Comments on: Forwards in fine fettle, defenders disappearing

By: dennis

dennis — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:01:59 +0000

i said now not no

By: dennis

dennis — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:01:34 +0000

thanks pete no i understand thank you

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:18:48 +0000

Dennis, you are (perhaps deliberately) misquoting me. I did not say being a big club is not defined by trophies, I said that being a big club is defined by those trophies over a MUCH larger timescale than five years.

Chelsea are not as big a club as Liverpool, for example, despite their recent successes. And anyone who has seen how players consider Real Madrid the best club you can join would see that they are the ‘biggest’ club in Spain, despite Barca’s dominance last season.

My point is this – you can cease to be a big club, but not in a few years, unless you do a Leeds and fall through the league. Examples of clubs that have fallen would be Forest and Derby, who are no longer big clubs despite their illustrious history.

But your point about Chelsea is exactly the point I’m trying to get over to you – it takes more than a billionaire coming in, making your team his plaything, and bringing short term success, to make Chelsea a big club. They are currently a successful club, but one of the biggest five in the world (brand-wise, as Peter Kenyon would put it)? Absolutely not. They do not have the tradition, the history. They can’t even balance the books in a single season, and if their benefactor left, they’d be right back where they were before he arrived – in the mire, and trophyless.

I think your idea of a long time in football is a lot less than mine. For example, before the conception of the Premiership, United hadn’t won the league since 1967. Did they stop being a big club in the intervening 25 years? According to you, yes, as you consider Arsenal to be a small club just FIVE years after we became the first club in 100 years to win the league unbeaten.

I see it differently – United never stopped being a big club, neither have Liverpool now. And as the second most successful club of the Premiership era, I can’t see how Arsenal have either.

By: dennis

dennis — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:47:09 +0000

pete how many yeras did it take chelsea to win trophys when abromivich came. you are saying, it does not define trophys in short period so how many years did it take chelsea to do that.

By: dennis

dennis — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:44:25 +0000

alan the first post of pete comment he said being a big club does not define trophys . IN THAT STATEMENT WHAT DEON THAT MEAN PLS ANSWER ME.

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:11:22 +0000

Alan, thank you for setting Dennis straight more succinctly than I ever could! With Dennis explaining that Milan and Real Madrid are big clubs despite recent struggles, he has effectively admitted that Arsenal are too, since Wenger has brought more trophies to the club than any other manager in our history.

Also Dennis, if you could refrain from over-capitalisation, that would be great. Shouting doesn’t make your point (whatever it actually is) come across any better, quite the opposite.

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:52:23 +0000

Dennis,

Realise you are totally contradicting yourself. You started off saying that you are only a big club if you are winning things. Pete correctly told you that you were wrong, saying by your definition Real Madrid and AC Milan weren’t big clubs. You’ve gone back and told him that he doesn’t know football, they are big clubs because they have history. Which is the entire point that Pete was making, but a point you did not make in your first post.

You really should have added Henry to your list of players.

By: dennis

dennis — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:53:15 +0000

pete. i know you do not know what football is all about. football is all about HISTORY.players play football to win things so that they can remember what they have than when they actually retire. if you do not have HISTORY in your career as a football player then you are not one of the biggest players in the wolrd.the likes of ronaldo, zidane, messi, kaka, chalton, cantona and maldini all spring to mind. all these players have won major trophys in thier club and that why they are call the best players.
NOWADAYS FOOTBALL IS ALL ABOUT TROPHYS AND HISTORY. TROPHYS BRINGS MONEY TO CLUB. AND BASE ON YOUR LOGIC AC MILAN IS HISTORY WITH 7 CL. REAL IS HISTROY AND THAT WHY THEY ARE ATTRACTING BIG PLAYERS. THE LIKES OF KAKA AND RONALDO ARE ALL GOING TO MADRID BCOS THEY KNOW THE CLUB HAVE HISTORY AND ARE THE BIGGEST CLUB IN THE WORLD WITH 9CL. ANOTHER LOGIC IS CHELSEA WHO WERE NO WHERE TO BE CALLED BIGGEST CLUB BUT GUESS WHAT, THEY HAVE WON TROPHYS WITH PAST FEW YEARS AND THEY ARE NOW CALLED ONE OF THE BIGGEST CLUB IN THE WOLRD. AND IF YOU KNOW THIS MANCITY OFFERED 100MIL FOR KAKA AND HE REJECTED IS BCOS THEY HAVE NO HISTORY AND TROPHYS. THEN WHY DID HE CHOOSE TO PLAY FOR REAL INSTEAD OF MANCITY. ANSWER ME PETE.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:48:14 +0000

Dennis, thank you for your well put together, thoughtful, legible…..

Ah, forget it.

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:09:16 +0000

Ah, therein lies the naivety, shown by you, Peter Kenyon and Garry Cook.

Being a big club is not defined by trophies over a small period, but over a very long period. It is the reason Liverpool are still a big club despite not winning their own league in twenty years.

It is also the reason Real Madrid can attract the world’s biggest stars despite the fact that they’ve gone out in the last 16 of the Champions League for the last four years, and clearly aren’t the best side in Spain.

By your definition, Barcelona are the biggest club in Spain, and that is why your definition, in my opinion, is wrong.

And you contradict yourself by mentioning Milan as a big club, despite their non-appearance in last season’s CL.