i'm guessing its down to double standards. loads of clubs evolve throughout their history and change their names, just cuz you lot didn't it doesn't mean that you can act all high and mighty about it. i don't see how supporters of a club that was established purely for the purpose of filling a useless stadium no-one wanted can have a go at a club that moved north of the river 99 years ago to stay in business.
chelsea had a couple of good days against us but off the pitch it was a completely different story, arsenal everywhere, hardly any chelsea inside the ground at all. this was the same year we took the shed as well, but it wasn't the last either!
Chelsea took the North Bank that day, no mean feat in those days and Arsenal were in the Shed at SB in Sept 69, they did'nt take it there were old bill 10 deep right the way down the shed separating the 2. Chelsea did take loads away, Never saw any mob in the Shed untill Mile end lot from West Ham in around 73/74...could have taken it anytime.Men against boys.
chelsea's ground a shithole? you ever been to your own ground you goon cunts? your areas like a fucking domino, just like your home support. you need the floodlights on just to see your supporters faces.go and munch on another kebab you vile fucking north london wannabes from woolwich. i'd rather support chelsea in the blue square premier than be one of you lot at the top of the premier league. fuck trophies - we took more away than you and theres more pride in that.
@MWSW11 You keep talking about numbers back in the day but numbers don't count for shit when you don't actually make any noise which everyone knows chelsea don't do. Arsenal didn't take as many as chelsea did but we made more noise that you back then and now, you support is fucking terrible home and away.
for a third rate club chelsea's away support pissed all over arseholes even when chelsea were shit. for such a big wonderful club arseholes away support was a fucking joke. chelsea took more away in the 2nd division than the arse did in the first. Arsehole have never spent millions on players have they, i forgot all their success was won with home grown players. like fuck! No use saying you never spent as much, makes no difference, you have still bought to get success in the PAST.
Free energy has been here for a while ,But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the energy revolution!
arsenal wankers forget all this. loads of chelsea in the north bank and clockend. where was you when you was shit they sing and got no history. not a bad day winning 3 0 at arsenal. last 2 years arsenal 0 chelsea 3 and arsenal 1 chelsea 4 as well as 2 0 and 2 0 at stamford bridge. short memories gooners!
@razer4660 what was the score when we last met divvy oh yeah 3-1 to us and as for the eighties 20 thousand at highbury who told you that the fairy god mother, you was a fucking yo yo club like you,ve been your whole history a nothing club your so boring even comrade roman has had enough and you back to being london,s sixth most supported club,how,s my spelling jack off
@wozzi71 have a look on youtube ARSENAL 1 CHELSEA 1 84 85 you fucking div. the whole clockend was chelsea. loads of chelsea in the seats and the north bank. you have a look and tell me how many then. fact you even question it when everyone knows it and can watch it proves what a clueless cunt you are!
@razer4660 He's a complete tool. Funny how Chelsea were nothing before Roman yet here we are in 1970 walloping the Goonies on their own ground! BTW, we finished 3rd that season, they finished 12th. We were also getting attendances of 40,000-60,000 back then. You know, all those fans we never had before Roman, lol.
@FlaviusConstantius back then chelsea were the glamour boys of london. a lot of their support was made up of daytrippers wanting to go to the city and watch a game, ask many chelsea supporters from back then, they were the stylish club, nothing to do with great support. As I'm sure you'll know chelsea hardly took anyone to highbury those days and their support diminished a lot during the late seventies and got relegated.
@ViceCityDJ From 1905 until the mid-70s we were consistently one of the top 5 supported teams in the country, through decades of winning nothing. That's proper support. Arsenal's fans are already deserting after 6 years of winning nothing. And I'm sure you also know that Arsenal used to get less than 20,000 for a lot of league games in the 80s, and you had a much better team than us back then. BTW, we had 1 or 2 fans in the Clock End in 84...
@FlaviusConstantius in what way deserting? we have a much bigger ground than you and still sell out, while you have problems getting SB full for champions league. getting less than 20,000 in the eighties? we got an average attendence of around 30,000 most seasons. only in 80-81 did we get under 20,000 for a home game more than once, and those were against brighton, luton and birmingham. not exactly crowd inticers.
