The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Why do people still insist Chelsea is not a big club?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Avatar for TM94
TM94
12
Original post by punkski
.. but whether that's true or not, that wasn't exactly my point was it?

and besides, it's one of many London clubs, what did you expect? hard to imagine Newcastle United would have the attendance it enjoys if it shared the city with a dozen other big clubs for decades. :rolleyes:


How big is London compared to Newcastle though? clown. Had a bigger attendance than you when we were in the championship **** fans.
Reply 41
Avatar for alexsong
alexsong
Original post by TM94
How big is London compared to Newcastle though? clown. Had a bigger attendance than you when we were in the championship **** fans.


Not to mention the home counties which is mostly london club supporters
Original post by punkski
.. but whether that's true or not, that wasn't exactly my point was it?

and besides, it's one of many London clubs, what did you expect? hard to imagine Newcastle United would have the attendance it enjoys if it shared the city with a dozen other big clubs for decades. :rolleyes:


How many people live in london, well they are mostly man utd supporters in london
Reply 43
Avatar for desijut
desijut
10
Original post by Deep456
1992–93: 18,754
1993–94: 19,211
1994–95: 21,062
1995–96: 25,598
1996–97: 27,617
1997–98: 33,387
1998–99: 34,571
1999–00: 34,532
2000–01: 34,700
2001–02: 38,834
2002–03: 39,784
2003–04: 41,234
2004–05: 41,870
2005–06: 41,902
2006–07: 41,909
2007–08: 41,397
2008–09: 41,464

That's why they aren't a huge club. They have been in the premiership the whole time and had pathetic attendances for long periods. Only with the influx of oil money did they manage to sell out, says a lot.


How does that compare to other clubs over the same period? (i.e Arsenal, Tottenham, Fulham, QPR) Link
Original post by desijut
How does that compare to other clubs over the same period? (i.e Arsenal, Tottenham, Fulham, QPR) Link


The likes of Arsenal, Tottenham sell out. They are much better supported. Though, I would say neither set of fans are particularly great but they are both streets ahead of Chelsea.
Reply 45
Avatar for alexsong
alexsong
Original post by Deep456
The likes of Arsenal, Tottenham sell out. They are much better supported. Though, I would say neither set of fans are particularly great but they are both streets ahead of Chelsea.


If you dont just look at attendances Arsenal's support is much better. Since we moved stadium a lot of great fans have been priced out and have been replaced by jonny come latelys and day trippers from abroad but our away support is well respected and there were about 100,000 Arsenal in Paris for the CL final compared to Chelseas 30,000 Munich. Also we very rarely sell out these days
Original post by Deep456
1992–93: 18,754
1993–94: 19,211
1994–95: 21,062
1995–96: 25,598
1996–97: 27,617
1997–98: 33,387
1998–99: 34,571
1999–00: 34,532
2000–01: 34,700
2001–02: 38,834
2002–03: 39,784
2003–04: 41,234
2004–05: 41,870
2005–06: 41,902
2006–07: 41,909
2007–08: 41,397
2008–09: 41,464

That's why they aren't a huge club. They have been in the premiership the whole time and had pathetic attendances for long periods. Only with the influx of oil money did they manage to sell out, says a lot.


What was the capacity of the Bridge throughout the period mentioned, though? 03/04 was the first time the stadium had its current capacity.
Original post by Deep456
1992–93: 18,754
1993–94: 19,211
1994–95: 21,062
1995–96: 25,598
1996–97: 27,617
1997–98: 33,387
1998–99: 34,571
1999–00: 34,532
2000–01: 34,700
2001–02: 38,834
2002–03: 39,784
2003–04: 41,234
2004–05: 41,870
2005–06: 41,902
2006–07: 41,909
2007–08: 41,397
2008–09: 41,464

That's why they aren't a huge club. They have been in the premiership the whole time and had pathetic attendances for long periods. Only with the influx of oil money did they manage to sell out, says a lot.


Stamford Bridge's capacity is only 41,837. And it was expanded when Abramovich took charge.

So please don't made widely inaccurate statements that they have 'Pathetic' attendance.
Original post by Cannotbelieveit
Stamford Bridge's capacity is only 41,837. And it was expanded when Abramovich took charge.

So please don't made widely inaccurate statements that they have 'Pathetic' attendance.


It still doesn't change the fact, you didn't manage to sell out before he took over..... look at the figures.

