How Long Until Chelsea Have More Trophies Than Arsenal?

[Honey Honey]

Chelsea are now 7 trophies behind Arsenal having been. How long do you think it will take them to overtake?

[Stan]

perhaps looking towards a decade before that happens.

Although Arsenal won't win the league any time soon, can see them still winning domestic cups to keep their trophy haul above Chelsea's. 

 

[Danny]

Probably not too long but I don't think it matters, Chelsea have very little history compared to Arsenal and no one in their right mind would see them as the bigger club. Chelsea's success is also hollow and undeserved.

[Honey Honey]

No one living. But those not yet born may look at it differently when they have the same lack of knowledge we have about Arsenal in the 30s or 70s but for now.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Danny said:

Probably not too long but I don't think it matters, Chelsea have very little history compared to Arsenal and no one in their right mind would see them as the bigger club. Chelsea's success is also hollow and undeserved.

This is a very stereotypical response. What does no history mean? Did nothing happen in the 100 years before Abramovic? Were their no stories told? Were their no heroes? Juat because it wasn't littered with trophies doesn't mean they aren't worth knowing about. Did the swinging 60s and 70s team that famously clashed with Leeds not exist? Do other teams like Deportivo and Celta have no history in Spain because of their limited success? Arsenal have 19 more years of history than Chelsea because they are 19 years older.

What do you mean the success is undeserved? Did the players not train their whole lives to be the best they could?Yes the teams were thrown together by outside money, but what teams these days are 'organic'? Is Man Utd's current day success deserved because Fergie monopolised the league in the early 90s leading them to become a financial juggernaut? Is Real Madrid deserved with their Francoist shenanigans?  What is the barometre for sincereity? It seems that football fans arbitrarily designate what is real and what is plastic. Where would AC Milan be without Burlesconi? Inter without Morratti? Maybe it should be the moment investment comes from outside the football club? Would that disqualify all the PL teams because of TV right money from the FA?

 

[Honey Honey]

He didn't say no history though, he said very little 

[Bluewolf]

3 hours ago, Danny said:

Probably not too long but I don't think it matters, Chelsea have very little history compared to Arsenal and no one in their right mind would see them as the bigger club. Chelsea's success is also hollow and undeserved.

That wasn't the question though was it... 

If you could just clarify what you believe very little history means to you in regard to Chelsea??? 

 

[Spike]

9 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

That wasn't the question though was it... 

If you could just clarify what you believe very little history means to you in regard to Chelsea??? 

 

I bet ol' da' here can tell us some great stories. What was it like watching Roy Bentley lifting the old first division trophy?

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

I bet ol' da' here can tell us some great stories. What was it like watching Roy Bentley lifting the old first division trophy?

Don't really remember anything before 2004

[Danny]

25 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

That wasn't the question though was it... 

If you could just clarify what you believe very little history means to you in regard to Chelsea??? 

 

No but it's part and parcel with the question, only with an oil club could they win more trophies than a historically bigger club and no one argue that they are now the bigger club. If Liverpool out do United domestically people will argue they are bigger, if Spurs do the same to Arsenal they will be argued to be bigger. Chelsea and City no one will argue they are bigger because it all comes down to financial doping.

@Spike before Abramovich Chelsea had 1 league title and 3 FA Cups, Arsenal had 13 league titles and 9 FA Cups. Spurs were bigger than you and your success was on a par with West Ham. Of course Chelsea has history but the context of this argument is about trophies won and I said little compared to Arsenal.

[Spike]

16 minutes ago, Danny said:

No but it's part and parcel with the question, only with an oil club could they win more trophies than a historically bigger club and no one argue that they are now the bigger club. If Liverpool out do United domestically people will argue they are bigger, if Spurs do the same to Arsenal they will be argued to be bigger. Chelsea and City no one will argue they are bigger because it all comes down to financial doping.

@Spike before Abramovich Chelsea had 1 league title and 3 FA Cups, Arsenal had 13 league titles and 9 FA Cups. Spurs were bigger than you and your success was on a par with West Ham. Of course Chelsea has history but the context of this argument is about trophies won and I said little compared to Arsenal.

You didn't answer my other questions though. What constitutes financial doping? As I said earlier Man Utd were the first over the finish line in the early 90s when the PL was being formed as huge TV rights and global saturation. Does that make any future success based from that initial push any different from Chelsea or ManCity spending big? Do they alone sit atop the dogpile because their successive winning in the early years of the PL made them a financial powerhouse? Man Utd wouldn't be where they are today without the huge money from TV deals,  The same applies to other clubs, as I mentioned earlier. Without the outside money, I'd wager that ManUtd would be far and above every other team like never seen before. By the time Abramovic came around Man Utd were a bought team that was bought by the earlier successes over a decade ago. Part of the reason why clubs like Chelsea, Tottenham, West Ham, or many others couldn't win a title without outside money is because once the bigger clubs were on a roll, they had momentum like a snowball down a hill, they just get bigger. Only in truly freaky instances do teams break that mold. That is one of the huge issues with European sports.

Yeah, I know it's different but it's still a skinned cat. I'd argue that would be a sincerity to the early days of PL Man Utd but that sincerity is far lost by now. 

