Football 2022/23

[Neil]

back in the 70s no one talked about Chelsea as a team that won things (same as they didn't for Leeds), both only got talked about for the nasty things.

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, Celery said:

So you're saying that to be somewhere, you have to win a trophy against Barca? 

 

That's an odd claim to say the least. Easier to just say you were wrong but I know that doesn't come easy to you. 

if winning a match is the best you can offer, you already know they were nowhere before roman.

[Celery]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

if winning a match is the best you can offer, you already know they were nowhere before roman.

It's not the best I can offer. I mentioned trophies which you've chosen to totally ignore. You're only seeing what you want to see. 

 

This is laughable. I've clearly showed you were talking BS yet you can't just hold your hands up like a normal person. Nothing changes with you. 

[Celery]

10 minutes ago, Neil said:

i'm saying that winning a match isn't trophies.

No one said it was 

[Celery]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

back in the 70s no one talked about Chelsea as a team that won things (same as they didn't for Leeds), both only got talked about for the nasty things.

Irrelevant. Roman came early 2000s. You've edited out 2 decades from history 😂

[Neil]

11 minutes ago, Celery said:

It's not the best I can offer. I mentioned trophies which you've chosen to totally ignore. You're only seeing what you want to see. 

 

This is laughable. I've clearly showed you were talking BS yet you can't just hold your hands up like a normal person. Nothing changes with you. 

you're never going to agree that chelsea where a no-where team, cos fans cant face the truth of their team being rubbish.

 

they got a bit better shortly before roman arrived, they still weren't a team that people expected to be winning trophies. bates was too busy milking them to build a team.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Neil

[Neil]

10 minutes ago, Celery said:

Irrelevant. Roman came early 2000s. You've edited out 2 decades from history 😂

the ken bates and bovver-boy eras are best forgotten.

[Celery]

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

you're never going to agree that chelsea where a no-where team, cos fans cant face the truth of their team being rubbish.

 

they got a bit better shortly before roman arrived, they still weren't a team that people expected to be winning trophies.

I'm not going to agree because it's wrong. 

 

5 major trophies between 1997 and 2000 proves you wrong. 

1 minute ago, Neil said:

the ken bates and bovver-boy eras are best forgotten.

Because we won trophies under Bates? 

 

Remember Jan '97? Liverpool 2-0 up at the Bridge against us. Bottled it and lost 4-2. We won the cup that year...

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, Celery said:

Because we won trophies under Bates? 

because you became more of a laughing stock than you were already?

[Celery]

9 minutes ago, Neil said:

because you became more of a laughing stock than you were already?

Aha, we're onto the 'desperately change the subject so I don't have to admit I was wrong' part of the Neil argument. Hello old friend 

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, Celery said:

Aha, we're onto the 'desperately change the subject so I don't have to admit I was wrong' part of the Neil argument. Hello old friend 

you're not my friend my friends are old enough to remember the many years of  chelsea in the wilderness, with only bovver boys and bate's fraud being noteworthy.

[Celery]

Just now, Neil said:

you're not my friend my friends are old enough to remember the many years of  chelsea in the wilderness, with only bovver boys and bate's fraud being noteworthy.

Whoosh! Totally missed the point there Neil. No, we're not friends. That was an expression referencing your familiar habit of changing the subject rather than showing backbone and admitting an error. 

You wanna return to the original discussion or keep avoiding? 

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, Celery said:

Whoosh! Totally missed the point there Neil. No, we're not friends. That was an expression referencing your familiar habit of changing the subject rather than showing backbone and admitting an error. 

You wanna return to the original discussion or keep avoiding? 

Happy to, cos I know chelsea's trophy cabinet was mostly bare, and no one thought of them as contenders until they were doped by romansdodgy dosh. Today's Millwall are saints compared to80s chelsea. 

[Celery]

12 minutes ago, Neil said:

Happy to, cos I know chelsea's trophy cabinet was mostly bare, and no one thought of them as contenders until they were doped by romansdodgy dosh. Today's Millwall are saints compared to80s chelsea. 

So, just to confirm, you are saying that 5 major trophies in 4yrs is not challenging for trophies? 

[Neil]

Just now, Celery said:

So, just to confirm, you are saying that 5 major trophies in 4yrs is not challenging for trophies? 

I'm saying no one thought of Chelsea as contenders until they had romains dosh. 

[Celery]

15 minutes ago, Neil said:

I'm saying no one thought of Chelsea as contenders until they had romains dosh. 

So you're saying your claim that we were 'nowhere' before Roman was false? 

And on the contender front, I suggest you remind yourself of the 99 or 2000 title race. Wrong again. 

[Neil]

3 hours ago, Celery said:

So you're saying your claim that we were 'nowhere' before Roman was false? 

And on the contender front, I suggest you remind yourself of the 99 or 2000 title race. Wrong again. 

if they were regular winners they'd be thought of as contenders, if theyre not regular winners - they were the no-where i said they were.

[Neil]

3 hours ago, Celery said:

So you're saying your claim that we were 'nowhere' before Roman was false? 

And on the contender front, I suggest you remind yourself of the 99 or 2000 title race. Wrong again. 

for that '99 title race, they hadn't won a titlefor however many decades it was. 😛 

[Neil]

on a today's basis you're arguing that spurs are contenders and regular trophy winners. when what they are is no-where.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Neil

[charlierc]

9 hours ago, DareToDibble said:

I didn’t see the game some completely missed this. WHAT?! 

Yup: Bernardo Silva opens up on 'tough' challenge of playing at left-back for Man City - Manchester Evening News

Apparently he also played this role in the previous weekend's game against Aston Villa, which I didn't watch so wasn't aware of that being tried out beforehand.

Curiously, it also says that when he was at Benfica several years ago, his then-boss tried that and his response was to hand in a transfer request. Though given there's been rumours for a few years now that he wants a new challenge, maybe that wouldn't be out of the question.

[charlierc]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

on a today's basis you're arguing that spurs are contenders and regular trophy winners. when what they are is no-where.

I think Chelsea of the 1998-2003 period were slightly higher than Spurs by that logic, in that they could swipe the odd trophy and challenge for the league title without being at the same level of Man United and Arsenal.

Though clearly Spurs as they are don't have the financial vulnerabilities Chelsea had in 2003 that saw their path coincide well with Roman's idea to join in on PL club ownership.

[Neil]

Looks like utd fans have a choice of a planet murderer or a planet mmurderer

[thetime]

7 hours ago, Neil said:

Looks like utd fans have a choice of a planet murderer or a planet mmurderer

Bad times.

Said it for a long time, clubs should go the German model and be 51% fan owned.

[charlierc]

I'd been worried about hearing this when the initial declaration he'd been rescued was retracted. One thing he played for my favourite club but more or less the same age as me as well, and a parent whose family I can only have sympathies for. Just an awfully sad story.

Edited February 18, 2023 by charlierc

[Celery]

16 hours ago, Neil said:

on a today's basis you're arguing that spurs are contenders and regular trophy winners. when what they are is no-where.

Wrong. Chelsea won loads of trophies in that period. Spurs have won sod all for 15yrs. 

 

Did I really have to explain that?