Never have been a well supported club, never will be. Sure, you will get a few glory hunting fans, however, when they know little/nothing about the club, I wouldn't really classify them as fans.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by alexsong
If you dont just look at attendances Arsenal's support is much better. Since we moved stadium a lot of great fans have been priced out and have been replaced by jonny come latelys and day trippers from abroad but our away support is well respected and there were about 100,000 Arsenal in Paris for the CL final compared to Chelseas 30,000 Munich. Also we very rarely sell out these days


I agree, I meant you could sell out 60,000 stadiums. Chelsea would have no chance of doing that. Their fans are appalling as I said before, just because they have an oligarch splashing cash to win them a few trophies, it won't change the fact they are a much smaller club than the likes of Manchester United, Liverpool. Also smaller than Spurs, Arsenal and Newcastle and even the likes of Everton.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by murpo
Seems like you're looking for arguments. Why even make a thread about this, obviously Chelsea are a big club but people have banter and they didn't do great this season(Regarding League position)


who is that in your sig
Original post by chignesh10
who is that in your sig


daisy lowe
Original post by KimKallstrom
Hanging out at Priory Park in Reigate in Surrey today, I discovered that Manchester City are, in fact, a South London club. I never knew that.


Is it really any different from people living in London not supporting their closest football club? You should see the number of Arsenal shirts in Peckham. I thought I was in Islington once. I mean, if someone supported Chelsea but grew up in Tottenham people would wonder why that person chose Chelsea ahead of Spurs.
Reply 53
Avatar for TRS-T
TRS-T
13
Original post by desijut
How does that compare to other clubs over the same period? (i.e Arsenal, Tottenham, Fulham, QPR) Link


Arsenal

Tottenham

Fulham

QPR
Reply 54
Avatar for TRS-T
TRS-T
13
Original post by NDGAARONDI
Is it really any different from people living in London not supporting their closest football club? You should see the number of Arsenal shirts in Peckham. I thought I was in Islington once. I mean, if someone supported Chelsea but grew up in Tottenham people would wonder why that person chose Chelsea ahead of Spurs.


I would say that Arsenal fans from South London are local gloryhunters.

They should really be supporting a South London club.

But at least they are supporting a London club.

Being a Manchester United fan from London is worse though.
Reply 55
Avatar for desijut
desijut
10
Original post by TRS-T


Cheers, good website, will look into it a bit more later and give my opinion

Original post by TRS-T
I would say that Arsenal fans from South London are local gloryhunters.

They should really be supporting a South London club.

But at least they are supporting a London club.

Being a Manchester United fan from London is worse though.


Arsenal were originally from Woolwich (it's not exactly south london but it's closer lol), until they moved to Highbury
Reply 56
Avatar for Fusion
Fusion
20
They're too unsustainable to be labelled a big club.
Original post by TRS-T
I would say that Arsenal fans from South London are local gloryhunters.

They should really be supporting a South London club.

But at least they are supporting a London club.

Being a Manchester United fan from London is worse though.


I suppose if you make for reasonable allowances, people who have moved out of town for work (especially the armed forces) most people would be happy to make an exception to. I've never seen why people would support Utd while living in London from my point of view. I'm not questioning the integrity of their support, but surely there is only so much distance between yourself and a club before supporting them becomes impractical? I know Greater Manchester is not that far from Greater London but if you go by public transport, especially with cancellations and snow, it can be a right pain to get to the stadium. I mean, if you lived in Peckham and support Arsenal you just jump on the bus or tube.

My brother's girlfriend supports Barcelona but she grew up in Valencia. Asked her, "What's wrong with Levante?". The look on her face was like = :rolleyes:.
These fans that go around banging on about whos a bigger club are seriously boring.

All that matters is the here and now, and next season, what's the league table, who wins the cups.

History is great if you like sitting at home watching videos of past seasons, but most people are more interested in live football.

If you want to know who the 'big clubs' are then look at the food chain of signing power. If your club can't compete with a rival for a big name player then that club is bigger than yours, sorry.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
All that matters is the here and now, and next season, what's the league table, who wins the cups.

History is great if you like sitting at home watching videos of past seasons, but most people are more interested in live football.


I guess. This did remind me of the trophy counting exercise. Sunderland have won the league more times than Newcastle. Not sure if anyone in this thread thinks that Sunderland are bigger than Newcastle though (the population of Newcastle being much larger than Sunderland by metropolitan areas). But then people will have issues equating "weight" of each title. I mean, would anyone equate the current Europa League with the old UEFA Cup, so why do it with the European Cup and the Champions League? Plus, winning the European Cup/Champions League seems to have become more important with a lot of sides over the decades so that would surely have to be considered if people did want to trophy count?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you