Hey, I have not been on the forums in a while so I wanted to post a topic. i wanted to reboot post cool pics here, because that topic is pretty much dead.

@V
we don't rely on history we make it
its CHELSEA FC

@awais you dont rely on history because you dont got any!

^No, we do. Not as big as Madrid's, Liverpool or ManU, but we still have plenty of history.

@V nothing against you but before Abramovic your history was:
First Divison title in 1954-55 (2 Second Division titles)
FA Cup in 1969-70, 1996-97, 1999-00
League Cup in 1964-65, 1997-98
Community Shield in 1955, 2000
Cup Winners' Cup 1970-71, 1997-98
Super Cup 1998
together 13 trophies.

now let's look at team like Notthingham Forest before 2000 (same as Chelsea)
First Division title in 1977-78 (3 Second Division titles, 1 Third Division title)
FA Cup in 1898, 1959
League Cup in 1978, 1979, 1989, 1990
Community Shield in 1978
European Cup in 1979, 1980
Super Cup in 1979
together 14 trophies (+ 1 Third divison trophy which i not count)

So yea you really got plenty of history.

13 trophies, two less than Nottingham Forest. If we only have two less trophies than Forest before Roman then I conclude we've got enough history. Let's not forget that you're also comparing us to a club that had their golden era way before we did, hence the two European cups and First Division title around the 80s. And mentioning an FA Cup in 1898 is quite the handicap considering Chelsea didn't even exist at that time.

We do have plenty of history. In fact, each passing season, our history is getting bigger and bigger so people resort to saying Chelsea before Roman, but it's already been 10 years since Roman joined.

-2 Premier League Trophy (2004-05; nearly 10 years since then and 2005-06; 8 years since then)
-1 League Cup (2004-05; nearly 10 years since then)
-1 Community Shield (2004-05; nearly 10 years since then)

I didn't even mention the FA Cup and League Cup in 2007 because there is the debate that it might be to early to consider it history (despite it being 7 years ago).

My point is just that you said You got history not like United, Madrid, Liverpool but there are still plenty of clubs which got much bigger history than Chelsea.
I think you wouldn't be where you're are now without Abramovic. And yea that's bit funny their first trophy is older than your club (no hate or anything ;) )

Every big club is where they are now because of one important figure in the club. Tell me where Liverpool would be without Shankly? Where would Forest be without Clough? You really think United would have had such a long dominance in England football without Ferguson? Could Real Madrid have such a fantastic history without Santiago Bernabeu? Barcelona without Guardiola (not winning 9 trophies in one season that's for sure)? Would you have ever had 'The Invincibles' without Wenger?

It's a statement that really makes no sense to say to anyone in football, because every club relied on one man for their success.

@V but you're missing it a bit. Wenger, Ferguson are coaches. They are not pumping millions and millions to the football like Abramovic, who spend over £700m on transfer fees.
And NO, you're wrong "every club relied on one man for their success." Football is team sport first of all. Do you think Wenger would managed it alone? Without players like Lehmann, Viera, Pires, Ljunberg, Bergkamp, Henry and whole team?

Owners or managers, both of them have the same impact. Yeah the owner has the bigger impact but the manager pretty much controls the team and what the players do. By the way, 700m was spent by managers not Roman. Roman just gave the money and the managers used it. They could have not used that much money if they wanted to but decided to. Roman has nothing to do with how much money was spent.

"Football is team sport first of all. Do you think Wenger would managed it alone? Without players like Lehmann, Viera, Pires, Ljunberg, Bergkamp, Henry and whole team?"

Yeah he wouldn't have done it without the whole team but Wenger BUILT that whole team. Henry was a failing Winger at Juventus before Wenger signed him. Bergkamp was a failing striker at his prime at Inter before Wenger signed him. Others were raised by Wenger as excellent players at such a young age.

Tactics, changing players' positions (Henry from winger to striker), making a profit, etc. These all are accomplished by Wenger. The Invincibles would have been nothing without Henry, Bergkamp, Viera or any of the big players but there wouldn't even be the thought of a possible undefeated season without Wenger.

OMG vendetta you just dont understand what we are saying. Those players u listed eg Henry, Bergkamp, vieira, pires, ljunburg were a reasonable and cheap price most under £10 million. You guys just bought players worth mostly over £30m + range each year and yet some turn into garbage like Torres, Willian who are not worth that high prices. Im not talking about managers training players they are today. Also Abramovic GAVE the managers the money. so it was Abbramovic who spoon fed chelsea stacks of money to buy success. The money we used to buy ozil was the money from sold players such as van persie, fabregas, nasri. Also our sharholder is the richest man in Britain right now, do we get heaps of money for success in our team?? No thats the difference between us.

I'm going to end this argument right here because this isn't the thread to argue about this sort of stuff. It also seems to have attracted a certain troll to diss Chelsea for no specific reason so let's end it now.

@ArsenalGunners: That has nothing to do with what I was saying to quikzyyy. If you still want to argue please do it as message on my wall.

'@ArsenalGunners: That has nothing to do with what I was saying to
quikzyyy. If you still want to argue please do it as message on my wall.

A bit overwhelmed, Vendetta?

okay, as u wish.

Vendetta that gif you posted of Mata passing that volley through ball, David silva done around 2 years ago :D similar