Er......a club?SpaceCruiser wrote:What else would you like to refer to it as?Jerry St Clair wrote:I wish Nigel Howe would stop referring to MY football club as a "brand".
These clubs generate the biggest revenues in Europe, all four are in the top eleven richest clubs in Europe according to Forbes. The only reason that Liverpool aren't higher is due to the lack of a decent commercial department to export their brand everywhere, this will change with the new owners. Unless the money dries up or lots of billionaires get bored, then nothing will change.SpaceCruiser wrote:Yes, you're assuming that the richer get richer and therefore their power cannot be challenged. But surely empires can fall. What will happen when Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger eventually retires? And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4. And Liverpool haven't won the league for over a decade, but may well do so again in the near future.
Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.SpaceCruiser wrote:And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.
Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.Wycombe Royal wrote:Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.SpaceCruiser wrote:And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.
Abramovich buys Chelsea in Summer prior to 2003/04 season, Ranieri fired end of 2003/04 season after rumours since the buy-out that he would be replaced - doesn't really prove much.SpaceCruiser wrote:Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.Wycombe Royal wrote:Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.SpaceCruiser wrote:And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.
They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.SpaceCruiser wrote:Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.Wycombe Royal wrote:Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.SpaceCruiser wrote:And I think it was Mourinho rather than Abramovich's millons what catapulted Chelsea into the top 4.
But did he win anything?Wycombe Royal wrote:They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.SpaceCruiser wrote:Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.Wycombe Royal wrote: Are you serious? With over £200m to spend even Terry Bullivant could have managed to get Chelsea into the top 4.
Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.
That is a classic case of "moving the goalposts" when you have been proved wrong.SpaceCruiser wrote:But did he win anything?Wycombe Royal wrote:They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.SpaceCruiser wrote: Well, Claudio Raneri wasn't having much success, was he? Money doesn't guarantee success. You need a decent manager to manage the players.
Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.
When we were talking about the top 4, I thought it was taken to mean the 4 biggest teams and to be in that group you need to have won a few things. Correct? If so, then I haven't moved any goalposts.Wycombe Royal wrote:That is a classic case of "moving the goalposts" when you have been proved wrong.SpaceCruiser wrote:But did he win anything?Wycombe Royal wrote: They finished 2nd in Ranieri's last season (03/04), 4th the season before that and 2nd the season before that.
Try looking up the facts - it will make you look less stupid.
To me, being a top 4 club, means being in the top 4 of the Premier League. What if only 2 clubs have won any trophies? Does that mean there are only 2 clubs in the top 4?SpaceCruiser wrote:When we were talking about the top 4, I thought it was taken to mean the 4 biggest teams and to be in that group you need to have won a few things. Correct? If so, then I haven't moved any goalposts.Wycombe Royal wrote:That is a classic case of "moving the goalposts" when you have been proved wrong.SpaceCruiser wrote: But did he win anything?
Now you're being silly.Wycombe Royal wrote:To me, being a top 4 club, means being in the top 4 of the Premier League. What if only 2 clubs have won any trophies? Does that mean there are only 2 clubs in the top 4?SpaceCruiser wrote:When we were talking about the top 4, I thought it was taken to mean the 4 biggest teams and to be in that group you need to have won a few things. Correct? If so, then I haven't moved any goalposts.Wycombe Royal wrote: That is a classic case of "moving the goalposts" when you have been proved wrong.
if you count the league & FA Cup, then this year will see all 24 of those trophies in 12 seasons going to the big 4.Huntley & Palmer wrote:Because unless some ridiculously rich bloke buys us, then you need to be winning a Champions League spot season upon season and also domestic trophies. When was the last time someone outside the top four won a trophy? Everton, Boro and Blackburn was it in the last seven years?. The gap is ever widening and shows no sign of stopping
One of the only people speaking any sense on this thread.Katie Marsden wrote:Reading will never be as big as Arsenal unless our ground holds 60,000 and we fill it, we've won at least 10 titles, win numerous FA Cups and have competed in the Champions League for over a decade.
Even then Arsenal would have to go two or three steps backwards for Reading to even be considered in the same bracket. Look at Chelsea, they've won loads in the last few years and no one could consider them a bigger club than Arsenal.
It's not gonna happen.
Infact Howes comments are even more laughable than Chelsea claiming to be bigger than Manchester United by 2012.
I hope Arsenal fans don't see this thread because they'd be pissing themselves at some of the deluded comments posted in it.
I doubt any of the big clubs would get full houses for all of the "lesser" games either if it wasn't for season tickets.RG30 wrote:Catchment area is all well and good, and I don't question we'll sell out 5 or 6 games a season but for fans to turn up on a regular basis to watch the likes of Wigan and Blackburn who with the greatest respect have the lure factor is asking too much.
Although Arsenal haven;t yet had a full season with a 60k ground - so presumably it's really easy to get to be a 'big' club. As soon as we have a 38k ground we become as 'big' as Spurs ?Katie Marsden wrote:Reading will never be as big as Arsenal unless our ground holds 60,000 and we fill it, we've won at least 10 titles, win numerous FA Cups and have competed in the Champions League for over a decade.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 104 guests