CHELSEA - Massive Club - BiGGER THAN VILLA

I always find it perplexing that fans of today think that Chelsea' have only been a big club due to Abramovich's millions.

Historically the attendances they have achieved since 1906 are the biggest in London and are much bigger than the Manchester United and Liverpools of this world.

They used to pull in crowds in excess of 80,000 in the late 40's and 50's and even in the 60's and 70's, it was THE club to be seen at, with stars such as Bridget Bardot regularly seen at Stamford Bridge.

The only reason for their decline in the 80's was due to relegation following the construction of the East Stand , which whilst a magnificent structure, almost bankrupted them.

They are in my opinion, based on the factors above, probably the biggest club in England, yet this is hardly recognised by the average supporter.

Chelsea arent a big club never have been, Romans billions have made them successful but they are no way bigger than Man Utds or Liverpools world wide brand.

I would put Arsenal, West Ham and Spurs ahead of Chelsea in London alone.

I think you have been on the vino my friend

Chelsea arent a big club never have been, Romans billions have made them successful but they are no way bigger than Man Utds or Liverpools world wide brand.

I would put Arsenal, West Ham and Spurs ahead of Chelsea in London alone.

I think you have been on the vino my friend

Ha, clearly you haven't read my post, ATTENDANCE wise, they outstrip Liverpool And Manchester United, historically from 1906 until now. They have also historically had the biggest attendances in London .... why don't you look at the facts?

So based on attendances from the 40s and 50s your saying that Chelsea are a big club. Cardiff once had 60k against Swansea that doesnt reflect on now.

Go anywhere in Europe or Asia and ask them to name an English football club and they will say Man utd or Liverpool and in Thailand even Leicester get mentioned before Chelsea.

So based on attendances from the 40s and 50s your saying that Chelsea are a big club. Cardiff once had 60k against Swansea that doesnt reflect on now.

Rather than pigeon hole a few sentences, read the whole post. I understand your confusion, I really do, but the facts are this:-

Based on season by season attendances since 1906, Chelsea's attendances are the biggest in London, although Tottenham run them close, and are bigger than Manchester United and Liverpool. That being said, Manchester United and Liverpool
started to get large attendances from 1948, however Chelsea were massive from 1908 consistently averaging more than most London clubs and the two North West giants.

http://european-football-statistics.co. ... b/chls.htm

You may want to look at the complete England part rather than just Chelsea

You will clearly see Manchester United and Liverpol quite dominant.

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

You may want to look at the complete England part rather than just Chelsea

You will clearly see Manchester United and Liverpol quite dominant.

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

I'm not referring to modern day attendances, as clearly both Liverpool and Manchester United have bigger stadiums and more success.

Chelsea, up until 1939 were arguably the biggest supported club in England and here is a comparison of average attendances between 1888 to 1939

Chelsea 42,615
Manchester United 35,525
Liverpool 36,105

My point is that Chelsea have been massively supported well before Abramovich's millions and their support has always been there. You could argue that if Stamford Bridge held 80,000 since 1998 then they would have probably filled it and there would be no argument what so ever in respect of attendances.

You have to refer back to the fact that they were almost bankrupt following the construction of the East Stand which led to relegation and a good 20 years in the wilderness which affected heir fan base considerably.

My original post was also in relation to Aston Villa, so,the fact that they hold up well against what you perceive as the current modern day giants really does speak volumes.

You state that they have never been a big club. Your statement is rediculous.

You may want to look at the complete England part rather than just Chelsea

You will clearly see Manchester United and Liverpol quite dominant.

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

I'm not referring to modern day attendances, as clearly both Liverpool and Manchester United have bigger stadiums and more success.

Chelsea, up until 1939 were arguably the biggest supported club in England and here is a comparison of average attendances between 1888 to 1939

Chelsea 42,615
Manchester United 35,525
Liverpool 36,105

My point is that Chelsea have been massively supported well before Abramovich's millions and their support has always been there. You could argue that if Stamford Bridge held 80,000 since 1998 then they would have probably filled it and there would be no argument what so ever in respect of attendances.

You have to refer back to the fact that they were almost bankrupt following the construction of the East Stand which led to relegation and a good 20 years in the wilderness which affected heir fan base considerably.

My original post was also in relation to Aston Villa, so,the fact that they hold up well against what you perceive as the current modern day giants really does speak volumes.

You state that they have never been a big club. Your statement is rediculous.

Chelsea have always been a massive club, certainly since I first started following the game in the mid 60's. Through the 70's the biggest clubs were Liverpool, Man U, Leeds, Chelsea & Arsenal. There were others, but these were the clubs you expected to win the trophies. Chelsea were a big club long before Abramovich got anywhere near them.

