Daily Fail headline - Dani Alves didn't know Manchester City existed in 2009

OhForAGreavsie said:
Hello All, Chelsea fan

There's something I want to say about Danny Alves in a moment, but first I'd like to respond to this comment if I may.

From a Chelsea fan perspective, City have been given a far easier ride after your takeover, than Chelsea have been following ours. Our view on this is that we were there first so a lot of the shots had been fired and were no longer so newsworthy a second time around. You are all familiar with the kind of accusations and jibes which generally get thrown so I won't list them but I do want to say something about one of the charges. The claim that Chelsea were nothing before Roman arrived. A charge which was believed then and, as evidenced by the comment to which I am replying, is still believed now.

In 2003 Chelsea were 5th best supported club in English football history, as measured by all time match attendances. This despite having been far less successful over the years than all of the clubs ahead of us in the rankings, and many of those behind us also. Despite too, a lost generation during the 70s and 80s when, in reaction to a rapidly changing demographic in Chelsea's prime catchment area, plenty of young white men were attracted to right wing agendas. Young men who had grown up Chelsea fans and attached themselves to the club.

The presence of these horrible people was pretty constant in number, but grew in percentage terms as more and more decent supporters were driven away. My own father would not take me to Stamford Bridge. Attendances all over the country were down during the hooligan era, but our club suffered more than most. In many seasons our average home gate fell below 20,000 and in one it fell below 14,000. Nevertheless, so strong had been our match going support in previous decades, that we maintained our 5th place through those difficult years.

On the pitch, in the ten seasons prior to Roman buying the club in 2003, we had: -
  • Won 2 FA Cups
  • Reached two further FA Cup Finals and another semi-final.
  • Won 2 European trophies and reached two other European semi-finals
  • Won a League Cup
  • Reached a Champions League quarter-final in which we came within 12 minutes of beating Barcelona despite having had a man sent off, as so often seems to happen when sides are threatening to eliminate Barca at Camp Nou.
  • Achieved a highest Premier League placing of second.
I hope you'll all agree that this adds up to something more than nothing.

As to Danny Alves, who cares what the must-get-a-click-no-matter-what brigade say? As long as he has something left to offer, and he's prepared to bust a gut to offer it for your club, then stuff 'em. They'll still have to print the table whether they like it or not.

And the table will look pretty good with City back up to second, don't you think? :) :)
Click to expand...

You make some good points, mate. Most level headed football supporters know that you were doing well in the 4 or 5 years before Abramovic came. You were one of the best teams in the league, I think I'm right in saying you were on the verge of bankruptcy before the buyout, and that's why he chose to buy you instead of Spurs, you were the cheaper option? Chelsea were a far better team at the time of your takeover than City were at the time of ours.

Historically, I wasn't aware you were the 5th best supported club, I'm quite surprised about that, but don't doubt that it's true. Before the takeover I would put Chelsea in the 2nd tier of big clubs in England alongside City, Everton, Spurs, Villa, Newcastle and Leeds. All similar sized clubs with similar sized fan bases and levels of past success. Of course they have all had their own periods of success and falls from grace. I remember Chelsea being our rivals for the 2nd Division title in about 1987 and Kerry Dixon was one of my favourite non-City players.

I'd have to disagree that you've had a harder time from the press than us, though. I remember you getting called "Chavski" and "Chelski" but it seemed it was only really pompus Arsenal fans with a sense of entitlement and fondness for old money that ever beat you with that stick. Maybe it's because I'm seeing it through the eyes of a City fan, but I loved it when you got Mourinho the first time and you stuck it to United. But it felt to me like most fans of other clubs were happy to see competition in the league.

Whereas City have come in and pissed off absolutely everyone! We've pissed off the media darlings from Stretford because we've parked the tanks on their lawn and Fergurson had his nose put right out of joint. We've pissed off the entitled Arsenal fans. We've pissed off Liverpool who think it's their birth right to be in the top 4 and we've taken that off them. We've pissed off Spurs who just broke in to the top 4 "the right way". We've also pissed off all of the mid and and lower placed PL teams because they think we're "lucky bastards who've won the lottery". We've literally pissed everyone off, and the media have absolutely revelled in sticking the knife in at every available opportunity.

