BernardLambourde

Well we were winning trophies before Claudio arrived....and started to again as soon as he left. That was my point. And expectations are dependant on the team. I personally think that Claudio had the funds and players to be winning trophies. John Neal worked under true constraints and he got the worst team in Chelsea history promoted as champions within one season.....and then went onto finish 6th in the top flight the following year. For me, that is a far greater achievement than Claudio's 4th place in 2003.

Yes, but we still had the same players on the field! Not like there had been a mas-exodus. He still had the likes of Zola, Gudjohnsson, Hasselbaink, Lampard, Terry, Le Saux, Desailly and Cudicini to call upon. People make out he finished 4th with a Mickey Mouse side. Oh, and I forgot.....his performances in the UEFA Cup for three seasons running were abysmal. Defeats to St Gallen, Hapoel Tel Aviv and Viking Stavanger.

I'm not devaluing his role in changing the profile of the club....as I said, he signed Petrescu, Gullit and Hughes (although that was only in his last season....prior to that he broke the club transfer record for Paul Furlong and signed Andy Dow!?). Those signings were a combination of his high profile from his playing career.....and of course Harding's money which we didn't have before. I am solely talking about his contribution as manager. I remember some really abject performances in his 3 year tenure. Some truly appalling games. And in his last season when we had the three aforementioned players whilst retaining the better ones from before like Wise and Peacock, we still finished 11th. So yeah, he had the profile to attract good players....but we still had mediocre league performances under him......and his managerial career since has been far from glittering. His high profile and the fact he was financially backed doesn't make him a good manager. What I will say about him is that he had some good cup runs. I mentioned the easy run to the final in 1994 (I can't think of an easier route for any team ever) but we were losing those sort of cup ties before so fair play. He also reached the ECWC semi (again, advancing against far from vintage sides) and then the FA Cup Semi-Final 1996.

Hoddle hasn't exactly set the world alight in his managerial roles since either.

1997 - Gullit - FA Cup 1998 - Vialli - League Cup, Cup Winner's Cup 1999 - Vialli - European Super Cup 2000 - Vialli - FA Cup 2001 - Ranieri - Nothing 2002 - Ranieri - Nothing 2003 - Ranieri - Nothing 2004 - Ranieri - Nothing (despite having the most expensively assembled squad in the history of English football at his disposal) 2005 - Mourinho - Premier League and League Cup Of course there are always mitigating circumstances with these things.....he inherited an ageing side....but it has been the story of his career. As I said earlier, two tin pot cups in 25 years of management with some of the biggest clubs in Europe tells it's own tale. Sure, he did some good things for Chelsea. Bedding new players who went onto win trophies for the club at a time of transition....but we needed someone like Jose to install the winning mentality. I think the sides prior to the 2003 season were good enough to be challenging for trophies. It's not like he wasn't being backed financially. £11m for Lampard, £6.5m for Gallas, £7.5m for Zenden, £7.5m for Petit, £7.8m for Gronkjaer. A lot of money at the time. And of course he inherited players like Zola, Hasselbaink, Gudjohnsson, Stanic, Cudicini etc. Finishing 6th, 5th, 4th and 2nd (after Roman's huge spending spree) and no trophies with those players doesn't represent anything amazing for me. And I am surprised you have singled out Hoddle for praise. If you're going to list the good work done before Ranieri, then Gullit and Vialli would be a good place to start. The Hoddle sides were pretty dismal. 14th, 11th and 11th. We were at that stage under Ian Porterfield and Dave Webb before him. Finished 5th under Bobby Campbell in 1990 yet Hoddle seems to get all the praise. He did get us to the cup final but the draw was more than favourable. Barnet, Wednesday, Oxford, Wolves and Luton. The best thing he did was attract Gullit, Hughes and Petrescu.....I think that was mainly due to his star name status.....and of course Harding's money which was being thrown at it. Then we took it on from there. His tactics of trying to play a sophisticated style of football with average players saw us in danger of being dragged into the relegation dogfight in seasons 93/94 and 94/95.

Regarding the electric fences, he was the one getting hit in the pocket when the club were fined for the fan's behaviour.....so you can sort of see his point. If you're gonna behave like animals, you're gonna get treated like one.