Against Wigan and Bolton recently there were thousands of empty seats around the place despite Arsenal strangely recording them as sell outs. You got 13k vs Boro 82, 14k v WBA 86, 15k v Wolves 82, 16k v Coventry 88, 15k v Forest 86, 16k v Coventry 86, 17k v Newcastle 87, 16k v Man City 83 etc, yet would get 40k+ for ManU or Spurs. We're also only one place below you in the all time attendances table, which is impressive given you've historically been a lot more successful than us.
@FlaviusConstantius did you actually look that up? haha ok mate. the club records sales, the fact some twats put up theiir tickets for sale and can't be fucked to go to the game and no-one buys them is annoying but the least att we've got since moving in 06 is at least 45,000.
@FlaviusConstantius The all time attendance table is nonsense though. It doesn't take into account that some teams have played more seasons than others, Arsenal were playing in the 1890s when 10k was a good average (Spurs and chelsea weren't) and doesn't take into account that averages in different eras aren't comparable 30k in the 80s was good but not so much now or in the 50s. The average ranking in the average attendance charts had Arsenal at number 1 in 2002.
@FlaviusConstantius From 1920 until the 60s arsenal were by far and away the best supported side. Also the fact that you didn't win anything despite your "proper support" should tell you something. You were being made a mug of by your owners who were creaming the profits off you "loyal" numpties and not investing in the team because you didn't demand that they had to by not turning up. You were complicit in making your team shit, blind loyalty allows liberties to be taken
@FlaviusConstantius 69-70 chelsea had one of the best teams in their history since abromovich, one of the few times they had a decent side capable of winning something other than 54-55. yet arsenal still managed to win the fairs cup this season and next season we won the double. chelsea were always a fairweather club, established FOR the stadium which was already built that fulham didn't want. Arsenal were a proper club with a history that didn't rely on tourists.
@ViceCityDJ Perhaps if Chelsea had changed their name 3 or 4 times, relocated to the other side of London, bribed their way into the First Division and had a manager and a chairman banned from football for corruption, you'd think we were a "proper club with a history". Arsenal have never been a real club. Boring Arsenal and Highbury Library stereotypes don't come about for nothing. Quite fitting they now play in a soulless bowl named after an airline and filled with tourists.
@FlaviusConstantius ahh the old bribery argument. don't remember that being proved. relocating to keep the club from going bankrupt is wrong, but what about chelsea who might move south of the river to nine elms? is that fine? don't get the tourist jibe, your home matches apart from us, liverpool & spuds usually has the same atmosphere we get, to say otherwise is stupid. our club has 4 name changes. that comes with having a rich history. we didn't get given a stadium like you
It's easy to surmise given Norris' other criminal activities and the fact Arsenal's promotion was not on footballing merit (they finished 5th that year). We've had one name and one home, a direct link to our past. In 1905 we were Chelsea and we played at Stamford Bridge. In 1905 you were called Woolwich and you played in Plumstead. I don't see how multiple ground moves and name changes equates to a rich history. More like a prototype MK Dons.
@FlaviusConstantius God why so bitter. chelsea are the epitomy of a fake club, set up by a guy to pay for his stadium that he built for Fulham. Profits creamed for decades. The fact that you have to bring up things that happened near 100 years ago to shit on Arsenal shows how weak your argument is. Just grow up mate, it's really not worth it.
@chavmanx Actually the Chelsea board always invested in the team, 10k on Gallacher, 20k on Lawton and so on. Best not to talk about things you don't know much about. And it's funny being lectured about fake clubs when yours was the prototype Franchise FC, was rescued by a bent Fulham chairman, is synonymous with 'library' and 'boring', and now play in a soulless plastic bowl named after an airline. Quite fitting given that its mostly tourists in it anyway....
