I do find this annoying whereby people usually state this or something similar. Were Chelsea, before the days of Roman Abramovich, not regarded as perennial underachievers and a top 6 club? Of course, if you look at their honours list it's not as big as the likes of Aston Villa but Chelsea hardly came from nowhere.
It's true; certainly if you look at the league tables before Roman Abramovich, Chelsea have been the third best team in Premiership history. Heh, it seems wrong to talk of the history of a league only fourteen years old.
It's true; certainly if you look at the league tables before Roman Abramovich, Chelsea have been the third best team in Premiership history. Heh, it seems wrong to talk of the history of a league only fourteen years old.
Don't know if they would be the third best going by points. Might have to look at that. But nice of you to think that.
Don't know if they would be the third best going by points. Might have to look at that. But nice of you to think that.
I remember having a look at the tables, being compelled to do so after watching Premiership Years once. We can quite easily see that United were the best team in the Premiership before Roman Abramovich. Number two was, at different times; Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, and then Arsenal. As far as number three, no one has always been there or thereabouts with the same consistency as Chelsea.
It's true; certainly if you look at the league tables before Roman Abramovich, Chelsea have been the third best team in Premiership history. Heh, it seems wrong to talk of the history of a league only fourteen years old.
But weren't Chelsea on the verge of disappearing? Riddled with debt accrued since the premier league was formed. Abramovich made a big difference and still does. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. They weren't insignificant, but without outlaying on players they couldn't afford (i assume this is how they got into debt) they wouldn't have managed the league positions they did
But weren't Chelsea on the verge of disappearing? Riddled with debt accrued since the premier league was formed. Abramovich made a big difference and still does. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. They weren't insignificant, but without outlaying on players they couldn't afford (i assume this is how they got into debt) they wouldn't have managed the league positions they did
But weren't Chelsea on the verge of disappearing? Riddled with debt accrued since the premier league was formed. Abramovich made a big difference and still does. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. They weren't insignificant, but without outlaying on players they couldn't afford (i assume this is how they got into debt) they wouldn't have managed the league positions they did
man utd needed ronaldo to cheat, thats the only way they could win the title who cares, init if ronaldo cheats
if a chealsea player done it, it would be a bg news here, if ronaldo does it, then its no big news here, people try to cover him up, people here cant face facts
but the matter of fact dont change, ronaldo dived earned a penelty and won utd the game, and ofcourse by cheating that is