We were already on it before he came.

I was never a fan. I found his team selections and substitutions baffling. One game we were losing at home to Charlton 1-0 and he took Hasselbaink AND Zola off and played Stanic up front on his own (I'm sure this happened.....unless I dreamt it....it sounds preposterous but with Claudio it most probably did happen). We lost the game 1-0. The way I look at it is that we were winning trophies before he came.....in 97 (FA Cup), 98 (League Cup and Cup Winners Cup), 99 (only European Super Cup but finished 3rd in the league only 4 points behind United's greatest ever side), 00 FA Cup. He came in 00/01 (right?) and left after 03/04.....in that time we won nothing and we never pushed for the title (2nd in 04 but some way behind Arsenal with a much bigger, more expensive squad). The following season, Mourinho took over and we started winning things again - quite comprehensively too. I don't think it is a coincidence. Look at Claudio's career. I think he has only won a couple of domestic cups (which are less prestigious in Italy and Spain) in a career spanning more-or-less 25 years. Pretty poor considering the clubs he has managed.....Napoli, Fiorentina, Athletico Madrid, Chelsea, Valencia, Juve, Roma, Inter, Parma. Jose would have won plenty with those sides. What I will say is that he is good at building teams and signing good young players. He did it at Valencia and Calgary and took over during a difficult time at Juve. That said, if you want someone to win you trophies, then Claudio clearly isn't your man. I think with the players he had at his disposal at Chelsea, he should have at least won one trophy.

That volley against Liverpool was quality. He scored a pretty nice half volley against Leeds at the back end of the 93/94 season too. Good player. It was a shame he got frozen out when Gullit became boss in 96' but we were moving onto another level.

Well said people. Our luck prior to last season's CL campaign was tainted with horrendous luck. Garcia's ghost goal (although we did play badly in both legs) in 05, Del Horno's harsh red card when we were 1 up vs Barca the following season, the 2007 penalty shoot-out loss to Liverpool....Terry's slip in Moscow...and then of course the turned downed penalty appeals and subsequent Iniesta wonder goal in 09. Those teams were stronger than the one which won it.

The early goals were obviously a killer......Athletico were then allowed to sit deep and pick us off on the break. That said, they were pretty accomplished in doing so and I was impressed by their performance. Not too many sides in the Prem are capable of looking that solid at the back before breaking so dangerously.

By their own logic, an AC Milan or Real Madrid fan could rightfully accuse Liverpool of having no history as they have fewer League Chamionships and European Cups.

How are they only speaking facts? They say that Chelsea have "no history" when the club was formed 107 years ago. Saying "Chelsea's history has been less successful than that of other clubs" (although not that many clubs now) would be correct. Every club in the world has a history. I find it an incredibley stupid thing to say. And I'm surprised you included Spurs in that list. Chelsea have won twice as many league championships than them and now a European Cup in our history (I know it was won this year, but it wasn't won 'in the future' was it?). Our recent history since 1997 has been far more golden than anything they have to show from their past. So many trophies in such a short space of time.

I just read them back and hadn't seen the 'blood stained' one. Depends what he is referring to really. If it is Hillsborough then it isn't on.....but I don't see why Heysel should never be mentioned if they're gonna go round calling other sets of supporters classless scum. It was a tragedy where people died and a tragedy their fans were culpable for. I don't see it is as 'using it as a stick to beat others with'....merely mentioning what actually happened. I don't really like the 'we're above all this' stance. It makes us sound like them. "We have class and dignity....we're better than that!" blah, blah. So pious - they make me sick. Merely not by stooping to low levels are you showing you're 'above it'. Championing yourself is a Scouse trait actually. "We're salt of the earth.....we're the best football supporters.....we have the best sense of humour in the world (despite giving the world Stan Bordman and Freddie Star and nothing, other than John Bishop, since), we're the friendliest folk" etc. Self praise is no praise.

