Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,590
The Twitter comments in response to that post highlight a trend that I've noticed where supporters of other 'big' clubs argue that Man City had no history before the oil money arrived. However, previous to the takeover, City had nine major trophies (2 league, 4 FA Cup and 2 League Cup wins plus a Euro Cup Winners Cup). Obviously that's not in the same league as what they've done since they became the richest club in the world, but it would still put them in the all time top ten. (4 trophies and several places above Leeds).
The accusation of historyless new money arrivestes seems to fit Chelsea much better than City, They had won only four titles (1 each of League, FA, League Cup and Cup Winners Cup) before first the Matthew Harding, then the Ambramovich money arrived. Obviously they acknowledge this themselves in jest - one of their forums is called 'We Ain't Got No History', but in recent times, I've seen the moan aimed far more at City than at Chelsea, perhaps because Chelsea's money has been around since the nineties.
It's perhaps a reminder that all of these big clubs were also rans until money arrived. It just seems that the longer ago the money arrived, the more generally accepted their position becomes. Its both an insight into how class privilege / aristocracy works in general and a pointer to how meaningless the concept of 'big clubs with history' really is. All clubs (except perhaps MK Dons) have a proud and meaningful history in the community that they serve and that, not trophy / fan / twitter user counting, is really all that matters.
Anyway, sorry for the diversion, lets get back to laughing at the entertaingly deluded amongst Leeds' fanbase.
The accusation of historyless new money arrivestes seems to fit Chelsea much better than City, They had won only four titles (1 each of League, FA, League Cup and Cup Winners Cup) before first the Matthew Harding, then the Ambramovich money arrived. Obviously they acknowledge this themselves in jest - one of their forums is called 'We Ain't Got No History', but in recent times, I've seen the moan aimed far more at City than at Chelsea, perhaps because Chelsea's money has been around since the nineties.
It's perhaps a reminder that all of these big clubs were also rans until money arrived. It just seems that the longer ago the money arrived, the more generally accepted their position becomes. Its both an insight into how class privilege / aristocracy works in general and a pointer to how meaningless the concept of 'big clubs with history' really is. All clubs (except perhaps MK Dons) have a proud and meaningful history in the community that they serve and that, not trophy / fan / twitter user counting, is really all that matters.
Anyway, sorry for the diversion, lets get back to laughing at the entertaingly deluded amongst Leeds' fanbase.
Last edited:
