The Official Chelsea Thread [Vol 3]
Discussion
Melchett1905 said:
Looks unlikely Gonzalo will feature tomorrow night.
Indeed. He was here last night, surely all that was needed was a medical on a player who was presumably already fit, given he was playing in Italy. How long does a medical take?https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46941240
trackdemon said:
Melchett1905 said:
Looks unlikely Gonzalo will feature tomorrow night.
Indeed. He was here last night, surely all that was needed was a medical on a player who was presumably already fit, given he was playing in Italy. How long does a medical take?https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46941240
ou sont les biscuits said:
trackdemon said:
Melchett1905 said:
Looks unlikely Gonzalo will feature tomorrow night.
Indeed. He was here last night, surely all that was needed was a medical on a player who was presumably already fit, given he was playing in Italy. How long does a medical take?https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46941240
Black can man said:
ou sont les biscuits said:
trackdemon said:
Melchett1905 said:
Looks unlikely Gonzalo will feature tomorrow night.
Indeed. He was here last night, surely all that was needed was a medical on a player who was presumably already fit, given he was playing in Italy. How long does a medical take?https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46941240
Chelsea was founded in 1905 so it does have a bit of history if he means that. I don't see why that is funny.
Maybe he means history as in winning lots of things ? In which case we have plenty of that too. The fact that has occurred , primarily, in the last 15 years is irrelevant. If you want to believe it is relevant then you also need to laugh at clubs who won lots of stuff many years ago and nothing , or little, since. After all , most sports have eras of domination by certain teams which change with time.
Maybe the WUMs can explain exactly why Chelsea don't have history compared to theirs - after looking the word up in the dictionary of course.
Maybe he means history as in winning lots of things ? In which case we have plenty of that too. The fact that has occurred , primarily, in the last 15 years is irrelevant. If you want to believe it is relevant then you also need to laugh at clubs who won lots of stuff many years ago and nothing , or little, since. After all , most sports have eras of domination by certain teams which change with time.
Maybe the WUMs can explain exactly why Chelsea don't have history compared to theirs - after looking the word up in the dictionary of course.
jcremonini said:
Chelsea was founded in 1905 so it does have a bit of history if he means that. I don't see why that is funny.
Maybe he means history as in winning lots of things ? In which case we have plenty of that too. The fact that has occurred , primarily, in the last 15 years is irrelevant. If you want to believe it is relevant then you also need to laugh at clubs who won lots of stuff many years ago and nothing , or little, since. After all , most sports have eras of domination by certain teams which change with time.
Maybe the WUMs can explain exactly why Chelsea don't have history compared to theirs - after looking the word up in the dictionary of course.
Relax, I never said they didn't have history, those are your words.Maybe he means history as in winning lots of things ? In which case we have plenty of that too. The fact that has occurred , primarily, in the last 15 years is irrelevant. If you want to believe it is relevant then you also need to laugh at clubs who won lots of stuff many years ago and nothing , or little, since. After all , most sports have eras of domination by certain teams which change with time.
Maybe the WUMs can explain exactly why Chelsea don't have history compared to theirs - after looking the word up in the dictionary of course.
But if you really think a player would go to Chelsea on loan because of their history, then you are exceptionally naive.
Regardless, he's a top class striker and I'm sure if you sign him permanently he'll go on to be a 'Chelsea legend', whatever that is.
wjb said:
jcremonini said:
Chelsea was founded in 1905 so it does have a bit of history if he means that. I don't see why that is funny.
Maybe he means history as in winning lots of things ? In which case we have plenty of that too. The fact that has occurred , primarily, in the last 15 years is irrelevant. If you want to believe it is relevant then you also need to laugh at clubs who won lots of stuff many years ago and nothing , or little, since. After all , most sports have eras of domination by certain teams which change with time.
Maybe the WUMs can explain exactly why Chelsea don't have history compared to theirs - after looking the word up in the dictionary of course.