@FlaviusConstantius Firstly you need to learn what franchising is, moving from one town/area to another is not it, I suggest a dictionary. The fact that you criticise Arsenal for things that happened 100 years ago shows the weakness of your argument. As does critcising the fact that our ground is like a library (and yours isn't) soulless and full of tourists (false). It's ironic that this is the same route you and spurs want to go further down.
I wouldn't expect a Gooner to understand what franchising is. Especially one who bleats about me talking about stuff that happened a long time ago (ho hum). Being a prototype MK Dons with more name changes and ground moves than you had empty seats against Bolton is as much your history and tradition as the marble halls or Nick Hornby. The Emirates is soulless, and it's either tourists or real fans who are attending matches disguised as plastic seats....
@FlaviusConstantius Like I said go and read a dictionary (business or otherwise) as you clearly don't know what franchising is. Unless you have your own definition, I'm dying to here it! Anyway once again moving a team from one locale to another is not franchising, pure business yes, franchising NO. Nor is changing a name or moving stadium (as many other clubs have done).
@chavmanx If you really didn't want to continue you wouldn't have typed out 3 more messages for me, lol. So, to clarify. Yes, Arsenal are a franchise, however much you try to fudge it. Yes, Chelsea were historically big spenders (I love how you think Chelsea spending big money doesn't actually count as spending big money!). And so it was Blackburn as well as Bolton where the Emirates was less than full? Even better. Cheerio now.
@FlaviusConstantius On the Bolton jibe 1. we played Blackburn 2. Bit rich criticising our current crowds when you've rarely averaged more than us in the last 80 years. Even then tickets have been paid for and people chose not to use them out of protest at our "underachievement". Anyway I'm done with you, your arguments are all over the place and your contempt for Arsenal is clouding your judgement, not much point in me continuing to debate with someone so blinkered, good day.
@FlaviusConstantius Secondly reeling off 2 players does not a team make. It is a known fact that the Mears charged high rents (to avoid the FA's dividend rules) and kept all money (except Chelsea gate money) to line their pockets. The amount of money Chelsea were making they should've had a far better team, but like I said the sheep that supported them back then didn't demand it, so the owners laughed all the way to the bank.
You should have said if you wanted a laundry list. Chelsea were always big spenders. In fact we were the reason the transfer deadline was introduced after the board spent a then-unheard of £3000 trying to avoid relegation in 1910. Whether the money was spent wisely is another matter entirely but it was spent nonetheless. So wrong again. As I said, best not to get into an argument with someone who knows more about this than you.
@FlaviusConstantius Always big spenders? The transfer deadline was introduced to stop you (or others) spending your way out of relegation, not to stop you buying titles. You spent to avoid relegation because you didn't spend what you needed to in the first place. Your owners only spent when financial ruin could come calling, good example. Your last line is ironic as it is you who has found yourself in this pridicament not me.
@FlaviusConstantius you have been a third rate club for over a hundred years if u look at record we have beaten u 4 times more u had to wait for a dirty russian to give u any credability buying trophies and playing shit football and u cant even sell out your fucking shithole stadium ,learn football histiory before u give it large
@wozzi71 if what your saying is true why pre roman did chelsea beat arsenal countless times. when chelsea was 3rd rate still beat arsenal. look at this game 3 0 to chelsea at arsenal you div. around this time chelsea beat arsenal loads of times. look at arsenal 1 chelsea 1 84 85 when chelsea had 20.000 at arsenal. if chelsea cant sellout why was average gate 41k and capacity 41k i call that soldout. lots of empty seats at arsenal on tv yet still put 60k why! thats not selling out empty seats
@razer4660 check your facts pre roman we went 20 odd times without beaten chelsea 1995 when hughes scored was the last timme you beat us ,then roman turned up and bought your success the only time you beat us regularly you had to spend millions so that does not really count and the last time you beat us at home in league was in mid 80,s when u used to get 10 thiusand at home games so you check facts you r a small club
@wozzi71 why doesnt the roman period count. at least chelsea didnt have to borrow millions like arsenal did to build the new ground. even now with all the extra revenue arsenal still dont win fuck all. what about 20.000 chelsea fans at arsenal 84. 86 arsenal only got 24k v chelsea and 14k v westbrom the game before so what do you call arsenal getting 14k v west brom in 86 no 60k then. look at the video 3 0 to chelsea at arsenal beating you now beating you then you prick
@razer4660 i remember 84 86 when you were getting 11 thousand at home games and as for 20 thousand at highbury ,maybe you was on acid you wer e the 7 biggest team in london then
@wozzi71 Shit football, eh? Musta missed the dross Arsenal played for decades before Wenger. Maybe you slept through it. Many did. Arsenal couldn't even sell out for a home game vs Liverpool a few years back, or did all the plastics come disguised as plastic seats again? As for football history, well, lest we forget that Arsenal wouldn't even exist but for a corrupt businessman who amongst other things bribed them into the First Division. Study up and you won't make a fool of yourself next time.
