chelseablueboy
'Vinyl is the future'
- Messages
- 3,042
- Reaction score
- 866
Good post fella.Alan
Sky/ESPN bias against Chelsea
- Thread starter Myles_91
- Start date
- Status
Good post fella.Alan
TorresBlue9
On the Bench
- Messages
- 666
- Reaction score
- 40
- Messages
- 22,723
- Reaction score
- 6,608
I don't think that is entirely true. Lampard yes, and to be honest there is actually very little negative press regarding Lampard (relatively speaking) so I don't think he fits into the same category as Cole and JT. However COle and JT haven't really helped themselves over the course of their career. They have been involved in enough seif induced controversy to make them easy targets for the media and, to some extent, only have themselves to blame for becoming dogs to be beaten.
Thet they are England internationals (or were in the case of JT), playing for a successful high profile club, obviously makes the media more inclined to magnify any story about them however very few of the stories about them are totally devoid of some truth.
Terry has the Heathrow incident, the bouncer incident (yes I know he was cleared in the end), parking in a disabled spot, the reporter in the training ground incident, the affair, and now the Rio issue.
Cole the whole leaving Arsenal arguments (not just the alleged money demands but also the tapping up row), alleged affairs on multiple occasions, multiple speeding offences, gobbing off at a copper, the air rifle incident and now the Twitter row.
More than enough in those two lists for any high profile footballer to become an easy target for the media and most of them entirely avoidable.
I know we like to think that the media have it in for us way more than any other club but I would wager that if you go on to the forums of most other big clubs then there will be plenty of fans of those clubs who feel the same way. Just asmkost fans think they get the worst of it with regard to big decisions by refs.
I would agree that Rio got off very lightly regarding the drug incidnt however Rooney was hauled through the media regarding his 'granny issue' however the big difference is the number of incidents.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lofty.
Don't You Just Know it?
- Messages
- 2,730
- Reaction score
- 610
You're quite right, Frank Lampard granted hasn't had anywhere near the amount of negative press as the other two, and the only real reason I had for lumping all three players together was that I was doing so in response to a previous post. I should have explained myself a little better, in Frank's case the negativity is not so much from the press as opposition fans. There was a time when England fans would regularly boo Frank Lampard.. And then there was (and still is) the whole "Fat Frank" thing which I never fully understood, but appears to have originated with the unreasoning bitterness of West Ham fans following his departure from Upton Park, and may have also been connected to the old Lampard/Gerrard arguments, who's better, can they play together and so on.
Looking again at John Terry vs Rio Ferdinand, taking into account the two incidents that have cost John Terry the England captaincy. The first, an alleged affair with the ex-girlfriend of an ex-team mate, frequently misreported to this day as "sleeping with his best friend's wife". The most direct comparision here is with Ryan Giggs. Despite the factual affair with his brother's wife - there were few if any calls for Ryan Giggs to be stripped of the Team GB Captaincy.
Rio Ferdinand by all accounts has been no slouch himself when it comes to sleeping around. This is of no real interest to me, neither was John Terry's supposed affair with Vanessa Peroncel,. aside from the effect that the episode had on the perfomance of John Terry and the team as a whole.
The second of these, well let's get it straight. Trial by Youtube resulting in a court case and an FA Tribunal based on an incident that nobody on the pitch was aware of at the time, that nobody heard. To my way of thinking the Rio Ferdinand "choc ice" incident was far more blatantly racist.
I'm quite convinced that resentment among Man U fans and Liverpool fans at Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard respectively being "overlooked" for the England Captaincy is a major contributory factor to the way John Terry is repeatedly villified and demonised in the media. Not that he helps himself, but the man himself - according to people who actually know him - is nowhere near as black as he is painted.
Ashley Cole v Wayne Rooney. Again you could pick and choose. The airgun incident for example, was undeniably stupid. But I do believe that had the situations been reversed, had Wayne Rooney been a Chelsea player, and Ashley Cole gone to Old Trafford, that the weight of negative publicity would also been reversed.
I would also argue that in general, the biggest difference is the publicity given to the number of incidents.
