Hasnt won anything since 2004

because they are man city tier with their money. they were irrelevant until russian guy came, they are rent boys.

the FA cup is major you plastic foreign mong shut the fuck up

"no".

FA cup isnt major compared to EPL and CL and the EPL and CL are the only things that matter.

Then what makes a club "bigger"? Are you saying Bayern is the biggest club in the world because they have the most members? You cannot argue that Arsenal have been more succesful so what are you trying to say?

support your local team and focus on your own league you pathetic clueless plastic mong

shut up paki

you're the foreign one you cretin
you have no connection to my country so stop watching our football

They're a London team that play in red. People like red, that's about it.

absolutely seething paki. "your" country lmao. Your country is in fucking asia, your not even european ahaha.

HAHA DISREGARD THESE, I SUCK COCKS

FA cup is only major when associated with the league and champions league

SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FUCKING TEAM

Oldest football competition in the world mate

>Non-British people trying to tell us what trophies are and are not major in our own country

what the fuck?

Pls gib 1 answer

nobody rates man city trophies and its the same with chelsea.

how many pakistanian league games do you watch a season?

>Small club victim mentality
Expect nothing less from arsenal.

no its just the reality of things. Nobody cares when they win trophies, its just how it is. why do you think this board was cheering so hard when city won the league?

Youre avoiding the question. What makes arsenal a bigger club than chealski? It certainly isnt recent success.

Arsenal is the bigger club you cant deny it.

Neutral and objective opinion here:

London top 3 ranking:
>Chelsea
>Arsenal
>Spurs

OP is right. Arsenal’s club value is still higher than the Spurs and Chelsea.

Attached: CBF34362-6DE1-4767-9EEE-D76D25E05D49.png (1242x2208, 537K)

I can because they are the smaller club. Proove it to me by giving one actual reason instead of just saying it is so. If youre baiting me then good job. Im biting hard.

those flip flop every year, with CL, Chelsea should climb back up this year

great thread

With their transfer ban? I doubt it.

>I'm foreign so you are too
cringe projection

Why does one city need three clubs? If they all merged their talent they couldn't win the world cup

>Why does the richest and by far most populated city in the UK need three clubs

>My club is bigger than you club!
>NO mine is!!!

This is literally the most retarded fucking debate. Who the fuck gives a shit about "size". "Size" basically equates to "how many shirts does your club sell to 12 year olds in India".

"Size" is an argument only made by fans of clubs who can't win shit anymore so they point to the past and their international bandwagoner support groups as if they are some indication of present day quality.

News flash: If your team hasn't won even one league or a UCL in the past 10 years, it is currently IRRELEVANT, regardless of how "big" you think you are.

They must have gotten into the Champions League then, right? Only the biggest clubs can do that!

Yeah that's my question. If there was one club they could dominate soccer

So, that still makes it Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, then? Which is literally what people said in this very thread.

Arsenal have the 2nd longest consecutive appearance in the CL. Only Madrid have more. Obviously not now but still, a thing.

Daily reminder that the Norwegian is literally autistic and falseflags in the /Arse/ general with the other shitposters.

Attached: norway is autistic.png (1520x171, 46K)

>So, that still makes it Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, then?

Yes.

Chelsea are relevant because they have won multiple leagues and a UCL in the past decade.

Arsenal are IRRELEVANT because they haven't won a league in well over a decade, and have NEVER won a UCL.

Spurs are IRRELEVANT because they haven't won a league in a lifetime, and have NEVER won a UCL.

so that makes it Chelsea > Arsenal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spurs, then? Which is what said.

>”Size" basically equates to "how many shirts does your club sell to 12 year olds in India".

Yeah and that very much matters because more shirts you can sell to 12 year old Indians, the more money you have, and the more money you can spend on good players, and the more championships you can win.

Arsenal is more relevant for its irrelevancy than Chelsea is relevant even when it is relevant. These words are 100% correct, take some time to think about them.

Right, so your post was literally IRRELEVANT as it was already stated.

Not for Arsenal. Their owner is a Jew and hasn't put a single penny into the club investment wise. Only club in the PL to not have put a penny into it.

You can't be relevant for being irrelevant.

Arsenal are only culturally semi-relevant because they have become a joke team that even casual football fans like to laugh at.

Trophies are the ONLY measure of a club's relevance. Nothing else matters.

League titles over the entire history of football is the obejective way to measure a club's size.
1. Man Utd (20)
2. Liverpool (18)
3. Arsenal (13)
4. Everton (9)
5. Aston Villa (7)
6. Sunderland/Man City/Chelsea (6)
9. Newcastle United/Sheffield Wednesday (4)

Chelsea and Man City will probably move up the rankings in the near future, but this is how it stands right now.

