Royboyclaret wrote:Be interesting to see how the bookies price up the next game at Old Trafford, but it would come as no surprise to see United emerge as winners.

Liverpool are favourites, I've just checked.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Sarri isn't the right manager for Chelsea, but they also need a clear out in the playing staff, starting with Hazard.

Impressive stuff by City though.

I'm not sure Sarri is the right manager for any club

ClaretTony wrote:I'm not sure Sarri is the right manager for any club

Looks totally out of his depth.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I don't think even Man United fans rate their current side over Liverpools.

Can't stand Chelsea. Watching the ultimate Plastic side and fans getting thumped like this is brilliant.

Never thought of Chelsea as a club and it's fans plastic... Entitled maybe but plastic??

Chelsea have always been well supported.

ClaretTony wrote:I'm not sure Sarri is the right manager for any club

his Napoli team beat Man City last year didn't they ? (or season before). He's a decent manager, like the Man Utd players the Chelsea lot down tools when they don't get their own way

Royboyclaret wrote:Getting interesting now with Liverpool still in the driving seat, but the suspicion is that will all change after their next game at Old Trafford.

If City fail to win it they'll look back on that brief barren spell when they became ever so slightly complacent. They are easily the best team in the League with Man United (in their current state) a remote second.

Even after that barren spell I'm surprised more teams haven't looked at the way Newcastle beat them. Apparently City created very few chances that night.

Spijed wrote:Even after that barren spell I'm surprised more teams haven't looked at the way Newcastle beat them. Apparently City created very few chances that night.

City didn't turn up, one of the only games I can remember seeing a Pep team do that. Newcastle weren't amazing.

The current Man United side is nowhere near Liverpool’s.

It must be killing them inside knowing that either their feircest or closest rivals are going to win the league.

Love Chelsea getting spanked.

They’ve gone from 6000 to 60000 fans just cos of Russian money.

Plastics is the exact way to describe them.

BurnleyFC wrote:The current Man United side is nowhere near Liverpool’s.

It must be killing them inside knowing that either their feircest or closest rivals are going to win the league.

Be interesting to see how United go about the Liverpool game,beat them and hand the title to City,or lie down and die and give it to Liverpool

Steve1956 wrote:Be interesting to see how United go about the Liverpool game,beat them and hand the title to City,or lie down and die and give it to Liverpool

I think the majority of Man Utd fans would prefer Man City to win the title so they’ll be going all out to stop Liverpool.

Rileybobs wrote:I think the majority of Man Utd fans would prefer Man City to win the title so they’ll be going all out to stop Liverpool.

I hope so mate.....I hate Liverpool.

Vegas Claret wrote:City didn't turn up, one of the only games I can remember seeing a Pep team do that. Newcastle weren't amazing.

When I mentioned complacency that game was a prime example.

Perhaps Pep, and a few of his players, looked at a team containing James Milner and Jordan Henderson and considered them not to be a realistic threat to City's title aspirations. They may live to regret such thoughts but I still have City as favourites to emerge as winners.

bobinho wrote:Love Chelsea getting spanked.

They’ve gone from 6000 to 60000 fans just cos of Russian money.

Plastics is the exact way to describe them.

You've got to Larf....

IanMcL wrote:Chelsea have always been well supported.

They weren’t in the 80s

Cubanclaret wrote:They weren’t in the 80s

Yes... They had a big dip in support but I've never known 6.000 gates or 60.000 for that matter....It appears Burnley apart every clubs plastic...from mkd to Southampton Brighton etc etc.

Vegas Claret wrote:his Napoli team beat Man City last year didn't they ? (or season before). He's a decent manager, like the Man Utd players the Chelsea lot down tools when they don't get their own way

He's an average manager, that's it.

tim_noone wrote:Yes... They had a big dip in support but I've never known 6.000 gates or 60.000 for that matter....It appears Burnley apart every clubs plastic...from mkd to Southampton Brighton etc etc.

The exact figures are hardly important. You got my point I’m sure. Or maybe you didn’t, I’m not sure.

Either way, Chelsea haven’t always been a big club with a huge fan base. By all means do a little google research, I think you will see what I mean.


I’m just happy that someone is doing to Chelsea, what they have done to other clubs over the last few years since the money came in.

