"Chelsea, a soulless brand that loves to be loathed&quo

So, Michael Henderson's polemic in yesterday's Telegraph received a predictably hefty postbag in response.

SPORT
Chelsea, a soulless brand that loves to be loathed

Michael Henderson – 28 Nov 2006

Status is not something you can buy over the counter at the grocer's, like a bag of King Edward's, it is something that develops incrementally over decades of achievement, says Michael Henderson. ...read


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2006/11/28/sfnhen28.xml

Let the debate begin...

Dunno why that close quote in the title refuses to work properly, sorry...

In a way he is right.

Although this may change soon enough as they begin to win European Comps - as yet though they haven't even won the CL so aren't getting too much recognition.

They also have a pretty pathetic stadium and IMO it could do with an upgrade (they should move to Earls Court, we'd have a field day on S106s )

Their fanbase is also pretty small in comparison to most big clubs - they're probably only the 6th best supported side in the EPL at present

4th biggest in London, behind Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham.

Money and success breeds jealousy.

Im not a Chelsea supporter, but I find the amount of finger pointing accusations and whingeing so utterly cretinous and hypocritical its unreal.

Case in point- Karl Heinz Rummenigge whining and wailing in public about how abramovich's millions are ruining football. He's now threatening to pull Bayern Munich out of the G14 gang because "all the clubs are interested in is their own self interests and promotion"...

The G14 union ever been seen as anything other than the rich men's table; and when you consider all the talk bandied around about forming a break away european league etc, that club has threatened to be FAR more detrimental than Chelsea have ever been.

Rummenigge is now upset because it damages Munich's own personal interests, at a time when Munich and the other big clubs couldnt give a shit about pillaging other clubs for talent and generally holding the upperhand economically since time began.

Chelsea now threaten these clubs and fans of these clubs, and as a result the whingeing starts.

TRWP

I think it's just sour grapes tbh.

Rumenigge is German though - pretty much explains it all

The Real White Pele wrote:Money and success breeds jealousy.

Im not a Chelsea supporter, but I find the amount of finger pointing accusations and whingeing so utterly cretinous and hypocritical its unreal.

Case in point- Karl Heinz Rummenigge whining and wailing in public about how abramovich's millions are ruining football. He's now threatening to pull Bayern Munich out of the G14 gang because "all the clubs are interested in is their own self interests and promotion"...

The G14 union ever been seen as anything other than the rich men's table; and when you consider all the talk bandied around about forming a break away european league etc, that club has threatened to be FAR more detrimental than Chelsea have ever been.

Rummenigge is now upset because it damages Munich's own personal interests, at a time when Munich and the other big clubs couldnt give a shit about pillaging other clubs for talent and generally holding the upperhand economically since time began.

Chelsea now threaten these clubs and fans of these clubs, and as a result the whingeing starts.

top post and couldn't agree more

It's just jealousy from the clubs that used to be the richest, and don't like that someone is richer than them. Nothing at all to do with football. And it seems to be only the other big clubs around europe that have a problem with them, also because they are not in this "old boys network".

I am not a fan but I kind of like them for telling other so-called big teams where to stick it.

Parks Lives wrote:4th biggest in London, behind Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham.

In front of west ham.
West ham best attendance ever is 42,000. Which Chelsea are averaging for the last 3 years.

Is that not something to do with capacity though johninho - or the fact that its mostly businessman that have led to the increase in attendances at Chelsea - I remember when they only managed to get crowds of just over 20,000....

Yes, and west ham as well, and Arsenal with 30,000.
Or furhter back in history, Chelsea with 70,000 attendances.

How can anyone judge West Ham as bigger than Chelsea, what is this opinion based on?

Epl fans should thank Chelsea for increasing the standard of football. Look at Man U this year fighting back with a much better season. New investors in teams like Portsmouth, Aston Villa, and West ham are making the league look stronger. It can only create a better competitive EPL...All because the likes of Chelsea and the mega bucks owner..

Yes, thank you Chelsea.

This really needs a more pan-European and even global response, which is why I was considering posting it on the European Leagues thread.

Although Henderson is scarcely a sports specialist and he is clearly unfairly polemical (his gibe at Mourinho as "the interpreter" is just one example), and although many of his arguments could be applied just as well to United
(whom many of us continue to dislike much more, even if they are playing more attractive football than Chelsea at the moment), a club towards which he is unwarrantedly generous in his analysis, there is surely a lot of truth in what he says.

Particularly the "soullessness". I might sound less like a proper sports fan when I say this (I would disagree), but it seems to me that sport at the top level needs to be more than just about winning, needs to be inspiring and stirring and offer something special to justify its place alongside other worthwhile interests. For a club like Chelsea to have spent such a fortune and commensurately offer so little in the way of magic, for want of a better word, seems at best a pity and at worst a selfish display of self-aggrandizement ahead of any consideration that they might be beholden to entertain their public.

Football is about glory more than anything, as Danny Blanchflower said. Even more than winning. And more than that, it's the way I find it increasingly difficult to see how anyone could LOVE this Chelsea. Admire their efficiency and pugnacity as a winning machine, but lovable, especially to the neutral, never. And in the context of what they've become over the last couple of years, I also find it hard to see that they have a real identity as a club (as in, one that a supporter can identify with) any more beyond being just a close-knit, competitive, winning machine, even compared to many other superclubs, including, I'm sorry to say, the hated "Red Devils" themselves.

Just my two cents.

Allez_les_rouges wrote: United
(whom many of us continue to dislike much more

Top post ( I stopped reading at this point as you simply couldn't have said anything more true)

@ TRWP/Roger/John



@ Tweeds

http://www.fullflow.com/images/casestudies/Stamford%20Bridge%20Stadium.jpg

http://www.picturesofengland.com/pictures/500/Stamford_Bridge_Chelsea_FC_1128881992.jpg

http://www001.upp.so-net.ne.jp/takebou/img_0675.JPG

Not really what I'd call a poor stadium. We can't really build on it too much either, because Bates sold the land.

PS. I'd say Chelsea (nowadays) are probably only behind the big 3, and Newcastle in terms of fan base.

Don't forget Spurs.

S4P wrote:

Chelsea home game in Europe?

I think that the chelsea fans are probably pretty inspired by winning the premiership, and possibly going on to win the CL this season.

Aren't you supposed to be inspired by your own team? So you shouldn't be looking for chelsea to do that.

saintgoingmarching wrote:

S4P wrote:

Chelsea home game in Europe?

very funny.

Actually, the European attendance isn't so bad. An average of 40,000 when the stadium holds 42,500 isn't so bad.

I expect the Levski game to be fairly empty though. Mainly because a) we're through b) it's on ITV and c) that bastard Kenyon still charges £50 for a ticket.