Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
CosbehFox

The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

By CosbehFox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

CosbehFox

CosbehFox

Posted
  • Author
Posted
58 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Probably when fans of those clubs stop wanking each other off online saying how "class" they are and how they "both deserve to be in the Prem". So never, basically.

 

Forest recently sold out Arsenal away end at  8000 - went on about how great this support was but it's an away end which has been sold out in that capacity by the likes of Plymouth, Coventry and Brentford. 

 

Big club behaviour

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corky

Corky

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Koke said:

 

Leeds at least have won the league and played CL football in recent adult memory.

 

Sheffield Wednesday are a complete bogus club. They've won 1 trophy (league cup) in nearly 100 years. Spent the last 20 years in 2nd & 3rd tier of English football. Yet all I hear is that they're a big club that belong in the Premier League. Total garbage. 

The only clubs that belong in the Premier League are the ones currently in it. Apart from the ever-presents, West Ham, Aston Villa and Newcastle who've missed around three seasons each, the rest of us go up and down, have good spells, brief stays and long periods outside of it.

 

History is all well and good but that's what it is. You have to move on and live in the present. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leeds Fox

Leeds Fox

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

I’ve said this before but at what time does the main opinion go from Wednesday, Leeds, Forest being sleeping giants to just shit teams who haven’t been in top flight for 15 years plus 

 

They’re a fuching coma! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koke

Koke

Posted
Posted (edited)

Arsenal are definitely the biggest club in London. They're an institution. An iconic club. Chelsea are new money and its an insult fo compare Spurs to Arsenal. Not even close. 

 

Arsenal badly need a CL trophy though. Much smaller clubs than them like Villa and Notts Forest have it. 

Edited by Koke
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickyblueeyes

Mickyblueeyes

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Yep - no contest. Chelsea are all about the new money ....

arsenal are ‘old money’ ...... that’s why they’ve dropped off the pace ......

 

3 hours ago, Koke said:

Arsenal are definitely the biggest club in London. They're an institution. An iconic club. Chelsea are new money and its an insult fo compare Spurs to Arsenal. Not even close. 

 

Arsenal badly need a CL trophy though. Much smaller clubs than them like Villa and Notts Forest have it. 

I get what you guys are saying but for me I take a different view. Chelsea, yes predominately due to Abramovich money have in the last 20 years surpassed Arsenal as a club - the trophy cabinet, infurstructure etc. While it was “new money” which gave them the advantage you can’t disregard their success since Abramovich took over. I think any club needs injection of money to allow them that success nowadays. 

 

For example, we are a bigger club then we were 6/7 years ago. However, that is very much down to Vichai and his family injecting vast amounts of money into our club. Say we continue to build and hit a patch where we win the European cup and a few more league titles (please god), will we still be a smaller club then say Forest because their success came at a different time where money was not as important ? 

 

I agree though, Spurs are nowhere near Arsenal or Chelsea in terms of big club status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Langston

Langston

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Koke said:

Arsenal are definitely the biggest club in London. They're an institution. An iconic club. Chelsea are new money and its an insult fo compare Spurs to Arsenal. Not even close. 

 

Arsenal badly need a CL trophy though. Much smaller clubs than them like Villa and Notts Forest have it. 

 

It's not all that "new" anymore is it? Chelsea have been wildly successful for 20 years, even in the years just before Abramovich they were winning things. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stadt

Stadt

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Langston said:

 

It's not all that "new" anymore is it? Chelsea have been wildly successful for 20 years, even in the years just before Abramovich they were winning things. 

“Man City/Chelsea have no history” is well boring. They were two of the ten biggest clubs in the country anyway I’d have thought 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koke

Koke

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Langston said:

 

It's not all that "new" anymore is it? Chelsea have been wildly successful for 20 years, even in the years just before Abramovich they were winning things. 

 

They were successful. But not as successful as Arsenal. Arsenal had 13 league titles before Chelsea got their 2nd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jobyfox

Jobyfox

Posted
Posted

I think supporters of historically successful clubs hold on to this for far too long to evidence their size. It is true that historic success can often lead to a generation or two of large support that, in turn, helps maintain their status as a: 'big club'.

 

Preston were easily the most successful club at the beginning of the 20th Century

Huddersfield won the league title for 3 successive seasons in the 1920s

Wolves won the league title 3 times in the 1950s

Forest won the European Cup twice in the 70s/80s

 

There has to be a situation when this success starts to become 'time served' and starts to lose its relevance to the current status. Are Huddersfield a bigger club than us (that's a rhetorical question)?

 

Similarly I don't get this argument from supporters of well: "Man City/Chelsea are only big because of the money!" So what!! There was a time for any club that was the catalyst for their growth. For example: a lot of people turned to Manchester United following the Munich air crash.

 

Chelsea weren't a huge club 30 years ago. They are now by any measure. Whether they are bigger than Arsenal is a matter of debate and it will only be decided either way by the trajectory of those two clubs in the coming years.

