Still a bit angry about our loss to Chelsea……we lack the proper mentality, but we can still win the league…
I remember seeing this on Arsenal Fan TV (before starting this channel…….) of a conversation between Tony Rolph (now of) Chelsea SW6 and Claude from Arsenal Fan TV.
The Chelsea SW6 argument is (invariably..) that Chelsea is bigger. Mainly due to:
-
more social media fans
-
more European trophies
-
bigger turnover
-
bigger global fanbase
OK…let’s go through these one by one:
- social media fans – as of today, Chelsea had more Facebook likes, though we had Twitter followers. However, Chelsea has more on both networks than Liverpool, largely due to more recent successes. So…does this mean Chelsea is a bigger club than Liverpool? If this is the chief criteria, surely this should factor, right?
- Yep, he’s right on this count, in terms of more Euro trophies. What about Anderlecht? Steaua Bucharest? Red Star Belgrade? Benfica? Hamburg? Nottingham Forest? are they bigger than Arsenal on this basis? All have won more European trophies, or more European Cups, than we have.
- Turnover is false….the Forbes listing for 2016 but Arsenal ahead of Chelsea. Chelsea won two trophies last season to our FA Cup, yet we still had a bigger turnover. They would argue a bigger ground on our part….well no. If this was the case, then how come they overtook us? Trophies? TV money from winning trophies? Champions League prize money? we got a big commercial deal, and this is the mean reason that boosted our revenues, it’s that simple. the fact Chelsea overtook us briefly despite having a smaller ground shows that having a bigger ground cannot mean more revenue always. Man City has a “smaller ground” than us, but then they’ve been more successful of late, so more money.
- Global fanbase – hmmm….This is moot. Again, is Chelsea bigger than Liverpool? Bigger in the world than Bayern Munich? No. They’d say they get mobbed when they travel overseas, we do too. In the USA, Singapore, South Africa, it’s so.
This shows big club status is highly subjective. Tottenham has more Euro trophies, does this make them a bigger club overall? I can retort with more league titles, more bigger/higher prestige trophies, more money, bigger global name, more trophies overall, more contributions to football in general (successful foreign managers, playing styles/formations, modern training methods, more great managers/players, etc.)
There isn’t much in it, I agree with Chelsea SW6. But Arsenal is a bigger club by virtue of why Liverpool/Man Utd are. History, culture, tradition, achievements and name. Jose is the ONLY Chelsea manager to have had note nationally or globally for them. Wenger, Graham, Chapman. Porterfield, Hoddle? lol. no. With no Wenger, there would have been no Jose…..Wenger made foreign managers, successful ones, fashionable. Chelsea is only now attaining what Arsenal have had for decades, we’re a more storied club. People can read this and laugh that “i’m using the ‘history’ argument”.
I am, but not in a way that people presume. Big club status is in large part founded in tradition and aura. Real Madrid has Puskas, di Stefano, Raul, Ronaldos (Brazil and Portugal). Liverpool has Dalglish, Hansen, Souness, Barnes, Rush, Gerrard, Owen. Again, Chelsea only now is forming this. Dixon was a decent striker for them in his day, but was he world class? Did he excel at international level? Not really. Drogba was a true world class striker, Terry a top defender, and Lampard a top midfielder. Legacy, tradition, etc. is something Chelsea lack and aren’t immediately identified for. Even Spurs, our mutual enemy in many ways, I would argue has a bigger legacy than Chelsea. To re-iterate, it’s an inherent part of being a big club, and to a large extent what makes a big club.
It’s very moot, granted, but then being subjective and objective…Arsenal is bigger club. Though I do concede on both sides, there are moot arguments.
marblehallstv 