this might have to be moved to footie forum but...
on the basis of conversations/arguments i've had in the past few days which of these is the more correct view?
1. chelsea don't actually exist. they are a group of mercenary players under a mercenary manager who could actually be based anywhere in the world - premiership is the most profitable league in the world at the moment. their achievements mean nothing because of this and will be recorded as a blip in football history becuse they are not anchored to anything thet people can ever love for or feel afinity with or even really respect. unlike ourselves - and lots of other clubs to a lesser extent - where our history will always mark our achievements as what football is all about. eg champions league against milan - an unbelievably exciting football night. one of the gretaest in sporting history.
2. chelsea have unsavoury beginnings as a football power but that's professional sport - ultimately they're worthy of no less respect than us to the neutral.
on the basis of conversations/arguments i've had in the past few days which of these is the more correct view?
1. chelsea don't actually exist. they are a group of mercenary players under a mercenary manager who could actually be based anywhere in the world - premiership is the most profitable league in the world at the moment. their achievements mean nothing because of this and will be recorded as a blip in football history becuse they are not anchored to anything thet people can ever love for or feel afinity with or even really respect. unlike ourselves - and lots of other clubs to a lesser extent - where our history will always mark our achievements as what football is all about. eg champions league against milan - an unbelievably exciting football night. one of the gretaest in sporting history.
2. chelsea have unsavoury beginnings as a football power but that's professional sport - ultimately they're worthy of no less respect than us to the neutral.
Comment