Turn on thread page Beta

Are Chelsea one of the biggest clubs in England? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, I'm not a Chelsea fan. I just think they're massively underrated in terms of the size of the club.

    Let's start of by defining a "big" club. I think you have to have run a considerable amount of trophies in the past 25 years or so. If we look at Liverpool who are often regarded as England's 2nd biggest club; they've won 11 or so in that time compared to Chelsea's 20. This is since 1995. I think one of the reasons Liverpool are labelled a massive club is because of their domestic league success (18 titles) and their 5 european titles. However, they haven't won a premier league ever.... and their 18 titles come from a period starting in 1901. This is just too far back to be considered I believe. Their 5 european cups and maybe a 6th next week is truly great though. Btw I'm not anti Liverpool I just feel that they're often named as giant club but even they're history going quite a way back (25 years ish) isn't that great tbh.

    One reason why many says Chelsea aren't a massive club is because they either haven't got unique and 'history making' victories and they're trophy cabinet pre 1980s isn't great. This is where I have a problem with this argument.

    Chelsea held the most number of points in a single season until last week or so, they held the most number of wins, the longest win streak and we're of course the first english team to win all 4 european cups. I would say they've made their mark upon history in terms of records. With regards to history pre 1980s, it's obvious they haven't won 17 first division titles like liverpool, but does anyone really care about trophies when you go this far back?? We're talking about 1901 here as that's when liverpool first won it.

    To conclude, I think Chelsea's history in the past few decades is outstanding, there's a stat somewhere (can't remember it exactly) but it's something like 'in the past 40 years, chelsea have won more trophies than arsenal'. What are your thoughts?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In the last 10 years they have been arguably the most successful English team, only because of Roman. Before they were just a mid table team.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bhafcjack)
    In the last 10 years they have been arguably the most successful English team, only because of Roman. Before they were just a mid table team.
    Finished 6th in ‘97 and won an FA Cup
    Finished 4th in ‘98 and won the League Cup and Cup Winners’ Cup
    Finished 3rd in ‘99 and won UEFA Super Cup against Real Madrid
    Finished 5th in ‘00 and won the FA Cup
    Finished 6th in ‘01 and won the Community Shield (not a real trophy but whatever)
    Finished 6th in ‘02 and didn’t win anything for the first time in years
    Finished 4th in ‘03 and didn’t win anything

    Then Roman bought the club. We were not like Man City. We were already up there and winning a decent amount of trophies already. Roman’s money just helped us to that next level.

    ******** that Chelsea have no history before Roman.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.G.)
    Finished 6th in ‘97 and won an FA Cup
    Finished 4th in ‘98 and won the League Cup and Cup Winners’ Cup
    Finished 3rd in ‘99 and won UEFA Super Cup against Real Madrid
    Finished 5th in ‘00 and won the FA Cup
    Finished 6th in ‘01 and won the Community Shield (not a real trophy but whatever)
    Finished 6th in ‘02 and didn’t win anything for the first time in years
    Finished 4th in ‘03 and didn’t win anything

    Then Roman bought the club. We were not like Man City. We were already up there and winning a decent amount of trophies already. Roman’s money just helped us to that next level.

    ******** that Chelsea have no history before Roman.
    Fair enough mate you had history but were not up there with Utd and Arsenal. Roman took you to the next level.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Chelsea was always a decent club, but Abramovich’s money did help them in the recent years, no doubt about it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KLP44)
    Let's start of by defining a "big" club. I think you have to have run a considerable amount of trophies in the past 25 years or so. If we look at Liverpool who are often regarded as England's 2nd biggest club; they've won 11 or so in that time compared to Chelsea's 20.
    Liverpool are regarded as one of the top two because of their success over the history of the sport something a money backed club won't have.

    Btw I'm not anti Liverpool I just feel that they're often named as giant club but even they're history going quite a way back (25 years ish) isn't that great tbh.
    25 years is not quite a way back in the history of football when there are clubs 150 years old. 25 years is recent.

    To conclude, I think Chelsea's history in the past few decades is outstanding, there's a stat somewhere (can't remember it exactly) but it's something like 'in the past 40 years, chelsea have won more trophies than arsenal'. What are your thoughts?
    Arsenal are bigger than Chelsea and talking about 'history' but only the past 25 years seems to go against the point of taking history into account at all.

    The main reason Chelsea aren't considered one of the biggest clubs is because of the money. Argue about that if you want but you didn't even mention it.

    All time top division table (goes to 2016/17) - http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-T...to2010-11.html

    Be interesting to see where Chelsea would be on there before Roman's $$$
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.G.)
    Finished 6th in ‘97 and won an FA Cup
    Finished 4th in ‘98 and won the League Cup and Cup Winners’ Cup
    Finished 3rd in ‘99 and won UEFA Super Cup against Real Madrid
    Finished 5th in ‘00 and won the FA Cup
    Finished 6th in ‘01 and won the Community Shield (not a real trophy but whatever)
    Finished 6th in ‘02 and didn’t win anything for the first time in years
    Finished 4th in ‘03 and didn’t win anything

    Then Roman bought the club. We were not like Man City. We were already up there and winning a decent amount of trophies already. Roman’s money just helped us to that next level.

