The Champions League 2016/17 , where are Chelski and Manure thread
Comments
-
If I'm not mistaken Chelsea actually hold the record for the 2nd highest attendance for a 'league' match.
First was ManUre at Maine Rd!! The highest ever home attendance was at Maine Rd for Man City v Stoke in an FA Cup tie.
Until City moved into the new stadium there was in reality very little between City and Chelsea in terms of attendances throughout the 1900's although overall I would say in recent times City have had slightly the better of things.
City certainly edged it in terms of gate numbers throughout 70's, 80's and 90's, which is pretty remarkable given the relative success (or failure in City's case) and average league positions of both clubs. Despite playing in the 2nd and 3rd tier of the league there still wasn't much between the two sides at times when Chelsea were in the top division.
As I've said before Stevo, you know when someone's desperate when the best they've got is to focus on another team's attendance figures but it becomes embarrassing when that criticism highlights a complete ignorance of the facts :oops:
You could do worse than a bit of research into your own clubs history prior to the time you leapt onto the bandwagon
Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
Tee hee.
I'm looking at the present situation because that's more relevant than the past. Not sure whether you get any prizes for being the 'Liverpool' of attendance figures (past glories but no success now)
Look on the bright side though, if supply and demand works, they'll be giving away tickets to City home games We struggle to get seats for Stamford Bridge games even with membership. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Fair response Tim. Although trust me as a young lad it was just as terrifying attending numerous other grounds around the country. Even Arsenal if you were unfortunate enough to be recognised as a visitor. Just how it was back then, grim! As for the corporate/prawn sandwich fan I don't see anymore at Chelsea than I do at other top clubs. I have been fortunate, or sometimes unfortunate!, to attend a few games in hospitality and we just do it better than most, the food is very good. We just can't win, Hoorays, rent boys, thugs. We're a broad church! Maybe your thinking that you're seeing more at the Bridge than elsewhere is just us normal fans, not those off to hospitality, because Chelsea is style!
Chopper, Wisey, JT, Diego. Great players, better in your side than the opposition, that way you don't have to hate them!0 -
" Members are always prioritised at the Bridge " Most of them just tend to be Flacid!!!!
On an aside, it seemed dead weird to see Pep on MOTD2 last night, it's only just sank in with me " Gaurdiola has just managed a game/ Team in England" Just somehow will always be associated with Barca for me.
Must have been a hard sell to the Wife/ Girlfriend " We' re moving to Manchester "
Any ways Stevo , attendances at the Etihad for champions league games will be a lot bloody higher than they will be at the Bridge for them this year, Or White Shart Lane for that matter.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:Tee hee.
We struggle to get seats for Stamford Bridge games even with membership.
That's 'cause you've got a sh1t little ground
If demand was so great makes you wonder why the Russian tramp hasn't put some more seats in then? :roll:
As for the present...
Average attendances so far for 2016
Chelsea 41,500
CIty 54,000
Oooh...you've definitely won that argument haven't you? :roll: Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I'm looking at the present situation because that's more relevant than the past. Not sure whether you get any prizes for being the 'Liverpool' of attendance figures (past glories but no success now)
Coming from you, the irony in that statement truly is a thing of rare beauty Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
Citee boy ? Do your lot even own " The City of Manchester Stadium " or is it a bit of a West Ham gimme deal?
Wasn't the initial £112 million stadium cost provided by a £77 million sport England Grant and the Remainder by Manchester City Council?
I know when the conversion from Athletics stadium to " Football Ground " took place the City council paid £22 million to convert it and put in additional seating, Yet the Club paid £20 million to put in Bars , restaurants and Corporate facilities ( how ironic ).
Now its no longer the East Lands and named the Etihad have you bought it out right? or are you still fleecing the tax paying public?0 -
As far as I know Tim, the stadium is owned by Manchester City Council and City pay an annual rent. So not withstanding the obvious jokes about City being council tenants or living in a council house, there is a real long term financial benefit for the whole of the city of Manchester. Added to the hundreds of newly created local jobs and economic regeneration as a result of the massive investment by our owners into what is a particularly deprived area, I think it's fair to say that the CWG legacy has proved to be a fantastic and sustainable success.Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0
-
So the true rent boys then.0
-
When did City last win the PL? And when did Chelsea last win it?City Boy wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I'm looking at the present situation because that's more relevant than the past. Not sure whether you get any prizes for being the 'Liverpool' of attendance figures (past glories but no success now)
Coming from you, the irony in that statement truly is a thing of rare beauty
Always good to check your facts before jumping on the bandwagon "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Just out of interest CB why doesn't Matthew Harding get a mention? Didn't he get the ball rolling so to speak?0
-
What's the point of building a big stadium if you can't fill it?City Boy wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:Tee hee.
