Does Redknapp have what it takes to be England manager?

Your having a giraffe mate. How can you consider Spurs to be bigger than Chelsea when you have only won two titles? Chelsea have four and as many European? Villa I can understand due to their European cup and early league success in the 30's but Everton & Spurs in our company is risible

 

"History" on its own means diddly squat nowadays. All clubs have history.

Spurs are and always have been a cup team, on the domestic stage they don't even come close to matching some League 1 clubs let alone PL.

Most people will admit that in the 50s and early 60s Spurs were top dog in London but it has always been swings and roundabouts. Arsenal and Chelsea have always been the biggest and the most popular with West Ham and Spurs not too far behind in 3rd and 4th. The rest in terms of popularity and support don't come close.

"Big clubs" are the likes of Sheffield Wednesday, who will have a sell out 39,000 crowd for a League 1 fixture in 2 weeks against Sheffield United or the likes of Man City who averaged 30,000 at Maine Road when in the 3rd tier, or clubs like Chelsea, United and Liverpool who took thousands to away fixtures when in the 2nd division.

If West Ham were in the same position as Spurs they would have similar financial results, they are similar sized clubs whether Spurs fans will like to admit that or not. If we had a stadium the same size as Arsenal's our revenue would trump theirs, I'm not saying it would make us bigger but we are a similar size club to them.

Until Spurs have won more league titles than Huddersfield they will never be taken seriously. Actions speak louder than words and if you ask fans of lower league clubs who are the four biggest clubs or which club they'd anticipate most in the FA Cup Chelsea would probably make 90% of people's lists, probably near 100% if you live down South, Spurs wouldn't make any.

Despite the fact Swansea vs Spurs was on a Saturday at 3pm, more Swansea fans turned out for Chelsea (despite being on a Tuesday night).

We are actually Swansea's record attendance and that with United and Arsenal also having been there that is unlikely to change until maybe the last day.

 

Amen

 

Spurs have won two Carling Cups in 20 years of the PL and they don't think they're one of the least successful! It's delusion!

 

Yet again DL posts a thread that is just an excuse to slag off spurs some more

This arguing over who's club is biggest is like kids in a playground. Who gives a f**k? Your club is your club and that is all that matters however big, small or successful.

How about people start actually debating the actual topic

 

Your arguments are fatally flawed as they rely only on recent events. According to your arguments Spurs were a much bigger club than Chelsea up until you won the Prem in 2005 - do any of you believe that - I doubt it. Also you would have to argue that Liverpool are a small club too. Fair enough if that is your only criteria but I suspect that fans around the country would not agree with you

Let's face it though that is the case - until 2005 Spurs had won more titles, cups European competitions etc than Chelsea, also we did not spend over half the 1980s in the second tier of English football like Chelsea did. Chelsea have always being vying with perhaps West Ham or Fulham - well below the major London clubs - i.e. Arsenal and Spurs

You are just a rich club for a while - let's see what happens when the money switches off - I expect you will revert to your historic level - a sound top tier club most of the time but with all too frequent forays into the lower tiers.

Spurs are just a big club - not always a successful club but nevertheless a big club. You need another couple of decades of failing to drop into the second tier to really establish your credentials - until then you are not really Chelsea FC but Abramovitch FC.

 

Why did you close the 80's?
Why not the 30's when you spent nearly the entire decade in the 2nd div?
I mean if you're going to use his history then be fair and include your own.

 

- fair point CPofL - however I suppose I was thinking of living memory - I know you are not called Chelsea Pensioners for nothing but you have to be over 80 years old to remember the 1930s and if we are going there I think you will find Chelsea spent half the 20s in Div2 - bet you don't remember that ? - but I expect you did suffer through the late 70s and 80s which is only a relatively short while ago (for me anyway ) Shows though what Lord Acton said: "there are lies , damned lies and statistics" - we all choose the ones that favour our cause.

It still does not get away from the fact that Chelsea have had real success only since 2005 and that is Millionaire's money - fair play but I think you have a long way to go before you can think of yourselves as a true top club. Time will tell

 

This will inevitably descend into cock comparing but I can't agree with a lot of what you have said there.

Pre Roman we had won a number a domestic and european titles in the 10 years prior to his arrival, had qualified for the C.L TWICE and had competed for the title. We've had barren spells like most clubs but here and now we are a bigger club than Spurs by some way. Chelsea is a global brand and in the top clubs in Europe.

We were a big club pre Roman in English terms now we are a big club in global terms. Spurs are a big club but not in the same bracket. One trophy in 20 years and only one foray into the C.L are 2 of the main reasons. How the success come about is largely irrelevant. United, then Liverpool then us and Arsenal. Beyond that is the likes of Spurs, Everton, Villa, Newcastle etc.

 

.

 

tsk, always sad when football fans resort to history, I always await fans from Wanderers or Corinthians to put them in their place.

 

Actually I've never claimed that Spurs are a 'bigger' club than Chelsea. I think the term is meaningless. I just wanted to know why Chelsea fans persist in describing Spurs as a small club - it makes no sense in any way.

 

Can't argue with Spurs being a bit behind Chelsea currently, recent trophies, turnover, league position all support that. Hopefully we will finish above you this year though - who knows after that.

 

You seem like a reasonable chap Power.

Spurs are a massive club like Everton Chelsea etc...

Maybe Chelsea are bigger at the moment due to Roman's investment and their subsequent decade of Champions League football and the global exposure it brings.

Spurs were the glamour club in the 80s with Hod, Ossie Waddle etc while we yo-yo'd.

We are established as a big European club now. Our revenue has been top 6 in Europe for the last decade now; and even before Roman we were top ten in Europe in terms of revenue; so I think we are here to stay.

 

I think that's fair. For me no club has a devine right to be simply a 'big' club forever. History certainly comes into it but you have to keep moving forward as well. Liverpool are a big club of course but they've gone backwards in the last 20 years without a doubt so aren't as 'big' as they were. In contrast Chelsea has become a bigger club during the same period due to succes son the pitch, the players that have played for us over that time, the stadium that was built in the 90's etc..

 

I sort of agree, but it is selective history that winds me up. If you use all of history Spurs edge out Chelsea on most measures, if you use no history Spurs are edging out Chelsea in the table today. So it can't be true that Chelsea are a big club and Spurs a small one.

 

You have to use history to an extent if the argument is about which is the "bigger club" - if that really had any meaning as otherwise it is just the current league table.

The reason I delved into history was to gainsay the argument that Chelsea were a large club and Spurs a small one. In reality there is little difference in achievements over a century but that does rely on the last 6 years to bring Chelsea's record up.

 

Spurs don't edge out anyone. You are a cup team and always have been.

You have less league titles than Huddersfield and Sheffield Wednesday who are currently League 1 clubs

You struggle to fill your allocations to Newcastle and Man Utd

 

A bit? Your a long way behind Chelsea in European rating/standard, revenue, and league position since the premiership started which in my view is recent enough. Christ you even went a decade without registering a win against us. Hardly a bit is it?

 

Ginge

It's 3 wins in 42 o)against us for the potatoes. It is statistically proven to the most one sided derby/fixture (of any kind) in the PL era

Even Oldham have a better record against Man City in their last 42 encounters against them, same with Port Vale re:Stoke.

How can a mediocre club like Spurs claim to be better than a club that has won more league titles than them and has an embarrassing record against them at their own ground, so much so that in the 90s and early 00s it was labelled a 3 point banker hence the title 3 point Lane).

Any Spurs fan worth his salt will openly admit that Chelsea and United are the two teams they fear and do not expect to beat (especially away)