This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- What team do you support and why?
- Why is Man City hated so much?
- Chelsea F.C. Thread IX
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- Time for Erik Ten Hag to be sacked?
- How to understand football as a girl - help
- UAL Chelsea V Central Saint Martins - Fine Art BA
- Which club will more likely finish Top 4 EPL
- The Arsenal Thread XXVI
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Will EPL become a farmers league?
- Camberwell or Chelsea for graphic design?
- Should man United banish Casemiro into the reserve team?
- Miscellaneous Thread VII
- My friend group is falling apart, please help!!
- speaking to a 26 year old
- Making friends without clubbing/drinking
- Thomas Tuchel as England manager
Why do people still insist Chelsea is not a big club?
They are now the 5th most succesful English club. Perhaps soon the 4th, as the prospects of Chelsea's next trophy are higher than Villa's (****, Villa could go down next season if things don't improve).
But more to the point (or more accurately the point I truly want to make), how can people say Chelsea is not a bigger club than Tottenham?
Twenty years ago, granted, Spurs were bigger. But Chelsea has:
- More trophies in total
- A larger international name, brand and fanbase (how many foreigners in their home countries wear Spurs shirts? lol.. few, if any)
- More money
- A Champions League, something Spurs have only ever been in twice in their history (including the old European Cup)
Somebody will say "oh, it's cos of money they got there innit". Well, yes, money has helped. But in reality which successful team doesn't use money to advance itself? And Chelsea fans are gloryhunters? Do all Tottenham fans who've ever lived, or may live, come from Edmonton or Wood Green? lol... Like most successful clubs, Spurs' Billy Nick era brought a lot of nationally-based fans, same with Liverpool in the 70s/80s, and United under Fergie.
I would concede that in the London/southern England hierarchy, Arsenal MAY be higher than Chelsea, but Chelsea is surely higher than Spurs now on most significant counts.
This is tl;dr, I would grant. To suffice, as Chelsea has more tradition, it surely is a bigger club than Spurs is now.
And to add, Chelsea may be a new big club, but so what? Was United a big club from foundation, or is it largely to the Busby era? Or Arsenal to the Chapman era? Or Liverpool to the Shankly era? Or Celtic to the nine in a row/Lisbon Lions era? the point being ALL big clubs did/achieved something to be as such.
But more to the point (or more accurately the point I truly want to make), how can people say Chelsea is not a bigger club than Tottenham?
Twenty years ago, granted, Spurs were bigger. But Chelsea has:
- More trophies in total
- A larger international name, brand and fanbase (how many foreigners in their home countries wear Spurs shirts? lol.. few, if any)
- More money
- A Champions League, something Spurs have only ever been in twice in their history (including the old European Cup)
Somebody will say "oh, it's cos of money they got there innit". Well, yes, money has helped. But in reality which successful team doesn't use money to advance itself? And Chelsea fans are gloryhunters? Do all Tottenham fans who've ever lived, or may live, come from Edmonton or Wood Green? lol... Like most successful clubs, Spurs' Billy Nick era brought a lot of nationally-based fans, same with Liverpool in the 70s/80s, and United under Fergie.
I would concede that in the London/southern England hierarchy, Arsenal MAY be higher than Chelsea, but Chelsea is surely higher than Spurs now on most significant counts.
This is tl;dr, I would grant. To suffice, as Chelsea has more tradition, it surely is a bigger club than Spurs is now.
And to add, Chelsea may be a new big club, but so what? Was United a big club from foundation, or is it largely to the Busby era? Or Arsenal to the Chapman era? Or Liverpool to the Shankly era? Or Celtic to the nine in a row/Lisbon Lions era? the point being ALL big clubs did/achieved something to be as such.
(edited 12 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
You can't pin all of Arsenal's success on something that happened 80 years ago, that's simply ludicrous.
If that were the case, teams like Huddersfield would still be tearing it up in the top-flight.
I don't think anyone can say Chelsea aren't a big club, and they certainly have the financial capabilities to remain as such.
If that were the case, teams like Huddersfield would still be tearing it up in the top-flight.
I don't think anyone can say Chelsea aren't a big club, and they certainly have the financial capabilities to remain as such.