You can look at any sport in the world. Early success usually leads to continued financial strength, and that is why clubs like East and South Sydney in the NRL can practically buy a title. Or the New York Yankees and the Dodgers have the two biggest wage bills in the world.

[Danny]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

You didn't answer my other questions though. What constitutes financial doping? As I said earlier Man Utd were the first over the finish line in the early 90s when the PL was being formed as huge TV rights and global saturation. Does that make any future success based from that initial push any different from Chelsea or ManCity spending big? Do they alone sit atop the dogpile because their successive winning in the early years of the PL made them a financial powerhouse? Man Utd wouldn't be where they are today without the huge money from TV deals,  The same applies to other clubs, as I mentioned earlier. Without the outside money, I'd wager that ManUtd would be far and above every other team like never seen before. By the time Abramovic came around Man Utd were a bought team that was bought by the earlier successes over a decade ago. Part of the reason why clubs like Chelsea, Tottenham, West Ham, or many others couldn't win a title without outside money is because once the bigger clubs were on a roll, they had momentum like a snowball down a hill, they just get bigger. Only in truly freaky instances do teams break that mold. That is one of the huge issues with European sports.

Yeah, I know it's different but it's still a skinned cat. I'd argue that would be a sincerity to the early days of PL Man Utd but that sincerity is far lost by now. 

You can look at any sport in the world. Early success usually leads to continued financial strength, and that is why clubs like East and South Sydney in the NRL can practically buy a title. Or the New York Yankees and the Dodgers have the two biggest wage bills in the world.

I don't disagree with what you're saying as I've said it before, but United appointed Fergy who put them on the map even more than they had been, Liverpool's great successes was before TV money ruled football and Arsenal's success was not due to TV money and in fact they have stagnated on the pitch during this era. Chelsea's success as a modern "elite" level club has been wholly down to winning an oil filled lottery, before that they were knocking around with the likes of Newcastle and Villa.

[Harry]

What would you think if some rich dude bought Hibernian in the Scottish leagues, pumped a bit of money into them outspent celtic and they won the title. Becoming the first club outside the big two to do it in 35 years?

If the sultan of Brunei bought valencia and helped them compete with Real and Barca for players would that really be a bad thing? 

Is this good or bad for the game?

[Asura]

51 minutes ago, Harry said:

What would you think if some rich dude bought Hibernian in the Scottish leagues, pumped a bit of money into them outspent celtic and they won the title. Becoming the first club outside the big two to do it in 35 years?

If the sultan of Brunei bought valencia and helped them compete with Real and Barca for players would that really be a bad thing? 

Is this good or bad for the game?

I would say it will be good for the game because there would be more teams competing for the trophies rather than the typical 2-3 clubs we see as winners every year. Before Chelsea became powerful wasn't that just United and Arsenal winning and dominating the premier league all the time?  Now we have a lot more teams competing for the league as chelsea and city are in the mix along with united and with liveprool and arsenal having decent runs and "almost" winning them every now and then. Wish the things you mentioned in your comment happens and gives some other mid table clubs to win the trophies. 

[Happy Blue]

7 hours ago, Danny said:

No but it's part and parcel with the question, only with an oil club could they win more trophies than a historically bigger club and no one argue that they are now the bigger club. If Liverpool out do United domestically people will argue they are bigger, if Spurs do the same to Arsenal they will be argued to be bigger. Chelsea and City no one will argue they are bigger because it all comes down to financial doping.

@Spike before Abramovich Chelsea had 1 league title and 3 FA Cups, Arsenal had 13 league titles and 9 FA Cups. Spurs were bigger than you and your success was on a par with West Ham. Of course Chelsea has history but the context of this argument is about trophies won and I said little compared to Arsenal.

City won major trophies before all the so called "big" clubs, in the early days we was the biggest club in the north west and still hold the attendance record outside of wembley, before the premier league we was bigger than united too who bought all there titles with the premier league funding they got, Liverpool won there's before the money arrived making them the biggest club in England, united was financially doped and that's the only reason they overtaken us with City now being the best team in the world we will eventually become England's biggest club again

[True Blue]

Don't think it will be soon if they keep counting the CS as major silverware . Seriously don't care about the trophy count, don't care if we overtake them or it stays this way. Everyone supports their clubs for their own reasons, trophy count was not one of mine obviously at that time.

[SirBalon]

44 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

City won major trophies before all the so called "big" clubs, in the early days we was the biggest club in the north west and still hold the attendance record outside of wembley, before the premier league we was bigger than united too who bought all there titles with the premier league funding they got, Liverpool won there's before the money arrived making them the biggest club in England, united was financially doped and that's the only reason they overtaken us with City now being the best team in the world we will eventually become England's biggest club again

What major trophies had Man City won before your oil money came in?

How many times had Manchester City played in the European Cup?

Of course Man City existed before all that, I don't think anybody can deny this.  But you would've had absolutely no chance whatsoever to try and achieve what you are right now had it not been for being bought by a Gulf state.  For whatever reason, your club didn't manage to grow organically back in the day when you had a spell of being competitive.

