The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
And probably their wives.....John terry keeps their car parking places warm
Chelsea face two-year transfer ban after FIFA probe into Bertrand Traore signing
Chelsea have been the most successful English club in the last decade by a landslide, but I seriously do wonder how the next 10 years treats them, seeing their upcoming transfer ban.
No offence but it's erroneous to compare Chelsea to Man City. Chelsea before 2003, were still a good team, who had top players, challenged for titles sometimes, won cups, played in CL Quarters and were a top 6 quality team. Of course, they were no Liverpool or United, but still a good team, with a good following worldwide. Man City, on the other hand, were a league 1 quality side and used to get thrashed by likes of Middlesbrough 8-1 before their sugar daddy came in.Sadly, Until someone grips the dirty money running through the club and real justice is served for the cheating and underhand behaviour they will survive regardless of Transfer bans
Like Man City. This mob are a stain on football and shame on anyone who thinks they deserve any credit at all.
No offence but it's erroneous to compare Chelsea to Man City. Chelsea before 2003, were still a good team, who had top players, challenged for titles sometimes, won cups, played in CL Quarters and were a top 6 quality team. Of course, they were no Liverpool or United, but still a good team, with a good following worldwide. Man City, on the other hand, were a league 1 quality side and used to get thrashed by likes of Middlesbrough 8-1 before their sugar daddy came in.
"The Chelsea effect"Didn't take Sarri too long to transform into a highly unlikeable whiner.
No offence taken.No offence but it's erroneous to compare Chelsea to Man City. Chelsea before 2003, were still a good team, who had top players, challenged for titles sometimes, won cups, played in CL Quarters and were a top 6 quality team. Of course, they were no Liverpool or United, but still a good team, with a good following worldwide. Man City, on the other hand, were a league 1 quality side and used to get thrashed by likes of Middlesbrough 8-1 before their sugar daddy came in.
No offence but it's erroneous to compare Chelsea to Man City. Chelsea before 2003, were still a good team, who had top players, challenged for titles sometimes, won cups, played in CL Quarters and were a top 6 quality team. Of course, they were no Liverpool or United, but still a good team, with a good following worldwide. Man City, on the other hand, were a league 1 quality side and used to get thrashed by likes of Middlesbrough 8-1 before their sugar daddy came in.
Absolutely agree 100%.No offence taken.
Chelsea were skint and Bates bought them for £1. He then spent way beyond their income levels for years and sent the club into debt to the tune of 80 million. To add some context Spurs were in trouble for a debt to Midland Bank for 10 million just a decade before. Bates had fucked the club so much that it took a 26 million investment from Matthew Harding to keep them solvent into the early 00’s
Even then Bates could not form a thankful relationship with Harding. Bates, to his credit, managed to keep the team in the top half of the Premier leave while constantly papering over the cracks after Harding’s death, but even then it was artificial success, every single one of us could max out our credit cards and live well, but it would not be praise worthy to do so.
So I give no more credit to either regime and don’t feel I am being erroneous.