Which ones do you think are 'horrific'? I don't see too many which are that strong. And come on.....if there was any sort of compliment it was almost certainly back handed...and as Mike Carefree says, utterly patronising.. It started off with a jibe about the flags (which he has criticised numerous times. God knows why....he makes the same point every single time)....then and the "create some real history" bit suggests that pre-Munich, Chelsea have never achieved anything which can be considered 'real history'....which of course is utter b*llocks. He is also keen on sticking the boot into Arsenal so no doubt using this piece just as much for that purpose.

He should be happy with the flags. Fans of London teams used to wave £50 notes and copies of The Sun at Liverpool fans.

I know....it's only a flag. What's the big deal? They say that Chelsea are trying to 'generate atmosphere' with them......but how? A flag doesn't make any f***ing noise does it? It's just a nice freebie.....much like the giros that pay for the Scouser's match day tickets. If you buy some £5 knock off Nigel scarf from a stall outside the stadium and hold it over your head, does that make you oh-so more passionate? And you're right......United gave away scarves before a Manchester Derby in recent years I recall. And Arsenal the same with flags for a CL semi in 2009. I've also been to an Ajax game in Amsterdam where there were free flags on the seats.

I tried to post it on The Mirror website but it didn't allow it. They probably have moderators filtering out anything which goes against their pro-Liverpool agenda.

Ha ha....a full football kit...and wellington boots......in the supermarket!

Check this out....a video of Scousers making their way down to London for the 1984 Milk Cup Final. Listen to their song in the pub at 0.33... It is celebrating the Munich Air Disaster of 1958. I can't believe they have the cheek to take the moral high ground over things like Chelsea fans not respecting the minute's silence in the semi-final this year. I thought that was out of order from our lot.....but those in glass houses wearing shellsuits, shouldn't cast the first stone.

Hmmm....I dunno about that. He is a Scouser who has been attending games for years and years. Not his fault they won so much in that time. He certainly has an agenda against Chelsea though. I don't know why he attacks Chelsea fans for the flags anyway. Not like we asked for them. I just turned up one European game and there was one on my seat. I also saw plenty of Liverpool fans waving the free flags at Wembley for the cup final.

Look at this from Daily Mirror columnist and life-long Liverpool fan Brian Reade: "I’ve criticised Chelsea over the years for their inability to see that compulsory plastic flag-waving has as much place in a football ground as playing Eye Of The Tiger after every goal. Those fans who couldn’t see it must now do so, after they looked on with pride at a decent banner displayed on Wednesday night: “First London club to win the Champions League.†See. You create some proper history, you create a proper flag that makes your rivals wince for all the right reasons. And if Arsenal fans aren’t wincing, they should be." I thoroughly agree with Brian. A flag bearing a powerful message can indeed make opposition fans squirm and feel uneasy. Most notably the ones Juventus fans unfurled during their Champion's League game with Liverpool in 2005 which read: "We can't forget!" And... "Easy to speak....difficult to pardon.....Murderers!"

You forgot naming your stadium after a Middle Eastern air-line for money. Class. It's also funny when Spurs fans call Chelsea 'chavs'. Where did the London riots begin.....oh yeah....in Tottenham.....by a load of tracksuit clad chavs robbing Nike Airs from JJB Sports. Or even funnier is when Liverpool fans claim to have 'class'. Try telling that to Juve.....or the United fans they threw poo at.....or the owners of sports casual clothing shops around Europe which they looted in the 80's.....or the victims of Stanley Knife attacks....or people living in Athens who had to clean up the pigsty like mess they left in the centre of the city after the 2007 CL final...or the people who had tickets stolen from them for that very match. I could go on...

What did Messi say about our CL win? As for UEFA favouring Barca, just look at their CL group today compared to Real's. Of course it's impossible to say UEFA are fixing the draws in their favour but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