[Happy Blue]

2 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

What major trophies had Man City won before your oil money came in?

How many times had Manchester City played in the European Cup?

Of course Man City existed before all that, I don't think anybody can deny this.  But you would've had absolutely no chance whatsoever to try and achieve what you are right now had it not been for being bought by a Gulf state.  For whatever reason, your club didn't manage to grow organically back in the day when you had a spell of being competitive.

 

I will dig all the facts out for you later mate, City won major trophies 30 odd year BEFORE Arsenal  

[SirBalon]

5 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

 

I will dig all the facts out for you later mate, City won major trophies 30 odd year BEFORE Arsenal  

I know what Man City won before the oil money came in mate.  I know about those sparse glory days for Manchester City.  What I mean is that you never managed to grow organically with that at the time and you remained a "moment in history" type of club.  Do you get what I mean?

[Happy Blue]

4 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

I know what Man City won before the oil money came in mate.  I know about those sparse glory days for Manchester City.  What I mean is that you never managed to grow organically with that at the time and you remained a "moment in history" type of club.  Do you get what I mean?

I get what you mean mate, City has been badly managed for most our history but has always had a massive following in England even in the lower leagues. when you talk about the top 10 biggest clubs in English history, we are defiantly in it out of the hundreds of clubs we have here, that's a great achievement 

[SirBalon]

35 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

I get what you mean mate, City has been badly managed for most our history but has always had a massive following in England even in the lower leagues. when you talk about the top 10 biggest clubs in English history, we are defiantly in it out of the hundreds of clubs we have here, that's a great achievement 

There's more to what makes a great club than just the amount of trophies it has won. These days it's all about the brand name in everything to do with football, even the league each respective club plays within gets kudos from a brand name and how that's managed. I mean look at the club you share the city with yourselves in Man Utd... They have one more European Cup than Nottingham Forest (3 and 2 respectively). Manchester United were the first English football club to win it in 68 (I think) and then in 1999 and their last triumph in 2008. Think of the immensity of that club and yet where clubs are measured on the world stage outside its home shores, they are one of many on that count of the biggest club football prize of all.

Liverpool Football Club who are one of the European Cup's authentic legends are massive, but they come nowhere near possessing the aura Manchester United have. I mean, even domestically due to Alex Ferguson's legendary tenure, they managed to overhaul the league titles and even then they're close to each other in that respect...  But again, adding that United's brand name is considerably bigger than Liverpool's which to me is mystifying. It's as if the Munich Air Disaster (RIP) added that strange and morbid mystique to the club coupled with being the first English club to bring the big eared trophy to these shores for the first time (with all due respects to Celtic, the first British side... Don't want to get political here).

So... Whether or not Chelsea ever supersede Arsenal in trophy collection or not, whatever it is, there's more to all of this than just silverware.  Trophies are what fans live for... The competing for them, the expectation because you know you'll be in the race to challenge for them with unknown consequences.  That's all the day to day digestion a football fan cares for and after that you have everything else.

[Happy Blue]

5 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

There's more to what makes a great club than just the amount of trophies it has won. These days it's all about the brand name in everything to do with football, even the league each respective club plays within gets kudos from a brand name and how that's managed. I mean look at the club you share the city with yourselves in Man Utd... They have one more European Cup than Nottingham Forest (3 and 2 respectively). Manchester United were the first English football club to win it in 68 (I think) and then in 1999 and their last triumph in 2008. Think of the immensity of that club and yet where clubs are measured on the world stage outside its home shores, they are one of many on that count of the biggest club football prize of all.

Liverpool Football Club who are one of the European Cup's authentic legends are massive, but they come nowhere near possessing the aura Manchester United have. I mean, even domestically due to Alex Ferguson's legendary tenure, they managed to overhaul the league titles and even then they're close to each other in that respect...  But again, adding that United's brand name is considerably bigger than Liverpool's which to me is mystifying. It's as if the Munich Air Disaster (RIP) added that strange and morbid mystique to the club coupled with being the first English club to bring the big eared trophy to these shores for the first time (with all due respects to Celtic, the first British side... Don't want to get political here).

So... Whether or not Chelsea ever supersede Arsenal in trophy collection or not, whatever it is, there's more to all of this than just silverware.  Trophies are what fans live for... The competing for them, the expectation because you know you'll be in the race to challenge for them with unknown consequences.  That's all the day to day digestion a football fan cares for and after that you have everything else.

I guess the only thing that really matters is City is the biggest club in England right now!   ...p.s United don't share a City with us because they are not a Manchester club, they moved 100 years ago to Trafford Borough but didn't have enough money to change the club name, they even had to borrow stuff from us recently like a ground to play on, that's why they are called rags

[Dr. Gonzo]

Hopefully never.

[Bluewolf]

We average slightly above about 1 Trophy a season on current form.. 

The most in form Trophy Hunters of the past decade...  

[Happy Blue]

19 hours ago, Bluewolf said:

We average slightly above about 1 Trophy a season on current form.. 

The most in form Trophy Hunters of the past decade...  

I read somewhere that Man City is the English team of the decade with the league postion's and trophy haul