Arsenal are a small club

ChollaVille wrote:

ali8775 wrote:

ChollaVille wrote:You need to winn CL at least once in you history to be big club...
So...

Nottingham are a big club.

They were big club... Arsenal, Chelsea and Co. never were, and stil they are not

looooooool if it weren't for this small club, you wouldn't have inside forwards, televised games, radio commentary on games, and floodlights

ChollaVille wrote:You need to winn CL at least once in you history to be big club...
So...

Arsenal just got robbed like most of european football teams in recent years against the "unknown" team.... In 2006, Arsenal was the best team in the competition and Henry was a beast, they should have won that CL title, and now they would be tied to 1 with the autonamed "best team ever"....etc etc etc. Details in this competition makes you a loser or a champion. Arsenal and Chelsea are both big clubs nowadays, and none has won the UCL, just pure bad luck.

does a club have to have a "prolific" or "honerable" history to succeed?

if it does then how the hell would any new force arise? i can get the hate that clubs like city get, but i mean it all comes down to philosophy and mentality.

notthingham forrest once cl winners now somewhere in hell

man city title less for 40 = years now in many eyes strong epl and cl contenders.

imo people should lay off the hate. i understand where the hate comes from but not really as dramatic as it should be.

to be honest i expect an identical season in the epl as last term. pool now 5th maybe.

The Madrid One wrote:
man city title less for 40 = years now in many eyes strong epl and cl contenders.

lmfao they should wear glasses

ali8775 wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:
man city title less for 40 = years now in many eyes strong epl and cl contenders.

lmfao they should wear glasses

ya they arent either imo

The Madrid One wrote:

ali8775 wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:
man city title less for 40 = years now in many eyes strong epl and cl contenders.

lmfao they should wear glasses

ya they arent either imo

do not underestimate manchester city. On their day they can be immense defensevly

The Madrid One wrote:

ali8775 wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:
man city title less for 40 = years now in many eyes strong epl and cl contenders.

lmfao they should wear glasses

ya they arent either imo

glad to see your off the MC wankfest, it was very annoying while it lasted

ali8775 wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

ali8775 wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:
man city title less for 40 = years now in many eyes strong epl and cl contenders.

lmfao they should wear glasses

ya they arent either imo

glad to see your off the MC wankfest, it was very annoying while it lasted

i was never part of the "wankfest" they have a decent coach and a good team, that is defensively sound and if done well can get them to good places, but since they have a decent coach, and decent mentality, i expect decent to good results.

i dont see them beyond the 2nd spot of the epl or beyond the qf of the cl.

utd
chelsea
city

or

utd
city
chelsea

only reason utd keeps on winning is cause they have the foundation and stability and thus the mentality to do so.

xabi wrote:

highburied wrote:A few years ago... Football forums didnt have a section called 'Chelsea'.

Have a good day.

u mad?

Art Morte wrote:
Udinese, however, must be watching this transfer turmoil at Arsenal at this late date of the window with growing confidence...

Except that Udinese too were stupid during this window.