Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2022/23


charlierc

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Celery said:

So you're saying that to be somewhere, you have to win a trophy against Barca? 

 

That's an odd claim to say the least. Easier to just say you were wrong but I know that doesn't come easy to you. 

if winning a match is the best you can offer, you already know they were nowhere before roman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

if winning a match is the best you can offer, you already know they were nowhere before roman.

It's not the best I can offer. I mentioned trophies which you've chosen to totally ignore. You're only seeing what you want to see. 

 

This is laughable. I've clearly showed you were talking BS yet you can't just hold your hands up like a normal person. Nothing changes with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

back in the 70s no one talked about Chelsea as a team that won things (same as they didn't for Leeds), both only got talked about for the nasty things.

Irrelevant. Roman came early 2000s. You've edited out 2 decades from history 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Celery said:

It's not the best I can offer. I mentioned trophies which you've chosen to totally ignore. You're only seeing what you want to see. 

 

This is laughable. I've clearly showed you were talking BS yet you can't just hold your hands up like a normal person. Nothing changes with you. 

you're never going to agree that chelsea where a no-where team, cos fans cant face the truth of their team being rubbish.

 

they got a bit better shortly before roman arrived, they still weren't a team that people expected to be winning trophies. bates was too busy milking them to build a team.

Edited by Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Celery said:

Irrelevant. Roman came early 2000s. You've edited out 2 decades from history 😂

the ken bates and bovver-boy eras are best forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Neil said:

you're never going to agree that chelsea where a no-where team, cos fans cant face the truth of their team being rubbish.

 

they got a bit better shortly before roman arrived, they still weren't a team that people expected to be winning trophies.

I'm not going to agree because it's wrong. 

 

5 major trophies between 1997 and 2000 proves you wrong. 

1 minute ago, Neil said:

the ken bates and bovver-boy eras are best forgotten.

Because we won trophies under Bates? 

 

Remember Jan '97? Liverpool 2-0 up at the Bridge against us. Bottled it and lost 4-2. We won the cup that year...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Celery said:

Aha, we're onto the 'desperately change the subject so I don't have to admit I was wrong' part of the Neil argument. Hello old friend 

you're not my friend my friends are old enough to remember the many years of  chelsea in the wilderness, with only bovver boys and bate's fraud being noteworthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Neil said:

you're not my friend my friends are old enough to remember the many years of  chelsea in the wilderness, with only bovver boys and bate's fraud being noteworthy.

Whoosh! Totally missed the point there Neil. No, we're not friends. That was an expression referencing your familiar habit of changing the subject rather than showing backbone and admitting an error. 

You wanna return to the original discussion or keep avoiding? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Celery said:

Whoosh! Totally missed the point there Neil. No, we're not friends. That was an expression referencing your familiar habit of changing the subject rather than showing backbone and admitting an error. 

You wanna return to the original discussion or keep avoiding? 

Happy to, cos I know chelsea's trophy cabinet was mostly bare, and no one thought of them as contenders until they were doped by romansdodgy dosh. Today's Millwall are saints compared to80s chelsea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Neil said:

Happy to, cos I know chelsea's trophy cabinet was mostly bare, and no one thought of them as contenders until they were doped by romansdodgy dosh. Today's Millwall are saints compared to80s chelsea. 

So, just to confirm, you are saying that 5 major trophies in 4yrs is not challenging for trophies? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Celery said:

So, just to confirm, you are saying that 5 major trophies in 4yrs is not challenging for trophies? 

I'm saying no one thought of Chelsea as contenders until they had romains dosh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Neil said:

I'm saying no one thought of Chelsea as contenders until they had romains dosh. 

So you're saying your claim that we were 'nowhere' before Roman was false? 

And on the contender front, I suggest you remind yourself of the 99 or 2000 title race. Wrong again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Celery said:

So you're saying your claim that we were 'nowhere' before Roman was false? 

And on the contender front, I suggest you remind yourself of the 99 or 2000 title race. Wrong again. 

if they were regular winners they'd be thought of as contenders, if theyre not regular winners - they were the no-where i said they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Celery said:

So you're saying your claim that we were 'nowhere' before Roman was false? 

And on the contender front, I suggest you remind yourself of the 99 or 2000 title race. Wrong again. 

for that '99 title race, they hadn't won a titlefor however many decades it was. 😛 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

on a today's basis you're arguing that spurs are contenders and regular trophy winners. when what they are is no-where.

Edited by Neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DareToDibble said:

I didn’t see the game some completely missed this. WHAT?! 

Yup: Bernardo Silva opens up on 'tough' challenge of playing at left-back for Man City - Manchester Evening News

Apparently he also played this role in the previous weekend's game against Aston Villa, which I didn't watch so wasn't aware of that being tried out beforehand.

Curiously, it also says that when he was at Benfica several years ago, his then-boss tried that and his response was to hand in a transfer request. Though given there's been rumours for a few years now that he wants a new challenge, maybe that wouldn't be out of the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neil said:

on a today's basis you're arguing that spurs are contenders and regular trophy winners. when what they are is no-where.

I think Chelsea of the 1998-2003 period were slightly higher than Spurs by that logic, in that they could swipe the odd trophy and challenge for the league title without being at the same level of Man United and Arsenal.

Though clearly Spurs as they are don't have the financial vulnerabilities Chelsea had in 2003 that saw their path coincide well with Roman's idea to join in on PL club ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd been worried about hearing this when the initial declaration he'd been rescued was retracted. One thing he played for my favourite club but more or less the same age as me as well, and a parent whose family I can only have sympathies for. Just an awfully sad story.

Edited by charlierc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Neil said:

on a today's basis you're arguing that spurs are contenders and regular trophy winners. when what they are is no-where.

Wrong. Chelsea won loads of trophies in that period. Spurs have won sod all for 15yrs. 

 

Did I really have to explain that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
    • David Byrne’s obviously got a few hits to play, but he’s not cheesy enough for the Legend Slot. Other headliner perhaps?
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...