or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 149 comments are related to an article called:

2 in a row

Page 5 of 6

comment by aries22 (U1203)

posted on 3/4/13

comment by Chronic - Maf is on Death Row (U3423)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
aries.
money has little to do with size of club. chelsea are rich but are still a medium/small sized club that was getting gates of under 10,000 in the prem back in 1994.
spurs are about five times the size of west brom, and twice the size of the medium sized clubs in the west midlands, like wolves and aston villa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chronic-MAF

1. Chelsea are a medium size club? Really?
Chelsea are at least as big and successful a club as Spurs on any measure you care to name. Yes, Chelsea had some lean times during the 90s, but nobody could call them a medium size club.
League titles - Spurs 2, Chelsea 4
FA Cup - Spurs 8, Chelsea 7
League Cup - Spurs 4, Chelsea 4
European Cup - Spurs 0, Chelsea 1
European Cup Winner's Cup - Spurs 1, Chelsea 2
Uefa Cup - Spurs 2, Chelsea 0
Stadium capacity - Spurs 36,300, Chelsea 41,800

2. Spurs are twice the size of Aston Villa? Really? Even as an Albion fan I will show that's wrong.
League titles - Spurs 2, Aston Villa 7
FA Cup - Spurs 8, Aston Villa 7
League Cup - Spurs 4, Aston Villa 5
European Cup - Spurs 0, Aston Villa 1
European Cup Winner's Cup - Spurs 1, Aston Villa 0
Uefa Cup - Spurs 2, Aston Villa 0
Stadium capacity - Spurs 36,300, Aston Villa 42,800

Opinions are fine, and don't let the facts get in the way of the truth.

3. Finally, I didn't say Harry Redknapp had been given £200 million. Read what I actually said.

posted on 3/4/13

What a load of nonsense this discussion about size is. You can only measure a club by the footballing entertainment it gives today, plus what it's done in the past. Here's a few reflections on some clubs, including the London ones I watched in the past when I lived in London in the 1960s.

Chelsea: good way to spend an afternoon, played lively attractive football, remember Tambling in particular. I don't begrudge them becoming rich; the owner is a real enthusiast and they broke the monopoly of the "big" clubs. My dad sneered at them (not a big club like Villa) but they were OK.

West Ham: entertaining, would win or lose by a big score, could beat anybody on their day. Gone down a lot in recent years, not the fans fault.

Spurs: successful but overshadowed by a grim unsmiling attitude to success. Only went there if Villa were playing. Much prefer the Spurs of today, where flair is given its head.

Arsenal: big-headed, boring, never quite achieved what they thought they ought too. Again, much prefer Arsenal today under Wenger, although the expectations are still irritating; I blame the media.

Man U: Good but maybe a bit complacent. Best could create a goal of nothing and they relied a lot on that. Today under Fergie I think they're great, I like the fact they don't defend; however the fans get on my nerves. Man U v Villa has always been a good game, and still is (except under McLeish).

L'pool: Shankly was tops, his teams were lively. The smile went under the managers which followed.

Leeds: Grim. Revie was successful but awful. Probably played their most attractive football under O' Leary!

Villa: my club through thick and thin. Awful management in post-war years didn't believe in investment, in spite of which had good players and for some of the time exciting teams. Mercer's Minnows were quite like Lambert's Lambs. Deadly Doug had his faults but was vastly better than most previous owners, and we've had exciting teams, e.g. under Atkinson. Randy was the first owner since WWII who put real money into the club and under MON we did well, maybe not well enough. I like what Lambert is doing and think we'll get back to something good, even if we're relegated. Last year was a horrible throwback to the bad old days. If Lambert does succeed then we'll become an established major force again, playing really good competitive modern football, worthy of Villa's history.

comment by Chronic (U3423)

posted on 3/4/13

comment by AdotVilla- It's Time To Break Into The Top 4 (U14771)




posted 3 hours, 1 minute ago



Chronic don't Villa have a bigger ground in terms of capacity than Spurs?

