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

[The Lightbowne Cowboy]

Written by a vile, bitter, twisted and jelous C##T.

 

[Blue Pete]

In summary in 2017 a right wing anti-city tabloid reports that a Brazilian player currently playing in Italy we are linked with said in 2014 when the player was in spain that he hadn't heard of City until 2009.

Why exactly do I care. I know nothing about most of the Italian and Spanish mid table or below teams and next to nothing about any Brazilian ones bar Corinthians and Santos

 

[OhForAGreavsie]

yet they never seem to beat chelski with it

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? :) :)

 

[waspish]

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? :) :)

Agree about the part before Abromavitch but the stick we get and still get daily is more than chelsea ever got!

 

[rossie]

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? :) :)

i think regarding the media, it may well be a local thing , but when city spend money they get mauled by the press for spending obscene amounts of money but chelski and especially the rags have been spending more and for longer but thats ok , personally ive never liked chelski since the 70s and that right wing stuff, combat 18 was it called ? and they got mourinho ,ive never liked him also , so my dislike for chelski was cemented for eternity , i think historically there wasnt much between city and chelsea .to say chelski were nothing before "money " is quite wrong , but i dont like cheski ,never will .. unless they are playing the rags and then of course , im a bit of a chelski fan ..

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I think he's talking about when Abramovich took over, when Chelsea were still viewed as outsiders (no PL wins, only just breaking their way into the Sky3-Sky4).

At that point they would have got loads of flak off the utd/LFC/AFC/THFC media. I expect the Standard was pretty big on it though.
Noe City get flak off the utd/LFC/AFC/THFC/CFC media!
I suspect a lot of difference is that Chelsea didn't threaten to displace Utd (the media's top side) from the Sky4, as Liverpool had dropped away and Spurs hadn't got going. City do threaten to replace them, and that can't be allowed.

I'm not sure Chelsea got more though, and it's difficult to judge given how much has changed in the media landscape. There were actual journalists back then rather than the likes of Ashton and his poison.

He's right though that Chelsea had been making a splash beforehand (Harding's money? not sure how significant) under lovable Ken Bates.

 

[Steve68]

I probably couldn't name most clubs in most leagues.

Analogously I couldn't name more than a couple of universities in any named country.

No surprise here.

Not even with a shabby tabloid blowing up trivia into a clickbait headline.

 

[rossie]

I think he's talking about when Abramovich took over, when Chelsea were still viewed as outsiders (no PL wins, only just breaking their way into the Sky3-Sky4).

At that point they would have got loads of flak off the utd/LFC/AFC/THFC media. I expect the Standard was pretty big on it though.
Noe City get flak off the utd/LFC/AFC/THFC/CFC media!
I suspect a lot of difference is that Chelsea didn't threaten to displace Utd (the media's top side) from the Sky4, as Liverpool had dropped away and Spurs hadn't got going. City do threaten to replace them, and that can't be allowed.

I'm not sure Chelsea got more though, and it's difficult to judge given how much has changed in the media landscape. There were actual journalists back then rather than the likes of Ashton and his poison.

He's right though that Chelsea had been making a splash beforehand (Harding's money? not sure how significant) under lovable Ken Bates.

yup hardings money,

 

[CitizenTID]

Fair game.

Also fair game for me to continue my opinion of Dani Alves being a cnut.

 

[FCBarca]

You will love Dani, guaranteed