I think the other big difference is the perception of the club's before the take-over. It's probably unfair, but I have to say my perception of Chelsea before the takeover, was one of right wing morons. Like a Premier League Milwall. Whereas City were everyone's second club. The family club. Cups for cock-ups. The plucky underdog living in the shadow of the big red machine that was dominating football, but with a fan base that remained loyal throughout the despair.

Now we're the club that it's cool to hate. Everything that's wrong with modern football. I'm sure you've read the countless headlines about the "Emptihad". Our average attendance in the last two years has been 54k, higher than Liverpool have ever had in their history. We've been at 98% of capacity. We get called "glory fans" it will probably surprise you to know that our average attendance in 2004 (4 years before the takeover) was 46k. And in 2012 when we won the league it was 47k.

The fact we get so much abuse, despite having the 3rd highest attendance in the country, is just bizarre. It's nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with the media pushing a bull shit agenda that appeals to their core readership of United, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool fans. In fact, it's fans of any other club, because they all hate us (ironically enough, probably all except Chelsea).
 
Shaelumstash said:
You make some good points, mate. Most level headed football supporters know that you were doing well in the 4 or 5 years before Abramovic came. You were one of the best teams in the league, I think I'm right in saying you were on the verge of bankruptcy before the buyout, and that's why he chose to buy you instead of Spurs, you were the cheaper option? Chelsea were a far better team at the time of your takeover than City were at the time of ours.

Historically, I wasn't aware you were the 5th best supported club, I'm quite surprised about that, but don't doubt that it's true. Before the takeover I would put Chelsea in the 2nd tier of big clubs in England alongside City, Everton, Spurs, Villa, Newcastle and Leeds. All similar sized clubs with similar sized fan bases and levels of past success. Of course they have all had their own periods of success and falls from grace. I remember Chelsea being our rivals for the 2nd Division title in about 1987 and Kerry Dixon was one of my favourite non-City players.

I'd have to disagree that you've had a harder time from the press than us, though. I remember you getting called "Chavski" and "Chelski" but it seemed it was only really pompus Arsenal fans with a sense of entitlement and fondness for old money that ever beat you with that stick. Maybe it's because I'm seeing it through the eyes of a City fan, but I loved it when you got Mourinho the first time and you stuck it to United. But it felt to me like most fans of other clubs were happy to see competition in the league.

Whereas City have come in and pissed off absolutely everyone! We've pissed off the media darlings from Stretford because we've parked the tanks on their lawn and Fergurson had his nose put right out of joint. We've pissed off the entitled Arsenal fans. We've pissed off Liverpool who think it's their birth right to be in the top 4 and we've taken that off them. We've pissed off Spurs who just broke in to the top 4 "the right way". We've also pissed off all of the mid and and lower placed PL teams because they think we're "lucky bastards who've won the lottery". We've literally pissed everyone off, and the media have absolutely revelled in sticking the knife in at every available opportunity.

I think the other big difference is the perception of the club's before the take-over. It's probably unfair, but I have to say my perception of Chelsea before the takeover, was one of right wing morons. Like a Premier League Milwall. Whereas City were everyone's second club. The family club. Cups for cock-ups. The plucky underdog living in the shadow of the big red machine that was dominating football, but with a fan base that remained loyal throughout the despair.

Now we're the club that it's cool to hate. Everything that's wrong with modern football. I'm sure you've read the countless headlines about the "Emptihad". Our average attendance in the last two years has been 54k, higher than Liverpool have ever had in their history. We've been at 98% of capacity. We get called "glory fans" it will probably surprise you to know that our average attendance in 2004 (4 years before the takeover) was 46k. And in 2012 when we won the league it was 47k.