why was osgood booed ??
harryspooner 1 week ago
i'm guessing its down to double standards. loads of clubs evolve throughout their history and change their names, just cuz you lot didn't it doesn't mean that you can act all high and mighty about it. i don't see how supporters of a club that was established purely for the purpose of filling a useless stadium no-one wanted can have a go at a club that moved north of the river 99 years ago to stay in business.
ViceCityDJ 1 month ago
Look at the state of the Pitches back then can you see the players of today playing on
Pitches like that i don't think so
MrTrueblue1905 2 months ago
chelsea had a couple of good days against us but off the pitch it was a completely different story, arsenal everywhere, hardly any chelsea inside the ground at all. this was the same year we took the shed as well, but it wasn't the last either!
MrMEGAGTA 3 months ago
C-H-3-L-5-E-A, C-H-3-L-5-E-A!
JamieLandan 4 months ago
Chelsea took the North Bank that day, no mean feat in those days and Arsenal were in the Shed at SB in Sept 69, they did'nt take it there were old bill 10 deep right the way down the shed separating the 2. Chelsea did take loads away, Never saw any mob in the Shed untill Mile end lot from West Ham in around 73/74...could have taken it anytime.Men against boys.
springycfc1 6 months ago
Chelsea in the North Bank, Chelsea in the North Bank!!!!
We're still taking the piss..
CHELSEA!!!
northstand11 7 months ago
@northstand11 The Herd in the Shed, The Herd in the Shed, we are the famous Herd and we allways take the Shed.
mcrudeboi123456789 6 months ago
@mcrudeboi123456789
LOL!....Herd?!!!! LOL!
Get real CUNT..
northstand11 6 months ago
Chelsea rule
theretrogamerno1 11 months ago
chelsea's ground a shithole? you ever been to your own ground you goon cunts? your areas like a fucking domino, just like your home support. you need the floodlights on just to see your supporters faces.go and munch on another kebab you vile fucking north london wannabes from woolwich. i'd rather support chelsea in the blue square premier than be one of you lot at the top of the premier league. fuck trophies - we took more away than you and theres more pride in that.
MWSW11 1 year ago 3
@MWSW11 You keep talking about numbers back in the day but numbers don't count for shit when you don't actually make any noise which everyone knows chelsea don't do. Arsenal didn't take as many as chelsea did but we made more noise that you back then and now, you support is fucking terrible home and away.
mcrudeboi123456789 6 months ago
for a third rate club chelsea's away support pissed all over arseholes even when chelsea were shit. for such a big wonderful club arseholes away support was a fucking joke. chelsea took more away in the 2nd division than the arse did in the first. Arsehole have never spent millions on players have they, i forgot all their success was won with home grown players. like fuck! No use saying you never spent as much, makes no difference, you have still bought to get success in the PAST.