 

There was no doubt in my mind 30 years ago that we were a smaller club than Forest and Derby. More recently I rated us all of a similar size. Now I think we're edging ahead, but what happens over the next few years will determine if we stay there.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxinsocks

foxinsocks

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Jobyfox said:

I think supporters of historically successful clubs hold on to this for far too long to evidence their size. It is true that historic success can often lead to a generation or two of large support that, in turn, helps maintain their status as a: 'big club'.

 

Preston were easily the most successful club at the beginning of the 20th Century

Huddersfield won the league title for 3 successive seasons in the 1920s

Wolves won the league title 3 times in the 1950s

Forest won the European Cup twice in the 70s/80s

 

There has to be a situation when this success starts to become 'time served' and starts to lose its relevance to the current status. Are Huddersfield a bigger club than us (that's a rhetorical question)?

 

Similarly I don't get this argument from supporters of well: "Man City/Chelsea are only big because of the money!" So what!! There was a time for any club that was the catalyst for their growth. For example: a lot of people turned to Manchester United following the Munich air crash.

 

Chelsea weren't a huge club 30 years ago. They are now by any measure. Whether they are bigger than Arsenal is a matter of debate and it will only be decided either way by the trajectory of those two clubs in the coming years.

 

There was no doubt in my mind 30 years ago that we were a smaller club than Forest and Derby. More recently I rated us all of a similar size. Now I think we're edging ahead, but what happens over the next few years will determine if we stay there.

such self comparison will not lead to happiness.  WE should not  compare ourselves without and we should not value ourselves based on the view of others.  Do we like the way our club is progressing? who cares who was, is or will be bigger in terms to receipts, fan base,  medals... we cannot change to another club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VIKTOR-LE5

VIKTOR-LE5

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Jobyfox said:

I think supporters of historically successful clubs hold on to this for far too long to evidence their size. It is true that historic success can often lead to a generation or two of large support that, in turn, helps maintain their status as a: 'big club'.

 

Preston were easily the most successful club at the beginning of the 20th Century

Huddersfield won the league title for 3 successive seasons in the 1920s

Wolves won the league title 3 times in the 1950s

Forest won the European Cup twice in the 70s/80s

 

There has to be a situation when this success starts to become 'time served' and starts to lose its relevance to the current status. Are Huddersfield a bigger club than us (that's a rhetorical question)?

 

Similarly I don't get this argument from supporters of well: "Man City/Chelsea are only big because of the money!" So what!! There was a time for any club that was the catalyst for their growth. For example: a lot of people turned to Manchester United following the Munich air crash.

 

Chelsea weren't a huge club 30 years ago. They are now by any measure. Whether they are bigger than Arsenal is a matter of debate and it will only be decided either way by the trajectory of those two clubs in the coming years.

 

There was no doubt in my mind 30 years ago that we were a smaller club than Forest and Derby. More recently I rated us all of a similar size. Now I think we're edging ahead, but what happens over the next few years will determine if we stay there.

 

We're miles ahead of Derby and Forest the only reason people think we might not be is because of our own fans are happy to say things like little Leicester, so other clubs fans perceive us to be small, never heard Derby a little town outside Nottingham fans speak like this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OntarioFox

OntarioFox

Posted
Posted (edited)

We could honestly just post that South Park episode where the entire town is obsessed with dick size and interchange it for this conversation.

 

 

Edited by OntarioFox
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jobyfox

Jobyfox

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, foxinsocks said:

such self comparison will not lead to happiness.  WE should not  compare ourselves without and we should not value ourselves based on the view of others.  Do we like the way our club is progressing? who cares who was, is or will be bigger in terms to receipts, fan base,  medals... we cannot change to another club.

I was just contributing to the discussion in terms of what has already been stated and trying to turn something very subjective into something measurable.

 

I wasn’t making any statement on how important, or not, it was. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Langston

Langston

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Koke said:

 

They were successful. But not as successful as Arsenal. Arsenal had 13 league titles before Chelsea got their 2nd. 

 

But for the best part of fifteen years now (which you could argue is an era) Chelsea have been consistently better than Arsenal and have won every prize going in that time (bar the Club World Cup which is a series of glorified friendlies anyway).

I always think the argument is pointless but for me - as it stands Chelsea are bigger, better, and more attractive than Arsenal.

It's the same reasoning I'd give for us being "bigger" than Villa, Newcastle, Sunderland, Derby, Forest, Wednesday etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raw Dykes

Raw Dykes

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jobyfox said:

I think supporters of historically successful clubs hold on to this for far too long to evidence their size. It is true that historic success can often lead to a generation or two of large support that, in turn, helps maintain their status as a: 'big club'.

 

Preston were easily the most successful club at the beginning of the 20th Century

Huddersfield won the league title for 3 successive seasons in the 1920s

Wolves won the league title 3 times in the 1950s

Forest won the European Cup twice in the 70s/80s

 

There has to be a situation when this success starts to become 'time served' and starts to lose its relevance to the current status. Are Huddersfield a bigger club than us (that's a rhetorical question)?

 

Similarly I don't get this argument from supporters of well: "Man City/Chelsea are only big because of the money!" So what!! There was a time for any club that was the catalyst for their growth. For example: a lot of people turned to Manchester United following the Munich air crash.

 

Chelsea weren't a huge club 30 years ago. They are now by any measure. Whether they are bigger than Arsenal is a matter of debate and it will only be decided either way by the trajectory of those two clubs in the coming years.

 

There was no doubt in my mind 30 years ago that we were a smaller club than Forest and Derby. More recently I rated us all of a similar size. Now I think we're edging ahead, but what happens over the next few years will determine if we stay there.

Agreed. Just because they grew as a club due to the money pumped in, doesn't mean they didn't grow. Some clubs grow because the population of the town they're in is big, or they have fewer rivals in the area. Does that mean we can say that's unfair, and we can ignore their size? I don't think so. It's exactly the same reason - money. From fans instead of owners, but money, all the same.

 

Agree re: Forest and Derby, as well. And Cov when they were PL mainstays. I think we're ahead now, and accelerating away. Not much hope for any of those catching up any time soon. Even if any of them was to reach the PL, they would still have some way to go. Things can change quite quickly, though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

 

I get what you guys are saying but for me I take a different view. Chelsea, yes predominately due to Abramovich money have in the last 20 years surpassed Arsenal as a club - the trophy cabinet, infurstructure etc. While it was “new money” which gave them the advantage you can’t disregard their success since Abramovich took over. I think any club needs injection of money to allow them that success nowadays. 

 

However, that is very much down to Vichai and his family injecting vast amounts of money into our club. Say we continue to build and hit a patch where we win the European cup and a few more league titles (please god), will we still be a smaller club then say Forest because their success came at a different time where money was not as important ? 

 

I agree though, Spurs are nowhere near Arsenal or Chelsea in terms of big club status.

Not sure that’s true at the moment - since the 100m conversion of debt to shares, our profits must be in surplus ? 

 

Its down to the family not taking the profits out of the club 

 

assume the next two windows will see the negative increase as we build on what we already have 

 

from someone who has lived down here for thirty years, Arsenal are the biggest club in London ......  in twenty years perhaps Chelsea can claim that particular crown (who cares really) 

 

its about us and how we do and if we are consistently competitive in winning trophies and in the upper echelons of the premier league then forest, derby and burton bloody Albion can think they are bigger than us !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jobyfox

Jobyfox

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Not sure that’s true at the moment - since the 100m conversion of debt to shares, our profits must be in surplus ? 

 

Its down to the family not taking the profits out of the club 

 

assume the next two windows will see the negative increase as we build on what we already have 

 

from someone who has lived down here for thirty years, Arsenal are the biggest club in London ......  in twenty years perhaps Chelsea can claim that particular crown (who cares really) 

 

its about us and how we do and if we are consistently competitive in winning trophies and in the upper echelons of the premier league then forest, derby and burton bloody Albion can think they are bigger than us !!!

That’s all well and good, but we will always have an inferiority complex. Remember what that Forest fan said:

 

"No matter what they achieve they will never be our rivals. That will always hurt them no matter how many trophies they win”

 

😄 - Sorry couldn’t help repeating it. It’s such comedy gold 😂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VIKTOR-LE5

VIKTOR-LE5

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Not sure that’s true at the moment - since the 100m conversion of debt to shares, our profits must be in surplus ? 

 

Its down to the family not taking the profits out of the club 

 

assume the next two windows will see the negative increase as we build on what we already have 

 

from someone who has lived down here for thirty years, Arsenal are the biggest club in London ......  in twenty years perhaps Chelsea can claim that particular crown (who cares really) 

 

its about us and how we do and if we are consistently competitive in winning trophies and in the upper echelons of the premier league then forest, derby and burton bloody Albion can think they are bigger than us !!!

 

Thought Man United were the biggest club in London or maybe 2nd behind Arsenal.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickyblueeyes

Mickyblueeyes

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Not sure that’s true at the moment - since the 100m conversion of debt to shares, our profits must be in surplus ? 

 

Its down to the family not taking the profits out of the club 

 

assume the next two windows will see the negative increase as we build on what we already have 

 

from someone who has lived down here for thirty years, Arsenal are the biggest club in London ......  in twenty years perhaps Chelsea can claim that particular crown (who cares really) 

 

its about us and how we do and if we are consistently competitive in winning trophies and in the upper echelons of the premier league then forest, derby and burton bloody Albion can think they are bigger than us !!!

Hmm. All Comes about from Vichai and his initial investment. Without him, it’s not unthinkable this club could’ve gone down the route of a Bolton. 

 

We’ll agree to disagree on the Chelsea v Arsenal Big club debate. Don’t get me wrong Arsenal are huge, in London, in the country and globally. However, Chelsea’s trophy cabinet in the last 20 odd years (and especially the European Cup) sets them apart.

 

your last paragraph is spot on !! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...