Okay, here we go then lad. It's a bit out of date, but, that seems fair.

Attached: Liverpool are best.jpg (978x590, 203K)

>~~muh net spend~~
>muh net worth

Chelsea is by far the biggest club in London

The blacks support arsenal meme hasn't been true since the early 2000s

>they have become a joke team that even casual football fans like to laugh at.
There you go, Arsenal's irrelevancy is a relevant issue, thus Arsenal is relevant even when it's irrelevant. This irrelevancy is more relevant than Chelsea's relevancy. When Chelsea become irrelevant, it will just be a return to the status quo.

>Trophies are the ONLY measure of a club's relevance. Nothing else matters.
I disagree, Argentina remain a relevant football nation despite not winning anything since Maradona's retirement. England are relevant despite not winning anything since 1966. But even then, Arsenal have far more trophies than Chelsea. A fluked CL win doesn't account for all the domestic trophies Arsenal have over Chelsea. Arsenal has won trophies in just about every era. Arsenal have zoomers, boomers, and old people wearing bloomers. Chelsea started in 2004. They have to maintain their relevancy for 70 years. Congrats for bandwagoning on the ground floor, now have a son and make him a Chelsea fan, and tell him about Lampard and back when Chelsea had a mad Russian owner and they could compete for titles.

you can end this discussion right now by posting a picture of your arm, Ahmed.

there are 3 different norwegian anons in /arse/

based chinaman

Man city will, but Chelsea wont. their prime era is finally over. 2004-19 Chelsea will never be repeated in any shape or form. they are done. screencap this when they crash out of CL in 4th place and finish below top 10 next season.

Excuse me, but do Chelsea or the Spurs have an eternal general devoted purely to talking about their club? What’s that you say? No??? Oh well then I’m sure Arsenal doesn’t eithe- oof oh misspoke, there it is right there.

The fact is that until Chelsea and Tottenham can graduate from small time club 0 generals status, they can never hope to compete with a big time eternal general club like Arsenal.

Attached: 728AA72A-A864-4142-89A6-8C61F7DC9501.jpg (2274x1280, 129K)

Freak

Cringe

People have been saying that about Chelsea for the last 10 years but they keep winning trophies. They will probably end up winning the league next year out of nowhere.

5 of the clubs in the PL alone are in London

probably without Hazard Chelsea will be shit

More titles
Much bigger tradition
More fans in London

Attached: Screenshot_1.png (993x215, 19K)

They've won far more trophies. Chelsea were jobbers until 2004

Attached: new-piktochart_19446038_f5d549274ef58f275dcbbdff0d97e27dcf41f14f.png (1200x2876, 1.07M)

You are like a little baby, watch this

>haven’t won anything since 1996
>still the most valuable sports team in the entire world

Attached: 20D8FAD4-358B-4722-87A5-21B6F5F66A22.gif (684x646, 1.2M)

This was Jose Reyes' final gift to Arsenal. He couldn't stand to see Spurs overtaking Arsenal so he gave his life to balance the universe and made Spurs lose.

RIP

Attached: Davey.jpg (2048x1536, 182K)

Non white fans

why though?

Reminder that the Arsenal invincibles were a myth

youtube.com/watch?v=RFrU8Cx5OTk

They dominated in the 90s when the nfl was really gaining popularity

>More fans in London
ie stinky non-british pakis and niggers

arsenal have 13 fa cups btw

>chelsea has russian billionaire
>liverpool is literally owned by american billionaires
>manchester city and united have qatari and american billionaire families
>arselel fans pretend that their american billionaire is better because he doesnt spend millions of money to win

Champions of Europe, you'll never sing that. Or anything for that matter, because you are a plastic fan that consumes all the way from Norway and has never been to the Emirates.

b-but theirs is golden

>Why does one city need three clubs?
You'd love the city of Istanbul.

Fuck me the chinese are based, and to think that there are over 1 billion of you.

this but unironically

Boomers mainly. The Cowboys were the most successful team during an era (the 90s) when the NFL’s growth exploded and overtook baseball as the most popular sport in the US.

look at the reality. They have the worst squad of the top 6 now that Hazard is gone. Their owner who has invested tons of money in the past is now in a situation where he cant even enter the country. They kept sacking managers because their players were good enough on their own, but now that isnt true anymore. The board is run by complete idiots.

Only thing i see saving them is if one of Terry/Lampard becomes a managing genius but even then its a sticky situation with their owner because if he has to sell there is no guarante that the next owner will care about winning as much as Abramovich did.