MWSW11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free energy has been here for a while ,But some very powerfull ppl don't want you and me to be free from energy costs,Get a motor that works with the power of magnets only at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Start the energy revolution!
jjerkings2890 1 year ago
arsenal wankers forget all this. loads of chelsea in the north bank and clockend. where was you when you was shit they sing and got no history. not a bad day winning 3 0 at arsenal. last 2 years arsenal 0 chelsea 3 and arsenal 1 chelsea 4 as well as 2 0 and 2 0 at stamford bridge. short memories gooners!
razer4660 1 year ago
@razer4660 what was the score when we last met divvy oh yeah 3-1 to us and as for the eighties 20 thousand at highbury who told you that the fairy god mother, you was a fucking yo yo club like you,ve been your whole history a nothing club your so boring even comrade roman has had enough and you back to being london,s sixth most supported club,how,s my spelling jack off
wozzi71 1 year ago
@wozzi71 have a look on youtube ARSENAL 1 CHELSEA 1 84 85 you fucking div. the whole clockend was chelsea. loads of chelsea in the seats and the north bank. you have a look and tell me how many then. fact you even question it when everyone knows it and can watch it proves what a clueless cunt you are!
razer4660 1 year ago
@razer4660 He's a complete tool. Funny how Chelsea were nothing before Roman yet here we are in 1970 walloping the Goonies on their own ground! BTW, we finished 3rd that season, they finished 12th. We were also getting attendances of 40,000-60,000 back then. You know, all those fans we never had before Roman, lol.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago 8
@FlaviusConstantius back then chelsea were the glamour boys of london. a lot of their support was made up of daytrippers wanting to go to the city and watch a game, ask many chelsea supporters from back then, they were the stylish club, nothing to do with great support. As I'm sure you'll know chelsea hardly took anyone to highbury those days and their support diminished a lot during the late seventies and got relegated.
ViceCityDJ 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ViceCityDJ From 1905 until the mid-70s we were consistently one of the top 5 supported teams in the country, through decades of winning nothing. That's proper support. Arsenal's fans are already deserting after 6 years of winning nothing. And I'm sure you also know that Arsenal used to get less than 20,000 for a lot of league games in the 80s, and you had a much better team than us back then. BTW, we had 1 or 2 fans in the Clock End in 84...
FlaviusConstantius 1 month ago
@FlaviusConstantius in what way deserting? we have a much bigger ground than you and still sell out, while you have problems getting SB full for champions league. getting less than 20,000 in the eighties? we got an average attendence of around 30,000 most seasons. only in 80-81 did we get under 20,000 for a home game more than once, and those were against brighton, luton and birmingham. not exactly crowd inticers.
ViceCityDJ 1 month ago
Against Wigan and Bolton recently there were thousands of empty seats around the place despite Arsenal strangely recording them as sell outs. You got 13k vs Boro 82, 14k v WBA 86, 15k v Wolves 82, 16k v Coventry 88, 15k v Forest 86, 16k v Coventry 86, 17k v Newcastle 87, 16k v Man City 83 etc, yet would get 40k+ for ManU or Spurs. We're also only one place below you in the all time attendances table, which is impressive given you've historically been a lot more successful than us.
FlaviusConstantius 1 month ago
@FlaviusConstantius did you actually look that up? haha ok mate. the club records sales, the fact some twats put up theiir tickets for sale and can't be fucked to go to the game and no-one buys them is annoying but the least att we've got since moving in 06 is at least 45,000.
ViceCityDJ 1 month ago
@FlaviusConstantius The all time attendance table is nonsense though. It doesn't take into account that some teams have played more seasons than others, Arsenal were playing in the 1890s when 10k was a good average (Spurs and chelsea weren't) and doesn't take into account that averages in different eras aren't comparable 30k in the 80s was good but not so much now or in the 50s. The average ranking in the average attendance charts had Arsenal at number 1 in 2002.
chavmanx 1 month ago
@FlaviusConstantius From 1920 until the 60s arsenal were by far and away the best supported side. Also the fact that you didn't win anything despite your "proper support" should tell you something. You were being made a mug of by your owners who were creaming the profits off you "loyal" numpties and not investing in the team because you didn't demand that they had to by not turning up. You were complicit in making your team shit, blind loyalty allows liberties to be taken
chavmanx 1 month ago
@FlaviusConstantius 69-70 chelsea had one of the best teams in their history since abromovich, one of the few times they had a decent side capable of winning something other than 54-55. yet arsenal still managed to win the fairs cup this season and next season we won the double. chelsea were always a fairweather club, established FOR the stadium which was already built that fulham didn't want. Arsenal were a proper club with a history that didn't rely on tourists.