You want to quote the stats but then fail to recognise the stats from the website you quote from......it isnt difficult.

Chelsea= Small club in England- fairly big club in London.

Villa small club in England fairly big in the Midlands.

You may want to look at the complete England part rather than just Chelsea

You will clearly see Manchester United and Liverpol quite dominant.

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

I'm not referring to modern day attendances, as clearly both Liverpool and Manchester United have bigger stadiums and more success.

Chelsea, up until 1939 were arguably the biggest supported club in England and here is a comparison of average attendances between 1888 to 1939

Chelsea 42,615
Manchester United 35,525
Liverpool 36,105

My point is that Chelsea have been massively supported well before Abramovich's millions and their support has always been there. You could argue that if Stamford Bridge held 80,000 since 1998 then they would have probably filled it and there would be no argument what so ever in respect of attendances.

You have to refer back to the fact that they were almost bankrupt following the construction of the East Stand which led to relegation and a good 20 years in the wilderness which affected heir fan base considerably.

My original post was also in relation to Aston Villa, so,the fact that they hold up well against what you perceive as the current modern day giants really does speak volumes.

You state that they have never been a big club. Your statement is rediculous.

You want to quote the stats but then fail to recognise the stats from the website you quote from......it isnt difficult.

Chelsea= Small club in England- fairly big club in London.

Villa small club in England fairly big in the Midlands.

You may want to look at the complete England part rather than just Chelsea

You will clearly see Manchester United and Liverpol quite dominant.

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

I'm not referring to modern day attendances, as clearly both Liverpool and Manchester United have bigger stadiums and more success.

Chelsea, up until 1939 were arguably the biggest supported club in England and here is a comparison of average attendances between 1888 to 1939

Chelsea 42,615
Manchester United 35,525
Liverpool 36,105

My point is that Chelsea have been massively supported well before Abramovich's millions and their support has always been there. You could argue that if Stamford Bridge held 80,000 since 1998 then they would have probably filled it and there would be no argument what so ever in respect of attendances.

You have to refer back to the fact that they were almost bankrupt following the construction of the East Stand which led to relegation and a good 20 years in the wilderness which affected heir fan base considerably.

My original post was also in relation to Aston Villa, so,the fact that they hold up well against what you perceive as the current modern day giants really does speak volumes.

You state that they have never been a big club. Your statement is rediculous.

The stats are there for your perusal..... in Leymans terms -
Chelsea were a massive club between 1908 - 1939
Cheslsea were a massive club between 1949 - and 1974
Chelsea declined between 1974 - 1997 - mainly due to the East Stand cost.
1998 to present probably the biggest club in England

As I've said they were always one of the biggest clubs in England and were not and never have been a small club as you quoted.

I hope that helps

Historically these are the biggest clubs in England in no particular order:-
Manchester United
Manchester City
Everton
Liverpool
Tottenham Hotspur
Arsenal
Aston Villa

If you wish to throw this open to nationwide you would have to also include:-
Glasgow Rangers
Glasgow Celtic

what a dinosaur

so they had the best attendances 100 years ago in a more heavily populated city when you had to find room to park your horse and cart

what a dinosaur

so they had the best attendances 100 years ago in a more heavily populated city when you had to find room to park your horse and cart

Why don't you read the full facts rather than stating factually incorrect information. What more, in modern terms Chelsea are probably the biggest and richest club in England.

They have always had massive away support, which is usually a good indication of a clubs fan base. The attendances I quoted were in reference to the fact that Chelsea have always been a well supported club, well before the time Abramovich' got involved with them.

what a dinosaur

so they had the best attendances 100 years ago in a more heavily populated city when you had to find room to park your horse and cart

Why don't you read the full facts rather than stating factually incorrect information. What more, in modern terms Chelsea are probably the biggest and richest club in England.

They have always had massive away support, which is usually a good indication of a clubs fan base. The attendances I quoted were in reference to the fact that Chelsea have always been a well supported club, well before the time Abramovich' got involved with them.

they arent the biggest or richest club in england

what a dinosaur

so they had the best attendances 100 years ago in a more heavily populated city when you had to find room to park your horse and cart

Why don't you read the full facts rather than stating factually incorrect information. What more, in modern terms Chelsea are probably the biggest and richest club in England.

They have always had massive away support, which is usually a good indication of a clubs fan base. The attendances I quoted were in reference to the fact that Chelsea have always been a well supported club, well before the time Abramovich' got involved with them.

they arent the biggest or richest club in england

According to financial experts, they are 7th in the world, however, it doesn't take into account serviced debt.

Anyway we could go on and we are moving away, considerably, from my original post in order to point score.