I'll emphasise again that this is not down to anti-Chelsea feeling so much as pro-Man U sentiment.There are simply far more Man U (and Liverpool fans come to that) both in the media and indeed worldwide, and so it's all too easy to get the impression that they are out to get us, whereas in fact, the press being only human (although I grant you there is plenty of evidence to support the opposite) will naturally tend to favour the team they support.
Looking again at John Terry vs Rio Ferdinand, taking into account the two incidents that have cost John Terry the England captaincy. The first, an alleged affair with the ex-girlfriend of an ex-team mate, frequently misreported to this day as "sleeping with his best friend's wife". The most direct comparision here is with Ryan Giggs. Despite the factual affair with his brother's wife - there were few if any calls for Ryan Giggs to be stripped of the Team GB Captaincy.
Rio Ferdinand by all accounts has been no slouch himself when it comes to sleeping around. This is of no real interest to me, neither was John Terry's supposed affair with Vanessa Peroncel,. aside from the effect that the episode had on the perfomance of John Terry and the team as a whole.
The second of these, well let's get it straight. Trial by Youtube resulting in a court case and an FA Tribunal based on an incident that nobody on the pitch was aware of at the time, that nobody heard. To my way of thinking the Rio Ferdinand "choc ice" incident was far more blatantly racist.
I'm quite convinced that resentment among Man U fans and Liverpool fans at Rio Ferdinand and Steven Gerrard respectively being "overlooked" for the England Captaincy is a major contributory factor to the way John Terry is repeatedly villified and demonised in the media. Not that he helps himself, but the man himself - according to people who actually know him - is nowhere near as black as he is painted.
Ashley Cole v Wayne Rooney. Again you could pick and choose. The airgun incident for example, was undeniably stupid. But I do believe that had the situations been reversed, had Wayne Rooney been a Chelsea player, and Ashley Cole gone to Old Trafford, that the weight of negative publicity would also been reversed.
I would also argue that in general, the biggest difference is the publicity given to the number of incidents.
I'll emphasise again that this is not down to anti-Chelsea feeling so much as pro-Man U sentiment.There are simply far more Man U (and Liverpool fans come to that) both in the media and indeed worldwide, and so it's all too easy to get the impression that they are out to get us, whereas in fact, the press being only human (although I grant you there is plenty of evidence to support the opposite) will naturally tend to favour the team they support.
Davey Baby
Win or lose, up the Blues
- Messages
- 8,317
- Reaction score
- 3,631
More money than sense these footballers. However they're not the only ones. Far worse goes on. You just don't get to hear about it. For me, there is a clear anti-Chelsea agenda in the media which means our guys are targeted whereas a blind eye is often turned towards others' indiscretions.
We get far more stick than any other club, that's just a fact. As a recent example, the Observer devoted the whole of the front page of their sports section to an editorial calling for us to sack Terry and Ashley Cole. Ignoring the court trial they took their lead from the report compiled by the FA's "independent" inquiry. Terry was banned for 4 games Suarez for 8. If they are going to take their lead from FA "independent" inquiries, one would have thought they would have called for Liverpool to sack Suarez. Instead, only weeks earlier, the Observer's sister paper the Guardian published an interview with Suarez in which they attempted to depict him in an altogether more sympathetic light. That's right, Suarez. He bites he scratches he dives. He calls people "negro". Seven times.
Rio Ferdinand was recently found guilty of breaching FA rules with regard to race. The object of his ire was Ashley Cole This was before the "independent" inquiry's report. That did not stop the Guardian or any other newspaper for that matter campaigning to bring Ferdinand back into the England fold, despite the fact the object of his ire and the victim of his racial slur was in the England squad himself. They never asked what Ashley Cole might think about it, they never said Ferdinand was guilty of an offence relating to race. They just said bring him back. They didn't even mention the fact he's sh*t.
If the Observer is so against racism and believes being found guilty is worthy of a sacking, why didn't thery mention Ferdinand in their editorial and why are they so keen for him to play for England? Ashley Cole faces no punishment nor any charge regarding the evidence he gave regarding Terry, yet according to them he should be sacked, and the person who was charged and punished for using a racial slur against him should be brought back into the England fold. That's right. Seriously. I'm not making this up.