Original post by sleep99
but would they be without their billionaire ownersl.
Yes they would because they would probably still have a rich owner. Not all big clubs have owners like them
Original post by marcusmerehay
You can't pin all of Arsenal's success on something that happened 80 years ago, that's simply ludicrous.
How so? When most Arsenal fans acknowledge it was the Chapman era that made them a big club?
If that were the case, teams like Huddersfield would still be tearing it up in the top-flight.
They didn't have the same impact as Chapman's Arsenal.
I don't think anyone can say Chelsea aren't a big club, and they certainly have the financial capabilities to remain as such.
Apologetics, eh?
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's that in your sig (the gif)?
Original post by CB91
Who's that in your sig (the gif)?
daisy lowe
Meh, I've never heard anyone claim that Spurs are a bigger club than Chelsea. 
What grates me though is when people suddenly reckon that Man City are one of the top 4 biggest clubs in the country because of their success in the last couple of seasons.
City's owners could have put any of around 30 clubs into the same position; City just got lucky.
What grates me though is when people suddenly reckon that Man City are one of the top 4 biggest clubs in the country because of their success in the last couple of seasons.
City's owners could have put any of around 30 clubs into the same position; City just got lucky.(edited 12 years ago)
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.
Original post by sao desi
How so? When most Arsenal fans acknowledge it was the Chapman era that made them a big club?
They didn't have the same impact as Chapman's Arsenal.
They didn't have the same impact as Chapman's Arsenal.
Of course the Chapman era first exposed us to greatness, but there have been a number of bad patches in the club's history - we didn't win a trophy between 1953 and 1969, in a pit of mediocrity even under Billy Wright. It wasn't until the title-winning seasons of 70-71 and then again in 97-98 that we really established ourselves.
The Huddersfield team of the late Twenties still managed three successive league titles, which only three other teams can match, as well as an FA Cup.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by scriggy
Meh, I've never heard anyone claim that Chelsea are a bigger club than Spurs.
What grates me though is when people suddenly reckon that Man City are one of the top 4 biggest clubs in the country because of their success in the last couple of seasons. City's owners could have put any of around 30 clubs into the same position; City just got lucky.
What grates me though is when people suddenly reckon that Man City are one of the top 4 biggest clubs in the country because of their success in the last couple of seasons.
City's owners could have put any of around 30 clubs into the same position; City just got lucky.Why aren't they bigger than Spurs?
Original post by sao desi
Why aren't they bigger than Spurs?
Chelsea like 1000x bigger than spurs so that can't be a debate
Original post by murpo
daisy lowe
I recognised her, just couldn't put a name to the face.
Original post by TRS-T
Because your local fanbase is not that big?
Yes you have lots of fans in Hong Kong but could you fill a 60k stadium in West London?
Yes you have lots of fans in Hong Kong but could you fill a 60k stadium in West London?
Chelsea fans are ****
Chelsea winning the champions league means sweet fa, i really think luck played a big part in your success this season. I personally don't see you winning the champions league again any time soon, unless you get some good investment, nomsayin?
Original post by WheresWally
Chelsea winning the champions league means sweet fa, i really think luck played a big part in your success this season. I personally don't see you winning the champions league again any time soon, unless you get some good investment, nomsayin?
Luck did play a big part but you can't say they are not a big club. They do have good investment
Related discussions
- What team do you support and why?
- Why is Man City hated so much?
- Chelsea F.C. Thread IX
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- Time for Erik Ten Hag to be sacked?
- How to understand football as a girl - help
- UAL Chelsea V Central Saint Martins - Fine Art BA
- Which club will more likely finish Top 4 EPL
- The Arsenal Thread XXVI
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Will EPL become a farmers league?
- Camberwell or Chelsea for graphic design?
- Should man United banish Casemiro into the reserve team?
- Miscellaneous Thread VII
- My friend group is falling apart, please help!!
- speaking to a 26 year old
- Making friends without clubbing/drinking
- Thomas Tuchel as England manager
Latest
Trending
Last reply 9 months ago
is it just me or there are a lot of teams playing out from the back now?Football
2
2