>Chelsea started in 2004
shut the fuck up you stinky chink rat, Chelsea was still a top club before roman came. Roman walked into a club that already had champions league football, it wasn't like a midtable city situation.

should i start watching the NFL and become a cowboys fan? i like king of the hill so maybe thats enough to become a cowboys fan

Finished 3rd in the league and won the Europa League but somehow Chelsea are the team who are fucked. Alright then.

absolutely seething lmao

Attached: 1543768701173.jpg (1391x2152, 365K)

>C-Chelsea are FINISHED
t. seething customer in panic as Arsenal transitions to a Europa League club

i got a season ticket ahmed, oil money sure comes in handy.

post a timestamped ticket from May or GTFO

so? they won the league in 2014-15 and look what happened in 2015-16. Im just pointing out obvious facts, its not my fault you dont have the mind to see how things most likely will pan out in the future.

Ans what would be the effect of a transfer ban on a club's valuation/finances? Its severely outweighed by CL money. Plus Arsenal will miss this year. Chelsea also has that EL prize money along with a higher PL finish. More money.

last time i went was the everton game in september, its so shit to watch arsenal atm its not really worth it to go over so i give alot of tickets to friends and family since nobody buys tickets anymore considering the state of the club.

more money to spend on sacking managers and signing shit players.

why don't you support a Norwegian club?

>Chelsea was still a top club before roman came.
Topkek. Before Abramovich Chelsea had won the league once (1), as in singular, and that was 50 years previously. They were West Ham with slightly more unpleasant fans

If you enjoy perpetual disappointment and seeing half your team’s roster getting arrested every off season, then sure.

I guess that means liverpool and spurs aren't top clubs at the moment because they haven't won the league?

West Ham last won the FA cup in 1980, and last won a european trophy in 1966. They've never ever won the league either, so saying pre roman Chelsea was just a west london version of the pikeys is bullshit.

The man city valuation is fucking comical

If I had a pound for every time I heard this argument I would be a millionaire.

Are Arsenal supposed to be different? At least Chelsea wins trophies doing it.

I do agree Chelsea fans take the success for granted, the future does look grim once Sarri finally goes. I just hope Pulisic shines.

Before Abramovich Chelsea had that 1 league title (from 1955), 3 FA cups (same as West Ham) and 2 European meme cups (same as West Ham). They were West Ham tier, might put a cup run together occasionally, but no challenge to the big boys.

Its pumped up by oil money sponsorships and commercial deals way above fair value.

Most of Chelsea’s success was within 10 years of being bought out. Chelsea were basically the best of the rest in the 1990s

because norwegian teams are filled to the brim with shit foreigners earning to much money.

alright, dallas cowboys is now my team.

just like English clubs then?

not really because english clubs buy players who actually have some talent and skill.

what () said. How nice of you to date when Chelsea won the league but not the other trophies.

Utterly retarded.

Sunderland and Sheffield Wednesday are only cared about by locals who's grandad supported the team.

Everton, Villa, and Newcastle will never be anything more than mid-table fodder and will never qualify for the European Cup ever again.

The only thing that matters is recent titles and UCLs. Who gives a fuck if you won 6 titles in the 1930s.

This is why measuring by PL trophies, rather than overall trophies, is the most convenient method. The beginning of the PL provides a convenient period of just under 30 years by which to measure the RECENT rather than historic success of clubs.

England has an obsession with "muh historeh". That doesn't change the raw facts that Arsenal will be an irrelevant club in terms of success until they can win a PL again or a UCL for the first time.

Again, I repeat, "size" DOES NOT matter. "Size" does not grant you trophies. "Size" is not a trophy in itself. Bragging about your "size" just proves that your club has nothing real to brag about anymore.

It wouldn't matter if Chelsea had no fans other than zoomers, or if they had almost no fans at all. They've still won masses of trophies in RECENT history, including several leagues and a UCL. Arsenal have won nothing more than domestic cups in recent history, and NO leagues since 2004, and no UCL EVER.

If your predictions come true, then Chelsea will then be an irrelevant club, yes. But as it stands, they have won piles upon piles of trophies in the past 15 years, and even more in the past 30, and their most recent title was in 2017. Arsenal's most recent title was so long ago that an 18 year old today wouldn't even remember it happening.

If Arsenal wants to be relevant again, they need to stop bragging about "b-b-but muh SIZE!!!" and start paying the big bucks to start winning again.

I repeat: WINNING NOW is all that matters. Winning in the past means nothing if you are no longer winning NOW.

so you prove my point? chelsea is more relevant now but overall arsenal still is the bigger club.

Are you implying your players have some connection toy our country?

Shaky ground at best.

So you concur that before Abramovich, Chelsea were a West Ham tier club that might put a cup run together occasionally, but no challenge to the big boys? Guess you are too young to remember them being a second division side

No you fucking stupid twat, because their honours were more recent and Chelsea had won the league whereas West Ham haven't. Team won the FA cup in 96/97 and 99/00, which is more than "might put a cup run together occasionally".