In effect the Observer are asking for the FA to ban players caught racially abusing another to be banned for life. They're not asking Chelsea to sack them just so they can go and find another club to play for, are they? If they can't play for Chelsea I presume they don't want them playing for anybody else, so why don't they just ask the FA to change its rules, rather than calling for Chelsea (and nobody else) to sack their players. Only Chelsea. Not Man Utd not Liverpool. Chelsea. Unlike those Man Utd and Liverpool players I mention, John Terry is not guilty according to the law of the land, a little fact that the Observer chose not to pay too much heed to. That's right, there was sufficient doubt for a magistrate but not for the Observer. Unlike those Liverpool and Man Utd players I mention Cole hasn't even been charged for his supposed crime. That's right, he hasn't even breached a rule. Sack them and sack them now. Are you telling me our players don't come in for special treatment?
John Terry has been banned by the FA for 4 games and given a fine. That's his punishment. The Observer aren't asking for him to serve his punishment learn from his mistakes and move on. They are trying to deny him his livelihood. Other players have served time for sexual offences, for violent offences and for killing someone in a hit-and-run. Those players are all currently employed by English clubs. Where is the Observer editorial about them? Is calling someone a FBC on a football pitch worse than killing someone in a hit-and-run, worse than sexual assault? No. Is a racial slur worse than a homophobic slur? No. I'm still to see the Observer editorial about Robbie Fowler ..
Sorry loz, I usually concur with your posts, but anyone who thinks there isn't a clear anti-Chelsea agenda in the media is well wide of the mark in my opinion.
Lofty.
Don't You Just Know it?
- Messages
- 2,730
- Reaction score
- 610
If there's an "agenda" then the agenda is one of catering to the lowest common denominator. It's simply that we are an easy target and are likely to remain so for the foreseable future, certainly for as long as we continue to be successful.
Why aren't Man U players targeted in the same fashion? Very possibly because they're part of some nebulous "establishment", for want of a better description. Liverpool and Man U, don't forget, were both founding members of the now defunct G14, subsequently G18. Arsenal joined in 2002. We were never invited.
Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool. We were already challenging the establishment prior to the Abramovich era, but when Abramovich bought the club, we smashed that cozy little cartel and did so with a vengeance. We upset the apple cart, destroyed the status quo and pushed the likes of Liverpool (ok especially Liverpool) further down the pecking order.
Remember when Uefa described Jose Mourinho and by implication, Chelsea FC, as "the enemy of football?" He was almost right. We were never the enemy of football, but we were and remain, the enemy of the artificially self-perpetuating footballing "elite" as represented by G18.
Then you have the fear factor. From the word go there was a fear that Abramovich's billions would enable us to build on what we already had and blow any possible opposition out of the water. Hence the increasingly desperate predictions that we'd be left high and dry when Abramovich got bored and walked away.
The final ingredient, not to be underestimated, is plain old fashioned jealousy. And it is this that is at the heart of much of the spite, much of the malice directed our way. It's what's behind such accusations as "plastic", "soulless", "rich man's toy", "not a proper club". "no sporting merit". "no history" - each one of which can be very easily disproved, very easily shown up as hypocritical nonsense, based on the same old fear, bitterness and jealousy.
Winning the Champions League for many non-Chelsea fans, Arsenal especially, was the final straw. But also Liverpool and Man U. So the argument went: "You're not a big club, not part of Europe's elite, until you've won the Champions League." Now that we've finally won the thing, they're attempting to diminish the achievement. It was the same in 2005. "It took you 50 years to win the league, it'll be another 50 years before you win it again. And you'll never win the double. Not a proper double." We've done that too.
And so the insults continue, full of braggadocio, born of fear and jealousy. Bitter jealous people attempting to console themselves. Man U after a trophyless season, Liverpool after yet another year away from their last title, Arsenal raving bloody mad because of their ludicrous belief that they "deserved" to be the first London club to win the Champions League, and fans of any number of other clubs playing follow my leader jumping on the bandwagon.
All of this still doesn't equate to anti-Chelsea bias. Granted it often feels that way but there is a difference, if only in origin. Bear in mind that Man City are already getting a taste of the same kind of nonsense we've endured for the past decade.