ViceCityDJ 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@ViceCityDJ Perhaps if Chelsea had changed their name 3 or 4 times, relocated to the other side of London, bribed their way into the First Division and had a manager and a chairman banned from football for corruption, you'd think we were a "proper club with a history". Arsenal have never been a real club. Boring Arsenal and Highbury Library stereotypes don't come about for nothing. Quite fitting they now play in a soulless bowl named after an airline and filled with tourists.
FlaviusConstantius 1 month ago
@FlaviusConstantius ahh the old bribery argument. don't remember that being proved. relocating to keep the club from going bankrupt is wrong, but what about chelsea who might move south of the river to nine elms? is that fine? don't get the tourist jibe, your home matches apart from us, liverpool & spuds usually has the same atmosphere we get, to say otherwise is stupid. our club has 4 name changes. that comes with having a rich history. we didn't get given a stadium like you
ViceCityDJ 1 month ago
Comment removed
FlaviusConstantius 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's easy to surmise given Norris' other criminal activities and the fact Arsenal's promotion was not on footballing merit (they finished 5th that year). We've had one name and one home, a direct link to our past. In 1905 we were Chelsea and we played at Stamford Bridge. In 1905 you were called Woolwich and you played in Plumstead. I don't see how multiple ground moves and name changes equates to a rich history. More like a prototype MK Dons.
FlaviusConstantius 1 month ago
@FlaviusConstantius God why so bitter. chelsea are the epitomy of a fake club, set up by a guy to pay for his stadium that he built for Fulham. Profits creamed for decades. The fact that you have to bring up things that happened near 100 years ago to shit on Arsenal shows how weak your argument is. Just grow up mate, it's really not worth it.
chavmanx 1 month ago
@chavmanx Actually the Chelsea board always invested in the team, 10k on Gallacher, 20k on Lawton and so on. Best not to talk about things you don't know much about. And it's funny being lectured about fake clubs when yours was the prototype Franchise FC, was rescued by a bent Fulham chairman, is synonymous with 'library' and 'boring', and now play in a soulless plastic bowl named after an airline. Quite fitting given that its mostly tourists in it anyway....
FlaviusConstantius 1 month ago
Comment removed
chavmanx 3 weeks ago
@FlaviusConstantius Firstly you need to learn what franchising is, moving from one town/area to another is not it, I suggest a dictionary. The fact that you criticise Arsenal for things that happened 100 years ago shows the weakness of your argument. As does critcising the fact that our ground is like a library (and yours isn't) soulless and full of tourists (false). It's ironic that this is the same route you and spurs want to go further down.
chavmanx 3 weeks ago
I wouldn't expect a Gooner to understand what franchising is. Especially one who bleats about me talking about stuff that happened a long time ago (ho hum). Being a prototype MK Dons with more name changes and ground moves than you had empty seats against Bolton is as much your history and tradition as the marble halls or Nick Hornby. The Emirates is soulless, and it's either tourists or real fans who are attending matches disguised as plastic seats....
FlaviusConstantius 3 weeks ago
@FlaviusConstantius Like I said go and read a dictionary (business or otherwise) as you clearly don't know what franchising is. Unless you have your own definition, I'm dying to here it! Anyway once again moving a team from one locale to another is not franchising, pure business yes, franchising NO. Nor is changing a name or moving stadium (as many other clubs have done).
chavmanx 3 weeks ago
@chavmanx If you really didn't want to continue you wouldn't have typed out 3 more messages for me, lol. So, to clarify. Yes, Arsenal are a franchise, however much you try to fudge it. Yes, Chelsea were historically big spenders (I love how you think Chelsea spending big money doesn't actually count as spending big money!). And so it was Blackburn as well as Bolton where the Emirates was less than full? Even better. Cheerio now.
