JamieD 19,163 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Regarding history, Chelsea (a club I strongly dislike) had won three times as many European trophies as Rangers before Abramovich came along. This "my club has 'more history' than yours" (however the fuck you quantify that abstract concept) dick-measuring exercise is just daft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingWilBEARy 4,319 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Regarding history, Chelsea (a club I strongly dislike) had won three times as many European trophies as Rangers before Abramovich came along. This "my club has 'more history' than yours" (however the fuck you quantify that abstract concept) dick-measuring exercise is just daft.S'wrang with Chelsea? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieD 19,163 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 S'wrang with Chelsea?Mostly a personnel issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravelingWilBEARy 4,319 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Mostly a personnel issue.Azpilicueta? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jela 20,662 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Regarding history, Chelsea (a club I strongly dislike) had won three times as many European trophies as Rangers before Abramovich came along. This "my club has 'more history' than yours" (however the fuck you quantify that abstract concept) dick-measuring exercise is just daft.I was just about to say that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieD 19,163 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Azpilicueta?Aye, man's a cunt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithgersbear 3,225 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Regarding history, Chelsea (a club I strongly dislike) had won three times as many European trophies as Rangers before Abramovich came along. This "my club has 'more history' than yours" (however the fuck you quantify that abstract concept) dick-measuring exercise is just daft.History is history, its how that history is made and developed which counts IMO. Plus Rangers compete in Scotland, a country of 5 million people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMB 14,167 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Chelsea had the chance to bring in 'The Special One'. If you get that chance you must grab it with both hands. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongolikecandy 418 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Bill Struth built Rangers to the titan it is, the founding fathers even before him and the huge cultural aspect which the club holds for many people. It has moved onto a new level instead of actually building a club with good coaching and good management of the club, the answer is sugar daddies throwing insane amounts of money at players, spending huge sums of money on wages and in effect buying success for the image of said club really.I believe you have a soft spot for Arsenal so you would know they were bought by asugar daddy in 1910 and he bought them into the 1st division under controversial circumstances Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 72,650 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 :jose: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 We have, nevertheless, historically dominated Scottish football by being the best supported - therefore consequently the wealthiest - club in the land. The fact that we earned that support and that money through success on the field is neither here nor there. It still perpetuated a cycle of dominance. We still had the pick of the best Scottish players, an unmatched ability to draw foreign players who came primarily for the money, and the best facilities. Complaining about the game being "all about money" strikes me as something that fans of, say, Halifax are entitled to do. Not us.corporate dominance is bad for the game but it's a cancer that's too big to be cut out now. I disagree that it's here nor there though, teams like Rangers or Manchester united established that corporate dominance like a small business owner who spent years of hard work growing his business to become multi-national with multi-million pound turnovers, meanwhile Chelsea & Man City were like small business owners who never quite achieved the same success but won the lottery 1 day to pull there wealth in line with who earned it. Those Sheiks could have purchased West Ham instead of Man City and they'd be the team competing for the Prem while City scrapped in the relegation zone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Of course they can't. Before they had sugar daddies they played in leagues dominated by corporate monopolies, of which Rangers are (were) a sterling example. A Rangers fan moaning about money ruling the game seems every bit as cringe-inducing to me as a Celtic fan claiming his club are persecuted underdogs, despite winning the title 44 times. A number of complex factors led to Rangers becoming the biggest club in Scotland, and only some of those were in any way merit-based. We have been very lucky and very spoilt.If I was given the chance to name just one poster who I thought would have been most against the sort of financial doping that has been witnessed at Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City, PSG et al, I would have plumped for you in an instant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 If I was given the chance to name just one poster who I thought would have been most against the sort of financial doping that has been witnessed at Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City, PSG et al, I would have plumped for you in an instant.Doping would indicate rule breaking no?I don't like the way those clubs have built up but it's legal all the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 corporate dominance is bad for the game but it's a cancer that's too big to be cut out now. I disagree that it's here nor there though, teams like Rangers or Manchester united established that corporate dominance like a small business owner who spent years of hard work growing his business to become multi-national with multi-million pound turnovers, meanwhile Chelsea & Man City were like small business owners who never quite achieved the same success but won the lottery 1 day to pull there wealth in line with who earned it. Those Sheiks could have purchased West Ham instead of Man City and they'd be the team competing for the Prem while City scrapped in the relegation zone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieD 19,163 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 If I was given the chance to name just one poster who I thought would have been most against the sort of financial doping that has been witnessed at Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City, PSG et al, I would have plumped for you in an instant.I am against it in general, and tend to form a dislike for these clubs as a result of their excesses, but I can't honestly say that I find what Chelsea have done any more cynical and ultimately damaging than the control and dominance that Rangers and Celtic have exerted over Scottish football over the last century and more. I just imagine how ridiculous I would think a Rangers fan complaining about being priced out of the elite game was, if I wasn't one myself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 Doping would indicate rule breaking no?I don't like the way those clubs have built up but it's legal all the same.Drug doping is legal until the relevant authorities deem otherwise. Money is no different. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cushynumber 25,178 Posted June 4, 2013 Share Posted June 4, 2013 I think we sum up how the modern game is about money... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalvinC 1,414 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Fuck Chelsea, we are a much bigger club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johanhentze 14,313 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 FFS Ricky.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.