There's yet another put down that has us as "Millwall with money". And yet we don't have proper fans, so they say. The knockers want it all ways. It's pathetic, it really is, an entire mythology of Chelsea Football Club based on nothing more than fear, bitterness and envy that says a lot about human nature, none of it complimentary.
Why aren't Man U players targeted in the same fashion? Very possibly because they're part of some nebulous "establishment", for want of a better description. Liverpool and Man U, don't forget, were both founding members of the now defunct G14, subsequently G18. Arsenal joined in 2002. We were never invited.
Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool. We were already challenging the establishment prior to the Abramovich era, but when Abramovich bought the club, we smashed that cozy little cartel and did so with a vengeance. We upset the apple cart, destroyed the status quo and pushed the likes of Liverpool (ok especially Liverpool) further down the pecking order.
Remember when Uefa described Jose Mourinho and by implication, Chelsea FC, as "the enemy of football?" He was almost right. We were never the enemy of football, but we were and remain, the enemy of the artificially self-perpetuating footballing "elite" as represented by G18.
Then you have the fear factor. From the word go there was a fear that Abramovich's billions would enable us to build on what we already had and blow any possible opposition out of the water. Hence the increasingly desperate predictions that we'd be left high and dry when Abramovich got bored and walked away.
The final ingredient, not to be underestimated, is plain old fashioned jealousy. And it is this that is at the heart of much of the spite, much of the malice directed our way. It's what's behind such accusations as "plastic", "soulless", "rich man's toy", "not a proper club". "no sporting merit". "no history" - each one of which can be very easily disproved, very easily shown up as hypocritical nonsense, based on the same old fear, bitterness and jealousy.
Winning the Champions League for many non-Chelsea fans, Arsenal especially, was the final straw. But also Liverpool and Man U. So the argument went: "You're not a big club, not part of Europe's elite, until you've won the Champions League." Now that we've finally won the thing, they're attempting to diminish the achievement. It was the same in 2005. "It took you 50 years to win the league, it'll be another 50 years before you win it again. And you'll never win the double. Not a proper double." We've done that too.
And so the insults continue, full of braggadocio, born of fear and jealousy. Bitter jealous people attempting to console themselves. Man U after a trophyless season, Liverpool after yet another year away from their last title, Arsenal raving bloody mad because of their ludicrous belief that they "deserved" to be the first London club to win the Champions League, and fans of any number of other clubs playing follow my leader jumping on the bandwagon.
All of this still doesn't equate to anti-Chelsea bias. Granted it often feels that way but there is a difference, if only in origin. Bear in mind that Man City are already getting a taste of the same kind of nonsense we've endured for the past decade.
There's yet another put down that has us as "Millwall with money". And yet we don't have proper fans, so they say. The knockers want it all ways. It's pathetic, it really is, an entire mythology of Chelsea Football Club based on nothing more than fear, bitterness and envy that says a lot about human nature, none of it complimentary.
Celery1989
First Team Regular
- Messages
- 2,004
- Reaction score
- 171
IMO there is definitely an anti-Chelsea bias in parts of the media. As Tommy noted above, there are multiple reasons for the unparalleled scrutiny which we receive.
There was one game a few years back which demonstrated this to me most vividly. It was in Ancelotti's firsty year, ManU away where we needed to win or our title challenge would have essentially been over. There were 2 dodgy goals scored in that game. One of them was by Macheda, who handled the ball multiple times before bundling it in, yet the media totally ignored this. In fact, all the post match focus was on the offside goal that Drogba had scored before this. Yet it actually wouldn't have made any difference anyway if the refs had disallowed the Macheda goal as they should have.
Also after the Stoke game recently all the pundits on MOTD wanted to talk about was Oscar's dive. If that had been United, they would have been raving about they "dug in" and put in a "champions' performance" by grinding it out with a late winner.
All in all, as Tommy outlined above, it just seems as though the media are obsessed with picking even the smallest, most inconsequential holes in everything good that our club does.
