Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There are currently 2 people viewing this thread.
22 Jul 26
12:25
Joined:
Date Joined:
11 Aug 21
According to Morgan Rogers.
Personally I'd put them joint second with Spurs, behind Arsenal.
Personally I'd put them joint second with Spurs, behind Arsenal.
Show More
And it's arguable that Manchester United are the biggest club in London 
manchester united aren't even the best team in manchester.
Can't stand the Goons but you've got to admit they are the biggest.
Yeah, he should have said, "I've joined the second-biggest club in London".
Just PR for the fans. Although tbf, they've won more in Europe than Arsenal or Spurs ever will and are World champs.
Just PR for the fans. Although tbf, they've won more in Europe than Arsenal or Spurs ever will and are World champs.
manchester united aren't even the best team in manchester.
West Ham are bigger than City.
As PL 25/26 table positions, confirm Manure not even the best team in Manchester. Chelsea 3rd best in London, just behind Brentford. Hotshyte 6th best (or is it 6th worst) London team just ahead of relegated Wham.
how does one measure the size (who is biggest) of a club ? ground capacity ? recent honours won ? historical honours won ?
Nebulus concept ideal for debate, and click bait.
This as good as any, I guess for English teams (all other teams below 30):
Club....... Total Trophies (domestic & europe)
Liverpool.. 70
Man Untd... 68
Arsenal.... 50
Man City... 38
Chelsea.... 36
Club....... Total Trophies (domestic & europe)
Liverpool.. 70
Man Untd... 68
Arsenal.... 50
Man City... 38
Chelsea.... 36
https://www.givemesport.com/every-club-english-premier-league-football-league-ranked-size/
Obviously different criteria can be used to suit ones argument over "who is the biggest club", but the above seemingly uses a lot of different measurements in order to provide an English league table from 1 to 92 from earlier this year, honours won, attendances, revenue etc.
Arsenal are 3rd, Chelsea 4th.
Obviously different criteria can be used to suit ones argument over "who is the biggest club", but the above seemingly uses a lot of different measurements in order to provide an English league table from 1 to 92 from earlier this year, honours won, attendances, revenue etc.
Arsenal are 3rd, Chelsea 4th.
70s (apart from 1970 Kings Road heyday), 80s, 90s, most people thought of Chelsea as almost a yo-yo club.
1972-1997: only one Top 10 Prem Lge finish (that wasn't after promotion bounce)
The players would have a couple of pints down the Kings Road at midday then back to Stamford Bridge for 2:30 and still win 3-0.
City are a great side and have won plenty of cups & trophies but they are not a big club.
If they had a 70,000 seat stadium they wouldn't fill it most weeks.
If they had a 70,000 seat stadium they wouldn't fill it most weeks.
Arsenal are the only team in the top five before WW2 and since WW2. Arsenal has been in the highest tier since 1919, so over a century of continuous campaigns at the elite level. This unparalleled longevity is anchored by a record-setting 49-game unbeaten league streak in the modern era. The club is pure class when it comes to managerial appointments, no whimsical chopping and changing.
Fanbase should be the metric and Arsenal are by far the biggest. Trophies etc can be bought and in the case of City/Chelsea have been for decades. Chelsea are behind Spurs in reality. They were sold for £1 to Roman.
I was working for a reinsurance company at the time of the Abramovich takeover and had access to some extremely interesting (to say the least) documentation.
Jul 22, 2026 -- 2:22PM, Storm Alert wrote:
As PL 25/26 table positions, confirm Manure not even the best team in Manchester. Chelsea 3rd best in London, just behind Brentford. Hotshyte 6th best (or is it 6th worst) London team just ahead of relegated Wham.
Grow up.
It's a silly w1lly waving contest in essence. It wasn't even that long ago Chelsea fans were walking up and down the terraces with buckets out collecting money from the fans to keep the club going, but apparently now they're bigger than every other London club after winning the lottery.