The fact we get so much abuse, despite having the 3rd highest attendance in the country, is just bizarre. It's nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with the media pushing a bull shit agenda that appeals to their core readership of United, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool fans. In fact, it's fans of any other club, because they all hate us (ironically enough, probably all except Chelsea).
Click to expand...
In random order: -

  • Cool to hate City? Chelsea are 'above' City in every poll of I've ever seen of England's most hated club.
  • In the most recent poll I saw, you don't even make the top three, while we are top.
  • Has the head of the world game ever called your club the enemies of football?
  • Have you ever seen a national journalist on live television talking openly about his hatred for your club?
  • To the best of my knowledge only one player in Champions League history has been retrospectively banned based on television evidence, a Chelsea player. It was a bad tackle to be fair but many others have been as bad or worse yet no action from uefa. Why? uefa were itching to get us and the incident was followed by a chorus of English media howling for Michael Essien to be banned. uefa had to break the laws of football to overturn the referee's decision, but they couldn't wait.
  • Our first two Premier League titles were received with absolutely nothing but the you bought the title reaction. Far, far worse than I've seen in respect of City. As if anyone has ever won the title without buying it anyway.
  • And on & on & on.

All time top five average attendances up to 2003: -
  1. Man Utd - 35,447
  2. Liverpool - 33,376
  3. Tottenham - 33, 332
  4. Arsenal - 31,550
  5. Chelsea - 30,853
I can't remember where City were on the list but I do know, from info I saw when looking for the original source, that the 3rd largest league attendance ever was for a City game (Chelsea 2nd) and that city achieved the highest average attendance in a season 3 times. (Chelsea 10)

I've copied the figures above from a Chelsea fan site but could not find the original source. I can though give anyone who wants it a site with the raw data club by club.

Roman, or rather his spokesman, has said that Chelsea clearly were heading for bankruptcy when the Russian bought the club. Ken Bates denies it to this day but he isn't being honest. He had borrowed heavily to rebuild the ground but had made it smaller than it ought to have been in order to accommodate not one, but two hotels on the site. Any fool could see that a pair of hotels inside the grounds of a football stadium were not going to attract premium visitors. Far from being the cash cow Bates predicted, servicing the debt and covering the losses was crippling the club. There is loads more to be said about this but I imagine City fans who are still with this post up to this point must be losing the will live so I'll leave the machinations of Uncle Ken there and wrap this post up.

Like all clubs we had a share of Morons. More of them probably, and definitely more by percentage of match goers, than most. (For reasons I gave earlier.) As a general characterisation however, it's as gross a misrepresentation of our fans as it would be if applied to any other fan base. We're normal lads and lasses. Some of us have great jobs, some of us struggle to buy a ticket, and some struggle a lot more than that. Same mix as any other club in the land. One big difference though is that the bands our celebrity musician supporters played in would make Oasis record sales look a bit sad. :)
 
OhForAGreavsie said:

All time top five average attendances up to 2003: -

  2. Man Utd - 35,447
  3. Liverpool - 33,376
  4. Tottenham - 33, 332
  5. Arsenal - 31,550
  6. Chelsea - 30,853
I can't remember where City were on the list but I do know, from info I saw when looking for the original source, that the 3rd largest league attendance ever was for a City game (Chelsea 2nd) and that city achieved the highest average attendance in a season 3 times. (Chelsea 10)

I've copied the figures above from a Chelsea fan site but could not find the original source. I can though give anyone who wants it a site with the raw data club by club.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you chose 2003 because of the takeover, I'd like to know how the averages were calculated if they are just plain all time since their records began then a fair comparison can't be made as some clubs are older than others and some records start earlier than others too(or maybe some clubs deliberately misplaced them?).

So to make things more even lets start with the clubs start date, the clubs they are known as today(name) is the true start point IMO and then we should find out the date their records begin from.