-------

so do sunderland - whats the point if you cant fill it..

how many sell outs have you had this season ?

comment by Chronic (U3423)

posted on 3/4/13

2. Spurs are twice the size of Aston Villa? Really? Even as an Albion fan I will show that's wrong.
League titles - Spurs 2, Aston Villa 7
FA Cup - Spurs 8, Aston Villa 7
League Cup - Spurs 4, Aston Villa 5
European Cup - Spurs 0, Aston Villa 1
European Cup Winner's Cup - Spurs 1, Aston Villa 0
Uefa Cup - Spurs 2, Aston Villa 0
Stadium capacity - Spurs 36,300, Aston Villa 42,800

--------

villa won all their leagues in the 1800;s before anyone else existed though

the cheeky bastarrrrds...

they won the european cup fair enough.

they havent won a thing since 1996 though, and have fairly recently spent time in the lower leagues.

now spurs, despite having been hibernating for a couple of decades, at least do better than that.

villa are on the verge of another relegation too

next thing i will hear that sheff wed are bigger than spurs too, because hillsborough holds more than the lane

west midlands - graveyard of football

posted on 3/4/13

You do want us to stay up chronic though

comment by Chronic (U3423)

posted on 3/4/13

i do indeed andy

at the expense of a club who is an even bigger waste of time than aston villa - sunderland

posted on 3/4/13

at the expense of a club who is an even bigger waste of time than aston villa - sunderland.

I can think of plenty of others who are!

But not currently threatened with the drop

UTV

comment by Chronic (U3423)

posted on 3/4/13

there are several pointless clubs about.

clubs that never win anything, but just hang around the prem stinking up the place.

sunderland, villa, arsenal, etc etc

posted on 3/4/13

Not sure Tottenham have set the prem alight mate

comment by Chronic (U3423)

posted on 3/4/13

as i said earlier, we have been in hibernation for 20 years, but still manage to at least win the odd trophy. thats what big clubs do

not clubs like leeds who think they are big but are bumbling around in the lower leagues.

posted on 3/4/13

No big clubs win lots of trophies regularly.

That makes a lot of teams 'pointless' bar a few.

posted on 3/4/13

Huddersfield is bigger than Totties..

comment by aries22 (U1203)

posted on 3/4/13

comment by McParlandTheGreat (U6150)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
You can only measure a club by the footballing entertainment it gives today, plus what it's done in the past. Here's a few reflections on some clubs, including the London ones I watched in the past when I lived in London in the 1960s.

L'pool: Shankly was tops, his teams were lively. The smile went under the managers which followed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know this is about opinions, but Bob Paisley's teams of 1974-1983 didn't entertain you? I thought they were fantastic to watch, and they carried pretty much everything before them.

posted on 3/4/13

Agree aries they were a very good side

posted on 3/4/13

Big Ron's Villa side of around 1993 were very entertaining , but in those days runners up in the prem didn't get you into Champions League.

Easy nowadays

posted on 3/4/13

Big Rons baggies team was better.

posted on 3/4/13

Big Rons baggies team was better

This post was always a joke

Lots of comments but thankfully most off topic

posted on 3/4/13

Are you in the Villa choir Andy?

posted on 3/4/13

i thought blues and wba were friends

comment by bcfc83 (U7811)

posted on 3/4/13

Nah why would we be friends with people with six fingers!

posted on 3/4/13

So I can keep every single one of your sisters entertained?

posted on 3/4/13

Birmingham City on a par with Walsall in the West Midlands.

posted on 3/4/13

JH you have achieved your aim and lots of comments

No one really bothers about WBA even if we don't mind them

posted on 3/4/13

You make sense.

Maybe it's because I can hardly hear you from all the way up here

comment by Chronic (U3423)

posted on 3/4/13

comment by AdotVilla- It's Time To Break Into The Top 4 (U14771)
posted 8 hours, 52 minutes ago
Chronic don't Villa have a bigger ground in terms of capacity than Spurs? Have we not achieved more than you in the 20 years of PL football? More points, more average points, highest position etc... So how do you base the fact that you are twice as big as us? And how in the fack of life can you compare us to Wolves?

-----

dunno. but you will be playing each other next season

Page 5 of 6

Sign in if you want to comment