There was one game a few years back which demonstrated this to me most vividly. It was in Ancelotti's firsty year, ManU away where we needed to win or our title challenge would have essentially been over. There were 2 dodgy goals scored in that game. One of them was by Macheda, who handled the ball multiple times before bundling it in, yet the media totally ignored this. In fact, all the post match focus was on the offside goal that Drogba had scored before this. Yet it actually wouldn't have made any difference anyway if the refs had disallowed the Macheda goal as they should have.
Also after the Stoke game recently all the pundits on MOTD wanted to talk about was Oscar's dive. If that had been United, they would have been raving about they "dug in" and put in a "champions' performance" by grinding it out with a late winner.
All in all, as Tommy outlined above, it just seems as though the media are obsessed with picking even the smallest, most inconsequential holes in everything good that our club does.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lofty.
Don't You Just Know it?
- Messages
- 2,730
- Reaction score
- 610
Here, right on cue we have a perfect example of a deliberately misleading headline. From today's Telegraph:
Phil Jagielka says side are 'healthier' since John Terry retirement
Tell me is there anyone who doesn't infer from the above that Jagielka is referring to the atmosphere in the dressing room, morale or the like? Well he's not. He's referring to competition for places. The article even mentions Ferdinand's absence as being good for competition. This is the relevant quote from which the headline is taken:
Phil Jagielka says side are 'healthier' since John Terry retirement
Tell me is there anyone who doesn't infer from the above that Jagielka is referring to the atmosphere in the dressing room, morale or the like? Well he's not. He's referring to competition for places. The article even mentions Ferdinand's absence as being good for competition. This is the relevant quote from which the headline is taken:
BumsteadCFC
Youth Team
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 6
So many Chelsea fans on this thread articulating pefectly my view on the distorted manner in which we are covered in the media, not least Davey Baby & the Doc. Could not agree more.
Backbiter
An Untouchable
- Messages
- 8,518
- Reaction score
- 4,146
+1. Excellent posts from both of them.So many Chelsea fans on this thread articulating pefectly my view on the distorted manner in which we are covered in the media, not least Davey Baby & the Doc. Could not agree more.
Myles_91
First Team Squad
- Messages
- 1,741
- Reaction score
- 7
With all due respect Loz, I have to agree with Davey and Doc 100%.
The media and all other main institutions are biased. From the media, to the Police etc.
Journalists are given free reign to take snipes at Chelsea Football Club and Defame us at any given opportunity. Luxuries which that simply wouldn't be afforded to them if it was United or Liverpool.
Touching on a point made by Celery1989 I'm sure most if not all of us remember MOTD castigating Oscar and Ivanovic for what were perceived to be blatant dives. The following week Bale and Suarez commit two of the worst dives you will see and they simply dismiss it and say we should laugh it off. Why? Because it's media darlings Spurs and Liverpool shirts those players are sporting.
Following on from a point made by Doc, I remember once the alleged Terry affair was exposed and on the Monday Daytime television shows: The Wright Stuff & Loose Women (don't ask, my mum watches it) were actually having lengthy discussions on the subject. In the paper reviews I even recall them labelling JT "Scum" and we're all aware of the lies they reported to try and add fuel to the public's fire. Many calling for Chelsea & England to not just strip him of the captaincy, but sack him. This before knowing ANY of the facts. In what job or walk of life could you expect to be sacked from your job if you were having an alleged affair? Giggs has an 8 year affair with his brother's wife and there was not one call for Giggs to be sacked or apprehended in any way. This seems symptomatic of the difference in treatment of Chelsea players. Every man and his dog criticises the FA on an almost weekly basis but when Ashley Cole does it - he should be sacked. Poor old Ryan Bertrand mocked and forced to leave Twitter after the media simply claimed he had a "sore throat" in what should have been one of the proudest moments in his career. Remember Mark Ogden of The Telegraph who recently got banned by Fergie for correctly reporting an injury of Rio Ferdinand. We could trace it further back to Lampard being booed at Wembley by England fans and the media constantly calling for Sven/Mclaren/Capello all to drop him because he was "holding Gerrard back". Yep, that's right the Gerrard who openly claimed playing for club was more important than country. The Gerrard who has an inferior record to him at club and international level.
And we all know how the media character assasinated Lampard and Cole by claiming they got AVB the sack as well as Drogba and the rest of the old guard. The funny thing is Gerrard (at Liverpool) and Shearer (at Newcastle) have actually single handedly got managers sacked and nobody bats an eyelid.