Source(I've not seen a more comprehensive list but open to suggestions): http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub

Gorton (1880) - Manchester City(1894) : Recorded attendance stats start at 1893
Newton Heath(1878) - Manchester Utd (1902): Recorded attendance stats start at 1893
Liverpool (1892): Recorded attendance stats start at 1894
Chelsea (1905): Recorded attendance stats start at 1906
Tottenham (1882): Recorded attendance stats start at 1909
Woolwich (1886) - Arsenal (1914): Recorded attendance stats start at 1894
Everton (1878): Recorded attendance stats start at 1889

So where is a fair starting point? You could argue that more years to build up a fanbase is better but if the league wasn't as popular you have a lot of low figures to start with skewing your averages, I think the popularity of match going in general would start off lower so those whose records start later are at an advantage.

The start date cannot be before 1909 if using these figures(which I think most comparisons are), I still think City are at a disadvantage having spent a long spells out of the top flight and yoyo-ing when they came back but it is what it is(for takeover comparisons sake Chelsea to 2003 and City to 2008 would be fairer) I worked out the averages from the above source as follows(note: I didn't work out the averages for everyone I just used your list and added City and Everton):

Code: 
Team           Average Att 1909 -2003          Average Att 1909 -2008          Average Att 1909 -2017

Man Utd                     39.181                          40.976                          44.125
Liverpool                   36.033                          36.443                          37.224
Arsenal                     34.488                          35.184                          37.463
Everton                     33.372                          33.590                          33.886
Tottenham                   33.209                          33.350                          33.537
Chelsea                     31.079                          31.669                          32.572
Manchester City             29.956                          30.711                          32.266

We don't fare too bad at all IMO considering our local rivals size, the times out of the topflight and so on especially comparing to the current year. Also City hold highest attendance for a club ground and domestic game(FA Cup vs Stoke) which is still intact since the CL is different and Spurs had the advantage of Wembley(day trippers bulking up the attendance).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_record_home_attendances_of_English_football_clubs
 
Last edited:
Alves played against City in 2009 for Barcelona's pre-season tin pot thing which they seemed desperate not to lose, although they did. Whilst City played the likes of Trippier.

Another short 34 year old South American on retirement deal. No thanks.
 
Metalartin said:
I'm assuming you chose 2003 because of the takeover, I'd like to know how the averages were calculated if they are just plain all time since their records began then a fair comparison can't be made as some clubs are older than others and some records start earlier than others too(or maybe some clubs deliberately misplaced them?).

So to make things more even lets start with the clubs start date, the clubs they are known as today(name) is the true start point IMO and then we should find out the date their records begin from.

Source(I've not seen a more comprehensive list but open to suggestions): http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub

Gorton (1880) - Manchester City(1894) : Recorded attendance stats start at 1893
Newton Heath(1878) - Manchester Utd (1902): Recorded attendance stats start at 1893
Liverpool (1892): Recorded attendance stats start at 1894
Chelsea (1905): Recorded attendance stats start at 1906
Tottenham (1882): Recorded attendance stats start at 1909
Woolwich (1886) - Arsenal (1914): Recorded attendance stats start at 1894
Everton (1878): Recorded attendance stats start at 1889

So where is a fair starting point? You could argue that more years to build up a fanbase is better but if the league wasn't as popular you have a lot of low figures to start with skewing your averages, I think the popularity of match going in general would start off lower so those whose records start later are at an advantage.

The start date cannot be before 1909 if using these figures(which I think most comparisons are), I still think City are at a disadvantage having spent a long spells out of the top flight and yoyo-ing when they came back but it is what it is(for takeover comparisons sake Chelsea to 2003 and City to 2008 would be fairer) I worked out the averages from the above source as follows(note: I didn't work out the averages for everyone I just used your list and added City and Everton):

Code: 
Team           Average Att 1909 -2003          Average Att 1909 -2008          Average Att 1909 -2017

Man Utd                     39.181                          40.976                          44.125
Liverpool                   36.033                          36.443                          37.224
Arsenal                     34.488                          35.184                          37.463
Everton                     33.372                          33.590                          33.886
Tottenham                   33.209                          33.350                          33.537
Chelsea                     31.079                          31.669                          32.572
Manchester City             29.956                          30.711                          32.266

We don't fare too bad at all IMO considering our local rivals size, the times out of the topflight and so on especially comparing to the current year. Also City hold highest attendance for a club ground and domestic game(FA Cup vs Stoke) which is still intact since the CL is different and Spurs had the advantage of Wembley(day trippers bulking up the attendance).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_record_home_attendances_of_English_football_clubs
Click to expand...
Brilliant post. Thank you.

