Come here to laugh at Chavs

  • 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...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Higuain now

It really is ridiculous how many “names” on massive money they can get and no doubt add to the ruins of careers.

From George Weah to Higuain...

Just fuck off !
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 

EighteenEightyTwo

We are so calm
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.

Chelsea were quite good in the late 90s and early 00s but wasn’t that due to spending way beyond their means? Weren’t they on the verge of doing a Leeds before Abramovich?
 
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 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.
 

MiddxSpur

Supporter
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.

It depends what period you consider. The bluescum had a purple patch before 2003 but as another poster has said it was done on false credit and Matthew Hardings winfall money. But for decades they were absolute shite, with a small fanbase, including a disproportionately high percentage of racism scumbags.
At least the Man City fans stuck with their team whe they were shite and in lower divisions. Whilst at the same time seeing Man U winning all around them. Must have been hard to take.
 

Wellsey

Supporter
Radio 5 commentary of chavs v Newcastle they were talking aout Hudson- Odoi leaving and that Chelsea have a poor history of bringing youth players through when David Pleat chirpped up "They have no history!" Legend.
 
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.
Absolutely agree 100%.

Leaving aside Bates' spending spree when the banks were on the verge of asking them to provide a list of their players they would sell tomorrow, ie doing a Leeds. Leeds, who have been in the wilderness for 20 years!!

Chavs were quite a cool and trendy club when I was growing up. From 1967 to 1973:

1965 League cup winners v Leicester, 2 legs. 5th LC. Very low-key at the time, 20,000 crowd for the home leg. Hardly a trophy in those days.

1967 FA cup final, lost to Spurs (Ha!!)
1970 beat Leeds FA cup final after replay (first game on beach-like pitch, Leeds blew it)
1971 Cup winners cup after replay. Kudos beating Real Madrid
1972 League cup final, lost to Stoke

and that was it. Apart from an isolated Div I in the 1950's, that was their period in the sun.

I make that about on a par with Wet Spam. Without the squillions, that's their level.
 
Top Bottom