Spurs-The bitterness is reaching dipperlike proportions

[M18CTID]

Re: Wish spurs fans would get a sense of perspective

It has been well documented in the press that Chelsea tried to pool fans from the US, but toured to mainly empty stadiums. When they played other European sides, all the fans were there to see the opposition. Abramovich wants Chelsea to be a self sufficient club, who can generate funds from the demand for shirts and matchday tickets. Six years in, he's still bank
rolling them. The demand isn't there.

IMO, Spurs are much bigger interms of fanbase and longterm sustainability.

The US market is a different kettle of fish really, but I'd say given the choice of cracking it or being better supported throughout Europe than both Milan clubs, I know which I'd choose.

Maybe Chelsea just aren't monetising that enough at the moment, who knows. Nonetheless Spurs are simply not bigger in terms of global fanbase, this is well documented.

I don't see how all this links to 'soullessness'. A club's business plan has nothing to do with this. Alienating its core fans, and especially excluding them, does. So would you say Arsenal
are soulless?

Where are you getting this info from? Chelsea aren't even well supported in England, nevermind Europe or globally. They are on a par with West Ham and Millwall.

It's a façade, all paid for by Roman. Arsenal and Spurs are proper clubs with history and real fans.

What a pathetic comment - I think you'll find Chelsea have history and proper fans too. Arsenal have more plastics in their ground on a home match-day than Chelsea do. Sure, there are plenty at Chelsea but they're not the only club with that problem. I'll also point out things were going that way at Chelsea years before Abramovich rolled into town.

And as for being "propped up by Roman", I think you'll find that almost every club in the country has been "propped up" by a rich owner at some point in their history - United have had a whole army of them going all the way back to 1902. Funny how so many reds are reluctant to talk about that.

 

[bluevengence]

On my travels to North and Southern Africa/India/across Europe/Mauritius/Middle East......I can honestly say i have
never seen one Tottenham shirt but have seen plenty of
chelsea...especially in Africa

 

[Sugarloaf]

Re: Wish spurs fans would get a sense of perspective

I still consider myself better-looking than Brad Pitt, his actual face doesn't count for me.

-- Sat May 21, 2011 12:17 pm --

The US market is a different kettle of fish really, but I'd say given the choice of cracking it or being better supported throughout Europe than both Milan clubs, I know which I'd choose.

Maybe Chelsea just aren't monetising that enough at the moment, who knows. Nonetheless Spurs are simply not bigger in terms of global fanbase, this is well documented.

I don't see how all this links to 'soullessness'. A club's business plan has nothing to do with this. Alienating its core fans, and especially excluding them, does. So would you say Arsenal are soulless?

Where are you getting this info from? Chelsea aren't even well supported in England, nevermind Europe or globally. They are on a par with West Ham and Millwall.

It's a façade, all paid for by Roman. Arsenal and Spurs are proper clubs with history and real fans.

Sport+Markt are one of the most respected Sports Consultancy firms in existence, it isn't conjecture. Google them and 'best supported clubs in Europe' or something similar if you want to find the original research and countless references to it on the web.

Again, you say Arsenal have real fans, but they've been subject to gentrification of fanbase even more than Chelsea - so what are you getting at there?

Not even in the top 25

20 Best Supported Clubs in Europe (2009-2010 season)
1.Manchester United, England: 75,304 average
2.Borussia Dortmund, Germany: 74,748
3.Barcelona, Spain: 71,045
4.Real Madrid, Spain: 70,816
5.Bayern Munich, Germany: 69,000
6.Schalke, Germany: 61,442
7.Arsenal, England: 60,040
8.AC Milan, Italy: 59,757
9.Celtic, Scotland: 57,366
10.Hamburg, Germany: 54,811
11.Hertha Berlin, Germany: 52,165
12.Marseille, France: 52,162
13.Inter Milan, Italy: 52,520
14.Stuttgart, Germany: 51,700
15.Cologne, Germany: 50,222
16.Rangers, Scotland: 49,534
17.Ajax, Holland: 49,014
18.Newcastle United, England: 48,750
19.Borussia Moenchengladbach, Germany: 47,240
20.Eintracht Franckfurt, Germany: 47,000

 

[Metal Biker]

Re: Wish spurs fans would get a sense of perspective

I still consider myself better-looking than Brad Pitt, his actual face doesn't count for me.

-- Sat May 21, 2011 12:17 pm --

Where are you getting this info from? Chelsea aren't even well supported in England, nevermind Europe or globally. They are on a par with West Ham and Millwall.

It's a façade, all paid for by Roman. Arsenal and Spurs are proper clubs with history and real fans.

Sport+Markt are one of the most respected Sports Consultancy firms in existence, it isn't conjecture. Google them and 'best supported clubs in Europe' or something similar if you want to find the original research and countless references to it on the web.

Again, you say Arsenal have real fans, but they've been subject to gentrification of fanbase even more than Chelsea - so what are you getting at there?

Not even in the top 25

20 Best Supported Clubs in Europe (2009-2010 season)
1.Manchester United, England: 75,304 average
2.Borussia Dortmund, Germany: 74,748
3.Barcelona, Spain: 71,045
4.Real Madrid, Spain: 70,816
5.Bayern Munich, Germany: 69,000
6.Schalke, Germany: 61,442
7.Arsenal, England: 60,040
8.AC Milan, Italy: 59,757
9.Celtic, Scotland: 57,366
10.Hamburg, Germany: 54,811
11.Hertha Berlin, Germany: 52,165
12.Marseille, France: 52,162
13.Inter Milan, Italy: 52,520
14.Stuttgart, Germany: 51,700
15.Cologne, Germany: 50,222
16.Rangers, Scotland: 49,534
17.Ajax, Holland: 49,014
18.Newcastle United, England: 48,750
19.Borussia Moenchengladbach, Germany: 47,240
20.Eintracht Franckfurt, Germany: 47,000

What's the capacity of Stamford Bridge? Exactly.

A useless statistic based on stadium attendance averages limited by capacity. Plus you said not in the top 25 and you only post 20 results. are you suggesting Arsenal only have 60,040 fans?

 

[Castiel]

Re: Wish spurs fans would get a sense of perspective

The real working class Chelsea fans who used to stand in the shed end are well and truely gone. The stands are now full of daytrippers who have popped along on the way to the opera. They are a part-time hobby of the rich and famous. Peter Kenyon tried to market them around the world, just like he'd done at his previous club, nobody was interested. They didn't attend the games or buy the shirts. It's a club that's status is completely reliant on a man who uses them as a part-time hobby.

Ok seriously. I was starting to think the City fans were overreacting but you really are deluded and its an embarrassment to think we're from the same City. I'm at the Bridge for every home game and Chelsea's "soul" is very much alive. We've welcomed our new foreign fans and those from outside the City because they made a choice to support this club too, yes because of our relatively new elite status but so what? Would Man United, Liverpool or Arsenal have as many fans in the 2nd division?

The self entitlement you have is frankly ridiculous. Such bitterness because you're not even the best club in your local area let alone the European stage for christ sake. Can't wait for QPR to come up and send you to 4th in London so you really have something to cry about. I'm not even going to bother retorting your claims about the global market because its so unsubstantiated that it'd be insulting to even read it.

It has been well documented in the press that Chelsea tried to pool fans from the US, but toured to mainly empty stadiums. When they played other European sides, all the fans were there to see the opposition. Abramovich wants Chelsea to be a self sufficient club, who can generate funds from the demand for shirts and matchday tickets. Six years in, he's still bank rolling them. The demand isn't there.

IMO, Spurs are much bigger interms of fanbase and longterm sustainability.

Again, you've got such a chip on your shoulder over being shit that you spew this bile. Chelsea were one of six clubs who tried to market football to the US and the entire project was marginally successful. So its our fault that the Americans don't like football? Even though your so called "real" clubs tried along side us to broaden the market?

I also feel you should know that Chelsea has been breaking even since 2009. We have a world class youth academy producing incredible prospects every year (just ask the Championship sides who we loaned the players to), a world class training ground which is the envy of other clubs and Abramovich; like City's owners, has invested untold fortunes into the local community and outlying areas to improve the sport at its grass roots. Levy on the other hand is taking money OUT of football, like the Glazers and the people in charge of Liverpool - for their own selfish personal gains. Chelsea and City now operate without debt; Spurs, United, Arsenal, Liverpool are all in crushing debt which punishes the countries economy. Which club is more soulless? The clubs who put money into football or those that take money out?

Spurs are way bigger than Chelsea. Speak to anyone in London, you never ever meet a Chelsea fan. I have never met one, and I don't know of anyone who supports them. Their stadium is filled with corporate numpties, which aren't hard to find in that location. Souless club, propped up by a Russian billionaire. If he walked away they would drop like a stone and everyone knows it.

I currently live in Thamesmead and my neighbours are Chelsea fans. Half my work mates are Chelsea fans, the other half are Arses. There are more Man United fans living in London than there are Spurs and thats really something you should be ashamed of for a so called "big club".

Really, as the City fans have been saying, you and your fan base are predominately bitter little pricks with a superiority complex and an odious sense of self entitlement. Chelsea were more successful than Spurs before Abramovich. You'll come back and say Matthew Harding was your sugar daddy then. Well what about Levy? Sheffield and Leeds can shit on your so called history while they languish in the lower divisions, claiming you're a soulless club because you have Levy bankrolling your position in the Premier League. Kindly fuck off until you can argue with any sense of reality.

 

[Dirty Harry]

I think 'Sugarhips' is a rag mate.

 

[1961RICH]

I think 'Sugarhips' is a rag mate.

Difficult to tell them apart atm.

 

[Castiel]

I think 'Sugarhips' is a rag mate.

Well he had me fooled, Jesus.

 

[Dirty Harry]

I think 'Sugarhips' is a rag mate.

Difficult to tell them apart atm.

True mate and Castiel an easy mistake to make.

 

[wayne71]

I think 'Sugarhips' is a rag mate.

Well he had me fooled, Jesus.

Was a good post though :)