The european-football-statistics link you gave is the one I had in mind when I offered to give anyone who wanted it a link to the raw, club by club, data.

The date was indeed chosen to coincide with Roman's take-over. It was a counter to the oft repeated charge about all our fans being jcl glory hunters.

Did you manage to import all that data into a spreadsheet or are just great at typing? :)

I didn't exclude City in order to imply anything. I simply could not find the original table and copied the top five from a site into which that part of the list had been pasted.

Noticed what you did with the top 5 ranking I had posted. Like a man who sticks to his principles at all times. :) :)

The Spurs-Chelsea game in week two of the new season is going to set a new all time English league attendance record. Think it'll have to be listed as a record but with an asterisk I guess.
 
Last edited:
OhForAGreavsie said:
Brilliant post. Thank you.

The european-football-statistics link you gave is the one I had in mind when I offered to give anyone who wanted it a link to the raw, club by club, data.

The date was indeed chosen to coincide with Roman's take-over. It was a counter to the oft repeated charge about all our fans being jcl glory hunters.

Did you manage to import all that data into a spreadsheet or are just great at typing? :)

I didn't exclude City in order to imply anything. I simply could not find the original table and copied the top five from a site into which that part of the list had been pasted.

Noticed what you did with the top 5 ranking I had posted. Like a man who sticks to his principles at all times. :) :)

The Spurs-Chelsea game in week two of the new season is going to set a new all time English league attendance record. Think it'll have to be listed as a record but with an asterisk I guess.
Click to expand...
Yeah I just popped it in a spreadsheet, was enough effort just doing that for my liking. :)

I don't think you'll find many City fans who believe the "you had no fans before your Russian oil money came in" line that get's rolled out because:

a) London has a big enough population to support quite a few clubs and Chelsea have always been considered one of the biggest London clubs.
b) City fans know all to well the lengths rival fans go to in order to knock a club down who've had some good fortune(it's bitterness plain and simple)you'd think some neutrals would actually be happy for a club who went through the hard times City did and relate to it somewhat but I don't really see much of that and it's probably down to the Rag(utd) and Dipper(lvpl) led media trying every trick in the book to sway the masses inspite of them both falling rapidly in recent years(thanks to Chelsea and City).

Regarding your subject I think if anyone has got off easy it would be Spurs, they are seen as a club who've spent nothing to get where they are(they can't do any wrong and they are so entitled as a fanbase) when in fact they owe much of their success to shrewd businessmen themselves.
 
Last edited:
shevtheblue said:
Won't link the article, it doesn't deserve anymore hits than i have already given it...

Dani Alves didn't know Manchester City existed in 2009 Daily Mail 10:57

Dani Alves looks set to pull on the sky blue shirt of Manchester City next season with Pep Guardiola understood to be pushing through a short-term deal for the Juventus full back.

With Alves and Guardiola sharing a close relationship from their Barcelona days and the Citizens pushing for a total-football revolution, the move comes as no surprise.

But rewind to 2009, when Manchester City were just starting to make their way into the upper echelons of the Premier League following a takeover, and Alves had no idea the club existed.

Speaking in 2014, he admitted: 'I didn't realise until about five years ago that Manchester had two teams.

'Of course Manchester United have been one of the most famous and successful clubs in Europe for many years - but I thought they were the only one.'

'When Manchester City got new owners and started buying some of the best players in Europe everybody knew who they were - but until then I must be honest I didn't know about them.'
Click to expand...

Sniff, Sniff pretty much everything you have ever posted has been against City and negative, go back to the swamp.
 
VOOMER said:
Sniff, Sniff pretty much everything you have ever posted has been against City and negative, go back to the swamp.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course that's right. I joined Bluemoon in 2005 because I hate City. I wrote an article for this site, because i hate City. You're a little bit mental...sniff, sniff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.