim of, ‘more trophies in the 90s than spurs in the previous 50 years’ means your the one telling porkies.

Furthermore one could argue all that success late 90s up to 2003 was bought and then bailed out for with the oligarchs purchase.

A quid springs to mind. So it still was a bank rolled team with a blank cheque. Not that different. The oligarch really did save your club from being confined to the bin

Basically you was caught out in a lie.
You said this:
But it was only when the oligarch came in they actually started competing for honours in the modern era.

This is not true. Would you agree?

I’ll admit that I got dates wrong and meant to say 40 years and not 50.

Also saying second rate European trophies when spurs have only won the league cup in 30 years is a bit cheeky.

But chelsea “modern era” so I take it you mean from around prem:

Fa cup 97
League cup 98
Cwc 98
Super cup 98
Fa cup 2000

Spurs last 40 years
League cup 99
League cup 08
Fa cup 91

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 minute ago
Basically you was caught out in a lie.
You said this:
But it was only when the oligarch came in they actually started competing for honours in the modern era.

This is not true. Would you agree?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll give you something I left out the word ‘major’ before honours

Will you admit you spoofed with the, ‘Chelsea won more in the 90s than spurs did in the previous 50 years’ and further admit that just prior to the oligarch purchase Chelsea cheat coded with money they didn’t have and therefore had to be bailed out by a crooked oligarch?

Also Roman didn’t buy the club for a quid. Ken Bates did back in 1982 you donut

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 3 minutes ago
I’ll admit that I got dates wrong and meant to say 40 years and not 50.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 18 seconds ago
Also Roman didn’t buy the club for a quid. Ken Bates did back in 1982 you donut
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never once said he bought the club for a quid. I said a quid springs to mind, referring to the club’s history of being poorly run

But fair enough, personal jibes. Just shows I have got under your skin

comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 minute ago
Basically you was caught out in a lie.
You said this:
But it was only when the oligarch came in they actually started competing for honours in the modern era.

This is not true. Would you agree?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll give you something I left out the word ‘major’ before honours

Will you admit you spoofed with the, ‘Chelsea won more in the 90s than spurs did in the previous 50 years’ and further admit that just prior to the oligarch purchase Chelsea cheat coded with money they didn’t have and therefore had to be bailed out by a crooked oligarch?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were actually “bailed out” by getting cl football. We would have been just fine although obviously not as successful as with Roman. But history is just that and butterfly effect at all.
I’ve never dismissed Romans affects on our success but people act like we wasn’t doing bits before. Like I say more trophies in 6 years than spurs have in 40. I am adamant had casiraghi not got injured, with utd fighting in Europe, we could have won the league in 99 too. But such is life.

Chelsea got dealt a great hand after years of struggling. But we were close, closer than Newcastle, closer than Man City were in their takeover. So the only thing I took issue with is ur statement we only started competing when Roman took over.

comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 18 seconds ago
Also Roman didn’t buy the club for a quid. Ken Bates did back in 1982 you donut
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never once said he bought the club for a quid. I said a quid springs to mind, referring to the club’s history of being poorly run

But fair enough, personal jibes. Just shows I have got under your skin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling you a donut is playful, not a personal jibe ffs I even laughed after it.

Also the way ur post was structured certainly reads like you thought that

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 18 seconds ago
Also Roman didn’t buy the club for a quid. Ken Bates did back in 1982 you donut
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I never once said he bought the club for a quid. I said a quid springs to mind, referring to the club’s history of being poorly run

But fair enough, personal jibes. Just shows I have got under your skin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Calling you a donut is playful, not a personal jibe ffsI even laughed after it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough Nick I have a close mate that is a Chelsea fan. You ain’t all bad

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by BelfastSpur (U15068)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 1 minute ago
Basically you was caught out in a lie.
You said this:
But it was only when the oligarch came in they actually started competing for honours in the modern era.

This is not true. Would you agree?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ll give you something I left out the word ‘major’ before honours

Will you admit you spoofed with the, ‘Chelsea won more in the 90s than spurs did in the previous 50 years’ and further admit that just prior to the oligarch purchase Chelsea cheat coded with money they didn’t have and therefore had to be bailed out by a crooked oligarch?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
We were actually “bailed out” by getting cl football. We would have been just fine although obviously not as successful as with Roman. But history is just that and butterfly effect at all.
I’ve never dismissed Romans affects on our success but people act like we wasn’t doing bits before. Like I say more trophies in 6 years than spurs have in 40. I am adamant had casiraghi not got injured, with utd fighting in Europe, we could have won the league in 99 too. But such is life.

Chelsea got dealt a great hand after years of struggling. But we were close, closer than Newcastle, closer than Man City were in their takeover. So the only thing I took issue with is ur statement we only started competing when Roman took over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Loved casiraghi. I was p*ssed when you signed him. And was such an unfortunate injury. Don’t even think he played 10 games for Chelsea.

No it was sad, he started off really well without scoring, then started to and got injured a week after. A real shame. Unfortunately (for me as a chelsea fan) but in genera we had to wait what 10 years without either Utd or arsenal winning it? Would have been nice to win in 99.

My dad wishes he had me earlier my first season as a season ticket holder was 96/97…I ain’t done bad seeing us pick up stuff haha

comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 9 minutes ago
My dad wishes he had me earliermy first season as a season ticket holder was 96/97…I ain’t done bad seeing us pick up stuff haha
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I loved Italian football in the 90s. So watched on envious as Chelsea snapped up a lot of great players from Serie A.

Still vividly remember the early Di Matteo goal v Boro in the final.

Yeah hoddle and then gullit we’re big reasons. Zola, di matteo, vialli, casiraghi, desailly from ac. Top players