It is the same tired old accusations aimed at Chelsea......when they're things that can be aimed at more-or-less every club in England (from some part of their history)....including Arsenal. Playing in front of small crowds. Arsenal in 1986 averaged 23,000....and this was in the top flight. Chelsea averaged the same in the second division 2 years before. In 86 they would have been getting in excess of 50,000 for the big games as well.....so that means some pitiful crowds in those years. Also, Arsenal once recorded a home attendance at Highbury of around 4,500. And this was also a top flight game.....in the 60's when football crowds, in general, were large (unlike the 80's and early 90's....eras they always cite when referencing Chelsea) and it was against Leeds....one of the great sides in English football at the time. The fact of the matter is that in the all-time records for home attendances, Arsenal only have a couple of thousand on Chelsea....and this is despite having won 9 more league titles and playing far fewer seasons outside the top division. Racist fans. Sure, an unwelcome and far-right element often used the Bridge as a recruiting ground as they knew it'd be full of young, dis-illusioned and impressionable working class kids. The club always made efforts to distance themselves from these people....and reasonable Chelsea supporters didn't welcome their presence.....yet have never claimed racism never occured. Yet you'd think Arsenal have never, ever had one racist person in their support. What about the thousands that went Turk bashing in Copenhagen for the 2000 UEFA Cup Final against Galatasary? Or all the anti-semetic chants their fans continue to aim at Spurs (of course Chelsea are just as guilty for this but we're not claiming some moral high ground)? One comment on that Arsenal board thread says that he can't believe that you now see black people wearing Chelsea shirts in London. Should they not be able to support Chelsea just cause of the actions of some morons 30 years ago? Surely the fact they now feel comfortable to support Chelsea is a good thing? I don't really see what his point is. Should the club not be allowed to move forward? Chelsea have done a lot of work in the 'Kick Racism of of Football' campaign and have even provided work for the likes of Paul Canoville to educate youngsters on his troubles. Chelsea are not hiding away from issues. The money. As someone else has pointed out.....have they forgotten about the contribution of Norris all those years ago? Well....I don't think the majority have 'forgotten'.....they just don't know about him which speaks volumes. And of course.....as the West Ham (surprisingly reasonable West Ham fan I might add) adds.....it's pretty hard to take their gripes about 'buying success' seriously when they're screaming "spend some f***ing money" at their own board. History. Every time I ask a Gooner how they can substantiate their claims of Chelsea having 'no history' when they were formed 107 years ago, they can never give me a good answer. They just say we didn't win a lot before Roman. But how does only 'success' equate to history? They're two different things. Take a team like Crystal Palace for example.....they were formed in the same year as Chelsea but have never won one major trophy. Try telling a Palace fan they have 'no history'. It is an amazingly ignorant thing to say. If they really do believe that you're only creating history by winning trophies, then why are they still interested in Arsenal and paying top dollar for tickets? Surely they ceased to exist in 2005? And I'd like to know what year they consider Arsenal's history to start from? They were founded in 1886 but didn't win a trophy until 1930. So was that initial 44 years part of 'no history' for Arsenal? Does their history only stretch back until 1930? Class and dignity. I'm forever hearing imeasurable things like these being thrown about by Arsenal fans. I don't even think they realise what they're claiming when they're saying it. I saw words as such on the comments section of a YouTube video where Arsenal fans were burning an Ashley Cole shirt (I believe similar videos now exist of Van Persie shirt burning). Where is the class and dignity in burning shirts? The irony is astonishing. Perhaps they're referring to the frugality of their own board? "Doing things the right way".....which confuses me as they're moaning about it most of the time? They seem to be taking pride in a business model which they, personally, have no say in. They have as much to do with Arsenal's self sustained business plan as we do in Abramovich sp*nking millions on class players. I know, as a football supporter, which I prefer. Reading some of the comments on that site about Van Persie's move to United are equally baffling. Sure, it is never nice to see your top player to a rival club.....but what do they expect? He had the chance to earn a s***load more money at a club actually challenging for trophies.....just like Cole to Chelsea, Song and Fabregas to Barca and the exodus of Arsenal talent to City in recent years. The transfers are no brainers to the players. Just like when they signed Sol Campbell from Spurs all those years ago. More money and more trophies - no brainer. Yet they seemed to think that transfer was funny and utterly justified (which of course it was). Arsenal may no longer win trophies on the pitch.....but if they were being handed out for taking the moral high ground, they truly would be mopping up. Maybe they could arrange an open top bus celebration around the streets of Islington for their board members? A celebration of millionaireswith no affinity to the club getting richer whilst 'balancing the books'.