FlaviusConstantius 3 weeks ago
@FlaviusConstantius On the Bolton jibe 1. we played Blackburn 2. Bit rich criticising our current crowds when you've rarely averaged more than us in the last 80 years. Even then tickets have been paid for and people chose not to use them out of protest at our "underachievement". Anyway I'm done with you, your arguments are all over the place and your contempt for Arsenal is clouding your judgement, not much point in me continuing to debate with someone so blinkered, good day.
chavmanx 3 weeks ago
@FlaviusConstantius Secondly reeling off 2 players does not a team make. It is a known fact that the Mears charged high rents (to avoid the FA's dividend rules) and kept all money (except Chelsea gate money) to line their pockets. The amount of money Chelsea were making they should've had a far better team, but like I said the sheep that supported them back then didn't demand it, so the owners laughed all the way to the bank.
chavmanx 3 weeks ago
You should have said if you wanted a laundry list. Chelsea were always big spenders. In fact we were the reason the transfer deadline was introduced after the board spent a then-unheard of £3000 trying to avoid relegation in 1910. Whether the money was spent wisely is another matter entirely but it was spent nonetheless. So wrong again. As I said, best not to get into an argument with someone who knows more about this than you.
FlaviusConstantius 3 weeks ago
@FlaviusConstantius Always big spenders? The transfer deadline was introduced to stop you (or others) spending your way out of relegation, not to stop you buying titles. You spent to avoid relegation because you didn't spend what you needed to in the first place. Your owners only spent when financial ruin could come calling, good example. Your last line is ironic as it is you who has found yourself in this pridicament not me.
chavmanx 3 weeks ago
Chelsea walloping Arsenal...times never change eh?
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago
@FlaviusConstantius you have been a third rate club for over a hundred years if u look at record we have beaten u 4 times more u had to wait for a dirty russian to give u any credability buying trophies and playing shit football and u cant even sell out your fucking shithole stadium ,learn football histiory before u give it large
wozzi71 1 year ago
@wozzi71 if what your saying is true why pre roman did chelsea beat arsenal countless times. when chelsea was 3rd rate still beat arsenal. look at this game 3 0 to chelsea at arsenal you div. around this time chelsea beat arsenal loads of times. look at arsenal 1 chelsea 1 84 85 when chelsea had 20.000 at arsenal. if chelsea cant sellout why was average gate 41k and capacity 41k i call that soldout. lots of empty seats at arsenal on tv yet still put 60k why! thats not selling out empty seats
razer4660 1 year ago
@razer4660 check your facts pre roman we went 20 odd times without beaten chelsea 1995 when hughes scored was the last timme you beat us ,then roman turned up and bought your success the only time you beat us regularly you had to spend millions so that does not really count and the last time you beat us at home in league was in mid 80,s when u used to get 10 thiusand at home games so you check facts you r a small club
wozzi71 1 year ago
@wozzi71 why doesnt the roman period count. at least chelsea didnt have to borrow millions like arsenal did to build the new ground. even now with all the extra revenue arsenal still dont win fuck all. what about 20.000 chelsea fans at arsenal 84. 86 arsenal only got 24k v chelsea and 14k v westbrom the game before so what do you call arsenal getting 14k v west brom in 86 no 60k then. look at the video 3 0 to chelsea at arsenal beating you now beating you then you prick
razer4660 1 year ago
@wozzi71 learn to spell you thick cunt if my spelling was that bad wouldnt be on here.
razer4660 1 year ago
@razer4660 i remember 84 86 when you were getting 11 thousand at home games and as for 20 thousand at highbury ,maybe you was on acid you wer e the 7 biggest team in london then
wozzi71 1 year ago
@wozzi71 Shit football, eh? Musta missed the dross Arsenal played for decades before Wenger. Maybe you slept through it. Many did. Arsenal couldn't even sell out for a home game vs Liverpool a few years back, or did all the plastics come disguised as plastic seats again? As for football history, well, lest we forget that Arsenal wouldn't even exist but for a corrupt businessman who amongst other things bribed them into the First Division. Study up and you won't make a fool of yourself next time.
FlaviusConstantius 1 year ago