Rogers is not only just pandering to the chelsea fanbase, but he's also lost his chance to ever move to Arsenal in the future, no chance that could ever happen now after saying that, the club wouldn't even entertain the idea, young and naive player led by the nose and told what to say by the PR people.
It's obviously nonsense, Arsenal have won 14 league titles, are current Champions with Chelsea only winning 6, 5 of them were thanks to a sudden cash injection from an Oligarch whereas Arsenal's success is organic. Arsenal's global reach is far bigger and much deeper than Chelsea who are a Johnny come lately in the grand scheme of things. There's clubs all over the world with the name Arsenal attached to the them, they also have limited opportunity to grow in Asia as red is THEE colour there, Malaysian owner even tried to switch Cardiff from blue to red for that reason.
Their only tangible claim is the fact they've won a couple of knockout European Cups, but comparing fanbase sizes, history and marketability it's a non contest.
Rogers has chosen Chelsea because he had more cash incentives, chose money over Champions League football and a team in a stronger position to win the league. That's his choice but let's not all insult our own intelligence and pretend it was because he thought he was joining a bigger club, those mugs don't even own their own pitch
Kind Regards.
Rogers is not only just pandering to the chelsea fanbase, but he's also lost his chance to ever move to Arsenal in the future, no chance that could ever happen now after saying that, the club wouldn't even entertain the idea, young and naive player led by the nose and told what to say by the PR people.
It's obviously nonsense, Arsenal have won 14 league titles, are current Champions with Chelsea only winning 6, 5 of them were thanks to a sudden cash injection from an Oligarch whereas Arsenal's success is organic. Arsenal's global reach is far bigger and much deeper than Chelsea who are a Johnny come lately in the grand scheme of things. There's clubs all over the world with the name Arsenal attached to the them, they also have limited opportunity to grow in Asia as red is THEE colour there, Malaysian owner even tried to switch Cardiff from blue to red for that reason.
Their only tangible claim is the fact they've won a couple of knockout European Cups, but comparing fanbase sizes, history and marketability it's a non contest.
Rogers has chosen Chelsea because he had more cash incentives, chose money over Champions League football and a team in a stronger position to win the league. That's his choice but let's not all insult our own intelligence and pretend it was because he thought he was joining a bigger club, those mugs don't even own their own pitch
Kind Regards.
Chelsea have won 2 champions leagues, currently Arsenal have better team but things can change quickly in football, we all know that.
Probably made Chelsea fans happy no better way when perhaps some may have been concerned about cash outlay. Let’s see how he gets on, talk is cheap, do it on pitch.
Probably made Chelsea fans happy no better way when perhaps some may have been concerned about cash outlay. Let’s see how he gets on, talk is cheap, do it on pitch.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/oct/17/newsstory.sport9
This article shows how close Chelsea were to financial oblivion. The docs i saw support this.
This article shows how close Chelsea were to financial oblivion. The docs i saw support this.
Rogers and Palmer are apparently joined at the hip and facetime each other every day since they left City. If I were a top attacking player, I'd be a bit wary of joining Arsenal TBH, none of the Arsenal attackers look very good or look like they're enjoying their football the last 2 years and spend more time defending.
Fanbases can be bought via sustained financial doping over a couple of decades, which is what City and Chelsea have done. Younger fans/players see them as just as big as the real big clubs but it was still somewhat shocking to see the global reach of Arsenal after they won the PL after 22 years of mediocrity and their figures for last season will show that.
Fanbases can be bought via sustained financial doping over a couple of decades, which is what City and Chelsea have done. Younger fans/players see them as just as big as the real big clubs but it was still somewhat shocking to see the global reach of Arsenal after they won the PL after 22 years of mediocrity and their figures for last season will show that.
Art*ta keeps his attacking players on a very short leash (Saka and Eze have been almost completely neutered under his regime) so I'm sure Rodgers took that into consideration when he turned Ars*nal down for Chelsea. He's wrong about Chelsea being the biggest London club though.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539