Yes I'm in full agreement with your last paragraph 100% and they certainly had p!ss poor gates when Bates was involved possibly through the crowd violence as well as poor results. But I could never say Chelsea as a club have plastic fans... Maybe the tourist types...But we have them also.

https://www.theshedend.com/topic/25287- ... -the-ugly/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting and honest read. Even if it does come across in parts as ‘yeah we had low gates but so did everyone else’.

So did we...

Chelsea were to some extent a yo-yo club before all the cash rolled in and my perception is that it was thought fashionable to be a Chelsea fan and they seemed to have lots of them because they had the Cockney wide boy, "sharp" image. That wasn't matched by success on the field which was very limited overall. When they were in the top division they were either mid table or below and every now and then they'd flirt with a bit of FA cup success or looming insolvency. Their "image" seemed to far outstrip the team, but yet is probably what drew Roman to them in the first place.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:He's an average manager, that's it.

decent = average in my book

Dark Cloud wrote:Chelsea were to some extent a yo-yo club before all the cash rolled in and my perception is that it was thought fashionable to be a Chelsea fan and they seemed to have lots of them because they had the Cockney wide boy, "sharp" image. That wasn't matched by success on the field which was very limited overall. When they were in the top division they were either mid table or below and every now and then they'd flirt with a bit of FA cup success or looming insolvency. Their "image" seemed to far outstrip the team, but yet is probably what drew Roman to them in the first place.

yes agreed it was always the image with the playboy player.. Or their violent fans depicted in the book 'skinhead' Joe Hawkins never visualised them as plastic though.

Steve1956 wrote:Be interesting to see how United go about the Liverpool game,beat them and hand the title to City,or lie down and die and give it to Liverpool

United can't afford to slack off they need the points for top 4,if Ole achieves that feat he has a fair shot at a permanent gig there next season.

On balance they would rather City won the league,it's not like that would be news,but if the Scousers were crowned champions after 30 barren years they would rub United's noses right in it.

Of course Chelsea are not ‘plastic’. Most of their fans of a certain age have followed them through thick and thin.

The worst Chelsea fan though is Tim Lovejoy. Haha does anyone remember the When Saturday Comes review of his autobiography ?

https://www.wsc.co.uk/the-archive/42-Me ... ove-no-joy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dark Cloud wrote:Chelsea were to some extent a yo-yo club before all the cash rolled in and my perception is that it was thought fashionable to be a Chelsea fan and they seemed to have lots of them because they had the Cockney wide boy, "sharp" image. That wasn't matched by success on the field which was very limited overall. When they were in the top division they were either mid table or below and every now and then they'd flirt with a bit of FA cup success or looming insolvency. Their "image" seemed to far outstrip the team, but yet is probably what drew Roman to them in the first place.

I think you are mixing up your London metaphors!
Cockney emanate from the east - if you can hear Bow bell, in theory! Chelsea have usually had a decent top tier team, however, they came to prominence in the swinging sixties, with the Kings Road, being the place to be seen.

The FC became trendy too.

IanMcL wrote:I think you are mixing up your London metaphors!
Cockney emanate from the east - if you can hear Bow bell, in theory! Chelsea have usually had a decent top tier team, however, they came to prominence in the swinging sixties, with the Kings Road, being the place to be seen.

The FC became trendy too.

They yo-yo'ed between the top 2 divisions a fair amount in the 1980's.and it was only really since the mid 1990's,with the Russian money that they became a big fish.

tiger76 wrote:They yo-yo'ed between the top 2 divisions a fair amount in the 1980's.and it was only really since the mid 1990's,with the Russian money that they became a big fish.

They were a pretty big fish before Roman got involved. Probably on the level of where Arsenal are now. Never will win the league but will win the odd cup here and there.

i know what posters are saying though they where average from early 80s to mid 90s
i remember going their and they were no better than us averaging crowds of 6 to 8 thousand.
And we used to beat them on the Turf then but since the Russian magnet came to their rescue, second on the agenda after the steel bloke they have never looked back
The last time we beat them in the league on the Turf we were both in the second division was 3-0 in 83 I think it was they brought about 300 hundred and still had a go with about 50 of them approaching the Beehole end from Brunshaw Rd

Turned the game yesterday soon as City went 2 up. As good a team as they are tbh I've no interest in watching them at all when it's so easy. I'm no fan of Liverpool by any means but would rather they win the league than City.