    ******** that Chelsea have no history before Roman.
    Man City had won twice as many leagues as Chelsea and also had European success before their takeover. They had more FA Cups too.

    Were those late 90s achievements won by overspending? 6th, 6th and 4th (01-03) winning nothing is clutching at straws a bit as well.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think Chelsea needs a Manager who actually can be associated with the club
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    Man City had won twice as many leagues as Chelsea and also had European success before their takeover. They had more FA Cups too.

    Were those late 90s achievements won by overspending? 6th, 6th and 4th (01-03) winning nothing is clutching at straws a bit as well.
    That wasn’t the point being made by the guy I quoted. He said we were mid table before Roman took over. Clearly finishes of 6th and higher are not mid table in the years leading up to the take over, overspending or not.

    Man City were a mid table side before their takeover.

    As for the OP’s question, it’s fairly obvious Chelsea are one of the biggest clubs in England, especially since Roman took over.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Since 2006. Chelsea are the 3rd biggest team in England.
    Behind Manchester United and Manchester City.
    They would be second if it wasn't for City's recent success.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ProRoadman)
    I think Chelsea needs a Manager who actually can be associated with the club
    Should get Carlo Ancelotti back for long term. 5+ seasons
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cxm)
    Should get Carlo Ancelotti back for long term. 5+ seasons
    Either Ancelotti or keep Conte
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ProRoadman)
    Either Ancelotti or keep Conte
    Conte definitely won't stay and if not Ancelotti then everyone used to say that Frank Lampard is the smartest man in Football. Never heard him say anything about being manager though, like ex Arsenal and Man United players. Would think he'd do a decent job.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.G.)
    That wasn’t the point being made by the guy I quoted. He said we were mid table before Roman took over. Clearly finishes of 6th and higher are not mid table in the years leading up to the take over, overspending or not.

    Man City were a mid table side before their takeover.
    1990-1996 they didn't finish higher than 11th, then had a few years overspending and finishing 6th with one 3rd place finish. It's really not that wide of the mark.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    1990-1996 they didn't finish higher than 11th, then had a few years overspending and finishing 6th with one 3rd place finish. It's really not that wide of the mark.
    You wouldn’t call a team who finished top 6 for seven consecutive seasons a mid table side.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s not that wide of the mark. Pogba’s header wasn’t too wide of the mark yesterday. Maybe we should give the goal?

    All in all, this topic doesn’t matter greatly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    Liverpool are regarded as one of the top two because of their success over the history of the sport something a money backed club won't have.



    25 years is not quite a way back in the history of football when there are clubs 150 years old. 25 years is recent.



    Arsenal are bigger than Chelsea and talking about 'history' but only the past 25 years seems to go against the point of taking history into account at all.

    The main reason Chelsea aren't considered one of the biggest clubs is because of the money. Argue about that if you want but you didn't even mention it.

    All time top division table (goes to 2016/17) - http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-T...to2010-11.html

    Be interesting to see where Chelsea would be on there before Roman's $$$
    I agree Liverpool are regarded as one of the top two because of their success over their entire history, my reply to that would be the same reply to your point of 'talking about 'history' but only the past 25 years seems to go against the point of taking history into account at all.' I would say anything before say the 1960s really does not matter, the past 25 years is fairly recent I agree but think of it this way, why the hell should Liverpool be seen as a massive club when a large chunk of their trophies came in the early 1900s; it's simply ridiculous and hence why I used 25 years but this could be easily extended to say 40.

    The reason I didn't even mention money is because it doesn't matter when discussing the size of the club, besides how do you think the likes Arsenal etc obtain players? Liverpool have money, arsenal have money, the list goes on. It's a constant factor in each club's make up so why should we bother as using it as a measurement of success? I assume you're trying to say that because Chelsea are rich they aren't a big club, yet Arsenal are richer, Man Utd and Man City are far wealthier yet we all agree that Man Utd are far bigger than every other pl team.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S.G.)
    You wouldn’t call a team who finished top 6 for seven consecutive seasons a mid table side.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s not that wide of the mark. Pogba’s header wasn’t too wide of the mark yesterday. Maybe we should give the goal?

    All in all, this topic doesn’t matter greatly.
    When they got back into the top division, under the same ownership their average position before Roman is 8th, which is comfortably mid table. They weren't challenging for titles, and the gap between top 6 and the rest wasn't the same as it is now.

    (Original post by KLP44)
    I agree Liverpool are regarded as one of the top two because of their success over their entire history, my reply to that would be the same reply to your point of 'talking about 'history' but only the past 25 years seems to go against the point of taking history into account at all.' I would say anything before say the 1960s really does not matter, the past 25 years is fairly recent I agree but think of it this way, why the hell should Liverpool be seen as a massive club when a large chunk of their trophies came in the early 1900s; it's simply ridiculous and hence why I used 25 years but this could be easily extended to say 40.
    Because they are the second most successful club.
    Either all of the success counts or none of it does. I'd go with the former.

    The reason I didn't even mention money is because it doesn't matter when discussing the size of the club, besides how do you think the likes Arsenal etc obtain players?
    With self generated money. There is a difference between that and what Chelsea/Man City did when they were taken over. Which is the reason people don't consider Chelsea to be one of the biggest clubs.
 
 
 

2,969

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.