Even when Ashley Cole, JT and Lampard have long gone from Chelsea Football Club they'll find another target whether it be Oscar, Hazard, Bertrand or Ivanovic simply because they have to. Every club has it's role in football society.
Chelsea = Pantomime Villain
Manchester United = Hero - The Invincible flying machine that always wins against all odds.
Liverpool = David - The plucky outfit (who the media pretend are impoverished & haven't spent any money) who are great and loveable
It still infuriates me when we would play Liverpool and the media portray it as a David vs Goliath match as if Liverpool haven't spent any money. Also when they say their fans are proper and ours aren't. Anyone here that goes to Chelsea matches will vouch for me when I say the majority of our match going fanbase is Over 40, people who have seen the lows.... and lows. United, Liverpool and Arsenal's matchgoing fanbase is much younger and you can just tell they only started supporting them when the going got good. A lot of them are first generation football fans where there parents didn't really grow up with football. Of course you can't help your age but clubs like ours are different, a lot of our support have been going for years and it's trickled down from generation to generation. It basically runs in the Blood and if not Blood, communities. If you go almost anywhere South of the river you'll often have lots of closely knit Chelsea communities where ex-players grew up and still drink and people generally know each other. These are proper fans, as much as I hate them I'd add Spurs and West Ham to this bracket as well. I'd also include Palace, QPR and Millwall.
City are beginning to get the same jibes re: fanbase despite the fact their fans are as loyal as they come. It all boils down to jealousy which is fuelled by the media and trickles down on to football fans.
The media and all other main institutions are biased. From the media, to the Police etc.
Journalists are given free reign to take snipes at Chelsea Football Club and Defame us at any given opportunity. Luxuries which that simply wouldn't be afforded to them if it was United or Liverpool.
Touching on a point made by Celery1989 I'm sure most if not all of us remember MOTD castigating Oscar and Ivanovic for what were perceived to be blatant dives. The following week Bale and Suarez commit two of the worst dives you will see and they simply dismiss it and say we should laugh it off. Why? Because it's media darlings Spurs and Liverpool shirts those players are sporting.
Following on from a point made by Doc, I remember once the alleged Terry affair was exposed and on the Monday Daytime television shows: The Wright Stuff & Loose Women (don't ask, my mum watches it) were actually having lengthy discussions on the subject. In the paper reviews I even recall them labelling JT "Scum" and we're all aware of the lies they reported to try and add fuel to the public's fire. Many calling for Chelsea & England to not just strip him of the captaincy, but sack him. This before knowing ANY of the facts. In what job or walk of life could you expect to be sacked from your job if you were having an alleged affair? Giggs has an 8 year affair with his brother's wife and there was not one call for Giggs to be sacked or apprehended in any way. This seems symptomatic of the difference in treatment of Chelsea players. Every man and his dog criticises the FA on an almost weekly basis but when Ashley Cole does it - he should be sacked. Poor old Ryan Bertrand mocked and forced to leave Twitter after the media simply claimed he had a "sore throat" in what should have been one of the proudest moments in his career. Remember Mark Ogden of The Telegraph who recently got banned by Fergie for correctly reporting an injury of Rio Ferdinand. We could trace it further back to Lampard being booed at Wembley by England fans and the media constantly calling for Sven/Mclaren/Capello all to drop him because he was "holding Gerrard back". Yep, that's right the Gerrard who openly claimed playing for club was more important than country. The Gerrard who has an inferior record to him at club and international level.
And we all know how the media character assasinated Lampard and Cole by claiming they got AVB the sack as well as Drogba and the rest of the old guard. The funny thing is Gerrard (at Liverpool) and Shearer (at Newcastle) have actually single handedly got managers sacked and nobody bats an eyelid.
Even when Ashley Cole, JT and Lampard have long gone from Chelsea Football Club they'll find another target whether it be Oscar, Hazard, Bertrand or Ivanovic simply because they have to. Every club has it's role in football society.
Chelsea = Pantomime Villain
Manchester United = Hero - The Invincible flying machine that always wins against all odds.
Liverpool = David - The plucky outfit (who the media pretend are impoverished & haven't spent any money) who are great and loveable
It still infuriates me when we would play Liverpool and the media portray it as a David vs Goliath match as if Liverpool haven't spent any money. Also when they say their fans are proper and ours aren't. Anyone here that goes to Chelsea matches will vouch for me when I say the majority of our match going fanbase is Over 40, people who have seen the lows.... and lows. United, Liverpool and Arsenal's matchgoing fanbase is much younger and you can just tell they only started supporting them when the going got good. A lot of them are first generation football fans where there parents didn't really grow up with football. Of course you can't help your age but clubs like ours are different, a lot of our support have been going for years and it's trickled down from generation to generation. It basically runs in the Blood and if not Blood, communities. If you go almost anywhere South of the river you'll often have lots of closely knit Chelsea communities where ex-players grew up and still drink and people generally know each other. These are proper fans, as much as I hate them I'd add Spurs and West Ham to this bracket as well. I'd also include Palace, QPR and Millwall.
City are beginning to get the same jibes re: fanbase despite the fact their fans are as loyal as they come. It all boils down to jealousy which is fuelled by the media and trickles down on to football fans.
Last edited by a moderator:
BlueBeard
First Team Regular
- Messages
- 6,073
- Reaction score
- 169
paraphil
In the Ressies
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 70
I've been supporting this Club for over 40 years and never known such an anti-Chelsea agenda so prevalent over the last - certainly - 10 years. I used to get so frustrated and angry with the constant vitriol spewed out against our club, players and fans.
And it's not going to change, it's too far ingrained into the media/press conditioning, so now I've learnt to accept it and ride with it over these last few years, - and happy to continue doing so whilst we keep performing like we have done, becoming successful on the pitch and winning trophies.
And it's not going to change, it's too far ingrained into the media/press conditioning, so now I've learnt to accept it and ride with it over these last few years, - and happy to continue doing so whilst we keep performing like we have done, becoming successful on the pitch and winning trophies.
SHELLY
First Team Regular
- Messages
- 2,075
- Reaction score
- 239
We were pretty unpopular during the Bates era too...People can't make up their minds whether or not we are racist, violent, mindless, knuckle dragging hooligans, or Fancy dan champagne swilling toffs, or flashy London wideboys with too much money...
I quite enjoy the hatred as its very motivating for me personally, however I do get annoyed when the media openly lie about us or omit crucial facts when reporting on us...I'm sure fans of other clubs feel they get an equally raw deal, but I don't think anyone comes in for as much stick as we do, the media don't care as it plays well with rival clubs fans and if a few Chelsea boycott their rags or refuse to subscribe to Sky it probably won't hurt them that much...
It does make days like Saturday so much sweeter though, you just know everyone was hoping we'd slip up at Tottenham, and instead they were forced to write what nice football we played...That must have hurt them...Shame
I quite enjoy the hatred as its very motivating for me personally, however I do get annoyed when the media openly lie about us or omit crucial facts when reporting on us...I'm sure fans of other clubs feel they get an equally raw deal, but I don't think anyone comes in for as much stick as we do, the media don't care as it plays well with rival clubs fans and if a few Chelsea boycott their rags or refuse to subscribe to Sky it probably won't hurt them that much...
It does make days like Saturday so much sweeter though, you just know everyone was hoping we'd slip up at Tottenham, and instead they were forced to write what nice football we played...That must have hurt them...Shame
Myles_91
First Team Squad
- Messages
- 1,741
- Reaction score
- 7
I've known fans of United and Arsenal also admit the media are anti-Chelsea as well as non-football fans so it can't be all in our heads as some might believe.
If anything all Manchester United games should be shown live on sky seeing as a survey done a couple of years ago showed that out of the 4.5 billion views the EPL accrued that year 65% were watching United games while the other 35% was spread out amongst the others, FACT. But unfortunately the other clubs wont allow us to have our own TV deal like Barca and Madrid because if they did it would make abromavich and the city sheik look real f**king poor.
mclovin83
AKA The Rose Tinted Romeo
- Messages
- 3,452
- Reaction score
- 1,726
- Status