>Guess you are too young to remember them being a second division side
So are you.

2 fa cups... lol even current day arsenal can do that.

>even current day arsenal can do that
So current day Arsenal is as big as PRE Abramovich Chelsea? Interesting. You won't know this consuming from the other side of the Norf sea but the FA cup was a bigger deal 20 years ago compared to now.

current day arsenal is shit but since the club has soul we still win trophies. Arsenals history has at all times consisted of short periods of great sucsess and then many barren years.

Chelsea has never been relevant.

>Chelsea has never been relevant.
Now you are going to explain to me why pre-Abramovich Chelsea is not relevant, despite according to your claims it being on the same level as contempoary Arsenal (which by the way it is not, late 90's Chelsea was 100% better), which you claim is relevant.

by having the least racist fanbase.
the pakis filling their ground every week have nowhere else to go

If we are comparing West Ham in their glory days sure but West Ham's glory days were a distant memory by the 1990's and West Ham started bouncing between the championship and premier league. Chelsea haven't looked back since the 1980's.

the club is bigger than the group of temporary employees you plastic foreign mong
stick to cricket

two fa cups in the mid 90s. 1 league title in 50 years. hahahah fuck me mate

What is the deciding term? Trophies? Social media following. Famous fans? Value? Won't that change when Arsenal are in Europe and Chelsea in CL?
This would make Arsenal the only big club in the world. No other team has a general. They are not bigger than United, Liverpool, RM, Barca, Buyern, Juve, Milan, Inter.

What is the difference between West London and North London?

your country is asia, you scandis are getting raped and killed daily and youre here, pretending to be a fan of the premier league

Don't suck cocks it's really not good for you, unless you're femanon in which case post feet

why do niggers and muslims WORSHIP this club? it's fucking garbage yet every Nguwu and Ahmed own at least own 1 Arsenal jersey

Basically everything. West London is very historic/touristy, all the big theatres and stuff are other that way etc. North London is pretty rough, can be quite hipster/alternative like Camden or straight up ghetto like Tottenham.

Although even in North London there are enclaves of bourgeoisie. Highgate is very affluent.

Basically West London is like Manhatten, North London is like Queens. South London is The Bronx

ive never understood this either

Kek. Now I get it

How the flying fuck are they bigger than Chelsea?

Based

Tottenham is one of the biggest shitholes I've seen. An awful area that started the London riots in 2011. Other than that North London is far better than East and South London and the crap football teams in that location reflects that.

yeah that's what I thought, derail the conversation, omit trophies and shut the fuck up.

I don't know why Arsenal still have a large foreign fanbase. Every year they get worse and worse. Dropped supporting this club around 2010-11.

South London can be really nice but it comes with the price of being cut off from the tube, places like Chistlehurst, Beckenham, Bexley, Shooters Hill, Greenwich etc all have a very nice historic town feel and lots of green spaces. Most people only see South London as being nuclear wastelands like Woolwich, Lewisham and Plumstead.

Charlton could realistically be a huge club if they got the right owners.

Plumstead isn't even bad

your club has no history and will soon enough fade into obscurity. just like your derbys, your nottinghams

I'm sorry, which one of our clubs has made the transition from champions to europa league club?

Trust in Stan the Man, my European brothers. I may not watch soccer but Kroenke is doing great things with my Rams. Trust him in getting you a championship.

Attached: Chad Football Player.jpg (400x400, 40K)

enjoy your 5 seconds of fame, its over beginning 2019/20 season.

based

because of the early 2000s Arsenal when they were first exposed to EPLel due to wider coverage

also maybe some see Wenger as the father figure who they lack

that's why some still feel sentimental about him and why it took too long for him to resign

They are not bigger than west ham let alone Chelsea and spuds lmao

>Everton, Villa, and Newcastle will never be anything more than mid-table fodder and will never qualify for the European Cup ever again.
How the fuck do you know, got a crystal ball? If Mansour by chance chose Liverpool or Brum instead of Manchester for his investments, Everton or Villa would most likely be shitting on everyone else atm. Both clubs have big potential.

FFP bro

Holy fucking based

Pakis and poles.
Simple as.

...

They were like spurs in the redknapp era going for 4th spot and had the odd decent player I'd say they were bigger and better than West ham even then

>Team won the FA cup in 96/97 and 99/00, which is more than "might put a cup run together occasionally".
Literally exactly "might put a cup run together occasionally". Chelsea were jobbers before Roman, guess this makes plastics butthurt

For me it’s Fulham

Had some mong telling me liverpool had a bigger fanbase than Arsenal. This what happens when they win a single cup, people exaggerate their value.

and he was american customer too

Theres 10 million people, thats like 6 Manchesters