We struggle to get seats for Stamford Bridge games even with membership.
That's 'cause you've got a sh1t little ground
If demand was so great makes you wonder why the Russian tramp hasn't put some more seats in then? :roll:
As for the present...
Average attendances so far for 2016
Chelsea 41,500
CIty 54,000
Oooh...you've definitely won that argument haven't you? :roll:
Btw if you read the football news you'd know that Abramovich's plans to rebuild Stamford Bridge as a 60,000 seater are pretty well advanced. And we will have no problems filling it "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
When did City last win the PL? And when did Chelsea last win it?City Boy wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
I'm looking at the present situation because that's more relevant than the past. Not sure whether you get any prizes for being the 'Liverpool' of attendance figures (past glories but no success now)
Coming from you, the irony in that statement truly is a thing of rare beauty
Always good to check your facts before jumping on the bandwagon
So today, as we speak (out of our two respective clubs) who...
- is in possession of a domestic trophy?
- has the higher attendance?
- is playing ECL football?
- (as if it really matters) is highest in the PL?
Unless I've got my 'facts' wrong?
You're not very good at this are you Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
verylonglegs wrote:Just out of interest CB why doesn't Matthew Harding get a mention? Didn't he get the ball rolling so to speak?
Well he certainly played a part in helping to redevelop the Bridge. As far as I know though he didn't 'give' the money to the club, it was a loan. A much needed financial input at the time and there is no doubt he was a true Chelsea supporter, not one of these people who jumped upon the football bandwagon when it began to roll. I actually met him once and thanked him for his financial backing but at the same time told him that of course any true Chelsea fan would have done the same! Came across as a very genuine and nice bloke. I was devastated when he died as I really hoped and believed that he'd have eventually ousted Bates and taken control. Bates for all the good he did the club in fighting off the vultures of Marler Estates hovering over the Bridge was and has never been a popular figure at the Bridge. Never heard his name sung once, unlike Harding and Abramovich. So to answer your question I can tell you that Matthew does get a mention quite regularly.0 -
No point playing ECL football if you're never going to win it. And if we look at attendances as a % of capacity you wont be so smug
'Champions of Europe, you'll never sing that' "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Cornerblock wrote:verylonglegs wrote:Just out of interest CB why doesn't Matthew Harding get a mention? Didn't he get the ball rolling so to speak?
Well he certainly played a part in helping to redevelop the Bridge. As far as I know though he didn't 'give' the money to the club, it was a loan. A much needed financial input at the time and there is no doubt he was a true Chelsea supporter, not one of these people who jumped upon the football bandwagon when it began to roll. I actually met him once and thanked him for his financial backing but at the same time told him that of course any true Chelsea fan would have done the same! Came across as a very genuine and nice bloke. I was devastated when he died as I really hoped and believed that he'd have eventually ousted Bates and taken control. Bates for all the good he did the club in fighting off the vultures of Marler Estates hovering over the Bridge was and has never been a popular figure at the Bridge. Never heard his name sung once, unlike Harding and Abramovich. So to answer your question I can tell you that Matthew does get a mention quite regularly.
Well that's good then. As an outsider I feel he gets kind of over-looked just because some other guy rocked up with a much bigger pile of cash.0 -
It's a true statement. Do you reckon you will win it?City Boy wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:No point playing ECL football if you're never going to win it.
Your ramblings are becoming more bizarre and embarrassing with every post :shock:
Is that what you really believe?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
I don't know. It would be great if we did and it's obviously a key ambition of the owners, but there are some very good teams with similar ambitions and with a far greater European experience and pedigree.
But to say there is no point playing in a competition if there is little chance (or no chance, ever :shock: ) of winning is a strange attitude, especially given the current financial landscape of football. I take it you don't think it's pointless for Middlesborough to be playing in the Premier League or for the non-league clubs playing in FAC?Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0 -
I think you take me too seriously sometimes "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Etihad fuller than usual tonight :P"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
...and on another tack (which shouldn't bring many handbags out): Celtic are shyte.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
From the BBC report on the City game tonight about Aguero scoring:
"He rounded the keeper for his third in front of around 32,000 fans..."
Wow "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I know. 9 goals in 5 games. "Wow" indeed!Statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy.0
-
Is Diego Costa uglier than a Bulldog chewing a wasp? Discuss.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