Relax, I never said they didn't have history, those are your words.Maybe he means history as in winning lots of things ? In which case we have plenty of that too. The fact that has occurred , primarily, in the last 15 years is irrelevant. If you want to believe it is relevant then you also need to laugh at clubs who won lots of stuff many years ago and nothing , or little, since. After all , most sports have eras of domination by certain teams which change with time.
Maybe the WUMs can explain exactly why Chelsea don't have history compared to theirs - after looking the word up in the dictionary of course.
But if you really think a player would go to Chelsea on loan because of their history, then you are exceptionally naive.
Regardless, he's a top class striker and I'm sure if you sign him permanently he'll go on to be a 'Chelsea legend', whatever that is.
No player goes to any club, anywhere, because of their history . He mentioned history as one of the attributes, he didn't only say that word. You'd have to be pretty naïve to think he did, right ?
jcremonini said:
I was actually replying to the general theme rather than you - that being Chelsea have no history. Not my words, those of others above.
No player goes to any club, anywhere, because of their history . He mentioned history as one of the attributes, he didn't only say that word. You'd have to be pretty naïve to think he did, right ?
Well, obviously.No player goes to any club, anywhere, because of their history . He mentioned history as one of the attributes, he didn't only say that word. You'd have to be pretty naïve to think he did, right ?
Modern day footballers generally move for money, playing opportunities, and the chance of winning big trophies.
Sarri will play him regularly, and there's a good chance he'll win the Europa League, and maybe even pick up a few quid in the process So like I said it's a good move.
The history quote above is ridiculous at best, this "attribute" wouldn't have crossed his mind for a second.
jcremonini said:
Chelsea was founded in 1905 so it does have a bit of history if he means that. I don't see why that is funny.
Maybe he means history as in winning lots of things ? In which case we have plenty of that too. The fact that has occurred , primarily, in the last 15 years is irrelevant. If you want to believe it is relevant then you also need to laugh at clubs who won lots of stuff many years ago and nothing , or little, since. After all , most sports have eras of domination by certain teams which change with time.
Maybe the WUMs can explain exactly why Chelsea don't have history compared to theirs - after looking the word up in the dictionary of course.
Its just the usual tribal chant / insult that dumb football fans say IMHOMaybe he means history as in winning lots of things ? In which case we have plenty of that too. The fact that has occurred , primarily, in the last 15 years is irrelevant. If you want to believe it is relevant then you also need to laugh at clubs who won lots of stuff many years ago and nothing , or little, since. After all , most sports have eras of domination by certain teams which change with time.
Maybe the WUMs can explain exactly why Chelsea don't have history compared to theirs - after looking the word up in the dictionary of course.
Higuan is hardly likely to say "I'm getting on a bit and £300k/week was enticing, plus London is great for shopping for the missus". Players say the usual PR blessed platitudes all the time
Adam B said:
Its just the usual tribal chant / insult that dumb football fans say IMHO
Higuan is hardly likely to say "I'm getting on a bit and £300k/week was enticing, plus London is great for shopping for the missus". Players say the usual PR blessed platitudes all the time
Be refreshing if he did say that. Almost everything any player says nowadays is scripted by the PR team. Higuan is hardly likely to say "I'm getting on a bit and £300k/week was enticing, plus London is great for shopping for the missus". Players say the usual PR blessed platitudes all the time
I wouldn't rise to the history jibe.
Sparkyhd said:
Adam B said:
Its just the usual tribal chant / insult that dumb football fans say IMHO
Higuan is hardly likely to say "I'm getting on a bit and £300k/week was enticing, plus London is great for shopping for the missus". Players say the usual PR blessed platitudes all the time
Be refreshing if he did say that. Almost everything any player says nowadays is scripted by the PR team. Higuan is hardly likely to say "I'm getting on a bit and £300k/week was enticing, plus London is great for shopping for the missus". Players say the usual PR blessed platitudes all the time
I wouldn't rise to the history jibe.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff