The mancityfans.net football forum

I was walking through town this week with my City shirt on and two Chelsea fans started talking to me about their club being "The biggest in England" I am pushing 55 and always base my football "Biggest argument" as what I regard as historical facts. I replied and said " Historically it's Liverpool on overall honours won" and they started to say that Liverpool were a joke ! I understand that using this measure Huddersfield rank fairly highly. Getting back to us and the banter went on with them saying " You lot are a small club with no class" at this point I cracked up !!! Historically speaking we rank on level terms with them and that is including all there recent success. I replied that even when we were right in the shit, we were never for sale for £1. A lot of stats are there to be knocked but sometimes it is all about now and I understand this. So I say Liverpool are the most successfull but who is the biggest, I await your comments. Is it about history, fanbase, success, or all of them. We are in my eyes a big club with history, a fantastic fanbase who yearn success, as for class I never tell other fans there teams/clubs are shite and small.....unless they ask me first and I am prepared to go toe to toe with anybody to defend my club and that has always been my status, even at our lowest point in our history....where where those Chelsea fans when they lost the plot "Hello" no fucking where !

[quote="Nutzer"][color=#0000FF]People say we're a small club because they don't remember the Mercer/Allison years. Also they're scared of what will happen when Bobby gets us playing like a team who know each other rather than a bunch of strangers. But, although it has to be done, it's a waste of breath arguing with them as they'll never admit they're wrong about us. We know we're not a small club. [/colo

Change the colour mate.....it's doing my head in.

Agree with your post though...........and you cannot get anymore plastic than a chelsea fan.

I seem to recall that Chelsea have had crowds of around 10-12k in the early days of the Premiership.

Strange that, Untied followers always tell me 'You're [City] Massive'! To which I reply 'I know' ;-

reni800 wrote:I seem to recall that Chelsea have had crowds of around 10-12k in the early days of the Premiership.

And we had 34000 against macclefield..but them cunts dont let the facts get in the way of the truth do they.

wankers.

Fuck 6 - 0 Blackpool are an embarrasment.....

Lol..Was havin a massive arguement with mates up the pub last night regarding this..

With City, I seem to have a way of twistin the question so I make it sound as though its in favour of City everytime..It really fooks them off lol.

I had the exact same argument with a mate of mine who's a liverpool fan.

He was saying that Chelsea were a "bigger" club than we were before our respective take-overs. I told him that was a crock of shite.

I said, before both take-overs, we had won more league titles, more league cups and I think the same amount of FA Cups. And then he shut his stupid fucking trap.

The end.

Our average league attendance since moving to COMS has been higher than Stamford Bridge's capacity

Original Dub wrote:I had the exact same argument with a mate of mine who's a liverpool fan.

He was saying that Chelsea were a "bigger" club than we were before our respective take-overs. I told him that was a crock of shite.

I said, before both take-overs, we had won more league titles, more league cups and I think the same amount of FA Cups. And then he shut his stupid fucking trap.

The end.

The only thing they have over us is their experience in the Champs League which they had been in a number of times under previous managers/owner as far as I remember, winning the FA Cup and winning the Cup Winners Cup. They had a reasonable few years for several years before they were taken over.

Chelsea fans are very much like Liverpool in that they conveniently forget the time preceding their success. Liverpool have their 17 or so years of success surrounded by decades of mediocrity. Chelsea until they started getting the likes of Hoddle/Vialli in had been wank for 40 odd years, pretty similar to us really in that respect.

Except that their millions of fans deserted them in the 80s and early 90s

I found a photo a while back on the internet which summed Chelsea up brilliantly - I was looking for old City photos, and found a picture of Paul Power (David Speedie challenging him) at Stamford Bridge early eighties - the stands in the background are completely empty... basically, where were they when they were shit... fucking nowhere to be seen, that's where!

dario2739 wrote:I found a photo a while back on the internet which summed Chelsea up brilliantly - I was looking for old City photos, and found a picture of Paul Power (David Speedie challenging him) at Stamford Bridge early eighties - the stands in the background are completely empty... basically, where were they when they were shit... fucking nowhere to be seen, that's where!

Same in the 90s mate. Old clips of gavin Peacock and that scoring goals to many empty seats.

I also remember the mid 70s when they built that huge stand, completely out of keeping with the rest of the ground at the time, went broke (again), and got relegated. Very low crowds, no-one in the new stand and all the jokes about the last one out locking up.

Like I care what Chelsea fans say!!

Original Dub wrote:I had the exact same argument with a mate of mine who's a liverpool fan.

He was saying that Chelsea were a "bigger" club than we were before our respective take-overs. I told him that was a crock of shite.

I said, before both take-overs, we had won more league titles, more league cups and I think the same amount of FA Cups. And then he shut his stupid fucking trap.

The end.

Actually they'd only won 3 FA Cups when the Russian took them over as opposed to our 4.