Xtratime Community banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Football clubs you dislike the most and why?

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 87 Posts
#22 ·
Scarf said:
There is nothing wrong with the football clubs.

However, Sepp Blatter, Roman Abramovic, Alex Ferguson and various individuals are possibly the bigger undesirables.

There are clubs that don't really need to exist. Chelsea are not necessary, Fulham exists. Everton are not necessary, Liverpool exists. Tottenham are not necessary, Arsenal exists. Birmingham City are not necessary, Aston Villa exists.

One of the Manchester clubs do not need to exist.

However, Roma-Lazio, Milan-Inter, Athletico-Real Madrid are perfectly reasonable clubs as they are powerhouses in their own right and the area/city span of all these clubs are big enough to justify all these derbies.
Click to expand...
Everton have won more league titles than Lazio + Roma combined. To suggest that Everton are not necessary is an insult.

Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are big metropolitan cities. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#23 ·
Scarf said:
There are clubs that don't really need to exist. Chelsea are not necessary, Fulham exists. Everton are not necessary, Liverpool exists. Tottenham are not necessary, Arsenal exists. Birmingham City are not necessary, Aston Villa exists.

One of the Manchester clubs do not need to exist.

However, Roma-Lazio, Milan-Inter, Athletico-Real Madrid are perfectly reasonable clubs as they are powerhouses in their own right and the area/city span of all these clubs are big enough to justify all these derbies.
Click to expand...
The size of some of these cities you mention would suggest that two clubs should exist.

Aston Villa is only one area of Birmingham, Aston. Why should they only exist over Birmingham City? It is the second biggest city in England.

Liverpool is a big enough city to easily have two clubs, especially as they are football mad in that city. People in that city have the right to want to follow an alternative to the obvious more successful club in the city itself.

And yet you quote Atletico and Real as being perfectly understandable as two teams in the city of Madrid. Let's be truthful here if you look at the overall histories of the two clubs in Madrid Atletico are very much the bridesmaid in comparison to Real with periods now and again of what can be termed success.

Roma and Lazio are not the major powerhouses in Italian football over history. Their overall histories are just under the real big players of Italian football.

How much bigger a club are Real Madrid in comparison to Atletico if you also put into the equation the size and importance of a club between Birmingham City and Aston Villa?
 
#24 ·
Scarf said:
There is nothing wrong with the football clubs.

However, Sepp Blatter, Roman Abramovic, Alex Ferguson and various individuals are possibly the bigger undesirables.

There are clubs that don't really need to exist. Chelsea are not necessary, Fulham exists. Everton are not necessary, Liverpool exists. Tottenham are not necessary, Arsenal exists. Birmingham City are not necessary, Aston Villa exists.

One of the Manchester clubs do not need to exist.

However, Roma-Lazio, Milan-Inter, Athletico-Real Madrid are perfectly reasonable clubs as they are powerhouses in their own right and the area/city span of all these clubs are big enough to justify all these derbies.
Click to expand...
There's only one club in Manchester my friend.
 
Discussion starter · #28 ·
Jibril said:
A lot of their fans believe their own hype and think they are a massive club, when the reality is that they are not. I have very little time for Chelsea Football Club as an entity, but the fact is Chelsea > Spurs in terms of stature and size of the clubs. Even pre-Roman Chelsea, they were winning FA Cups, League Cup, Cup Winners Cups and even entered the Champions League (something Spurs has failed to do bar one season), and post-Roman they got several league titles, FA Cups and a European Cup. But tell a Spurs fan that Chelsea are bigger than them and he'd look at you as if you just put your cock in his pint.
Click to expand...
Just because you started watching football in the late 90's doesn't mean that's when it started. If success if how you gauge the size of a club, Tottenham were the more successful club prior to the Abramovich take over. And It's disingenuous to differentiate the 'real' Chelsea as pre Roman since their success right before Roman saved them from bankruptcy(hint, hint), which you're referring to was created in the same way as post Roman Chelsea just to a smaller extent.

What use is all that 'stature and size' when a decade on post roman Chelsea are still struggling to sell out champions league home games :howler: Spurs will never have that problem, so as delusional as Spurs fans are I can understand their mentality towards Chelsea, Spurs are the club who's fanbase is bigger than it's success, Chelsea is a club who's success is bigger than it's fanbase.
 
#29 ·
Jibril said:
Everton have won more league titles than Lazio + Roma combined. To suggest that Everton are not necessary is an insult.

Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham are big metropolitan cities. I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that big metropolitan cities should all have at least two clubs that represent them. Even if they are

Image



that close to each other?

And are you honestly suggesting that Everton is a bigger club than Lazio and Roma?
 
#32 ·
The Green One said:
It's noble of you to look past Madrid's association with Franco after he repressed your people
Click to expand...
well am Indian but I feel,now Real Madrid as a club belongs to so many people and i cant simplify it with a word like hate.

More than hating i would rather like say that i admire German Clubs and the Federation and Bundesliga in general for managing the clubs very well with prudence and providing a quality footballing product.
 
#33 ·
Scarf said:
There is nothing wrong with the football clubs.

However, Sepp Blatter, Roman Abramovic, Alex Ferguson and various individuals are possibly the bigger undesirables.

There are clubs that don't really need to exist. Chelsea are not necessary, Fulham exists. Everton are not necessary, Liverpool exists. Tottenham are not necessary, Arsenal exists. Birmingham City are not necessary, Aston Villa exists.

One of the Manchester clubs do not need to exist.

However, Roma-Lazio, Milan-Inter, Athletico-Real Madrid are perfectly reasonable clubs as they are powerhouses in their own right and the area/city span of all these clubs are big enough to justify all these derbies.
Click to expand...
A serious candidate to one of the worst posts of the year.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#35 ·
Scarf said:
So you're saying that big metropolitan cities should all have at least two clubs that represent them. Even if they are

Image



that close to each other?

And are you honestly suggesting that Everton is a bigger club than Lazio and Roma?
Click to expand...
Paris is a huge metropolitan city but just has the one club PSG.

I'd rather their was another club tbh....the rivalry would be unbelievable and make football here so much more exciting and intense.
 
#36 ·
Scarf said:
So you're saying that big metropolitan cities should all have at least two clubs that represent them. Even if they are

Image



that close to each other?
Click to expand...
It seems ridiculous but there's a nice storybook quality to that. The armies of 2 kingdoms set up on either side of the river.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#38 ·
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
21 - 40 of 87 Posts
About this Discussion
86 Replies
48 Participants
Last post:
thenewapollo
Xtratime Community
posts
12M
members
26K
Since
1999
Xtratime Football is an interactive global sports and entertainment community focused on World Football. Come and join the team!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
World Football Inter Milan Serbian Football Juventus