The Debate: Martin Samuel replies

Martin Samuel seemingly struck a bit of a nerve this week with the subject of his debate, questioning as he did whether Chelsea could really consider themselves to be a big club, especially in the wake of Stamford Bridge being little more than half-full for the club's opening Champions League match.

OK, it would be a slight exaggeration to say that we had a postbag equal in size to Chelsea's attendance that night for the visit of Rosenborg - some 24,945 - but your response did break previous Debate records. Much like the legendary Chelsea defender Ron 'Chopper' Harris, our five-time Sports Writer of the Year takes no prisoners, so read on for his replies.

You are so right. That is why we keep reminding them that they have no history. Deep down, we all know they are not really a big club. El Cid, Sept 23.

MS: Hold on, I did not say Chelsea had no history. All clubs have history, even Milton Keynes Dons. Not a history I particularly fancy, nicking another football club, but a history nonetheless.

Is attendance a criterion for declaring a club big? If that's the case then Newcastle United must be a really big club. Khavar, Sept 24.

MS: Now this is an interesting one. A year or so ago, talking to some other journalists, many of whom were Newcastle United fans, we got into this big club/small club argument. They were understandably talking Newcastle up, based on attendances. We were in Germany at the time, so I asked them to name the big clubs in Germany. Bayern Munich, obviously. Borussia Dortmund, no surprise there. Then silence. Any others? A guy said Hamburg, clearly because they had been European Cup finalists and signed Kevin Keegan. Nobody mentioned Schalke 04, the Newcastle United of Germany. Huge fan base but win next to nothing. I’m not saying we came any nearer to finding a definite formula – or that the Geordies accepted the resulting argument – but I don’t think it is attendance alone that defines the stature of a club.

The big club is the club that has a wide national and international fan base, is regarded as a man rival in every competition they join and is expected to win any game they play, home and away. Thus I consider Chelsea to be a big team nowadays, but not five or ten years ago. Dr. Ahmed Mokhtar, Sept 24.

MS: Sounds fair to me, Doc.

Of course Chelsea are a big club! Everyone knows football is all about the money these days. Chelsea are loaded, so they are big – what is there to debate? Peter, Sept 24.

MS: Actually, the piece I wrote was more about whether the manager or the style of play could be blamed for a low attendance at Chelsea when, traditionally, over the last few decades the club does not have the support of Arsenal or Manchester United. This appears to have stirred a wider discussion about whether Chelsea is a big club, which I do not think can be won from either perspective. The bloke below gets it.

"Is Chelsea a big club?" is a meaningless question. The word 'big' is too loose a term to be meaningful. Bill, Sept 24.

MS: And yet, Bill, in eight weeks of doing these little debate pieces, flagging up UEFA issues or who should be in the England team, this is the one that has got people going. Next week, I’ll attempt to debate Premier League rule Q4 and it will be like Tumbleweed City. 

Chelsea have big name players and a lot of money - a big team - but they are in no way a big club. Newcastle, Everton and Spurs are bigger, better supported clubs with prouder and more accomplished histories than Chelsea. Give it ten years and they might make it, but they will still have bought their way there unlike most of the others, who have steadily and organically grown into the beasts they are today. Jon, Sept 24.

MS: Oh, do me a favour. Football has changed. The elite clubs have massaged the rules and procedures in every tournament to their advantage, so there is no way in for a new club unless a very rich man comes along and throws a fortune at it. Look at the way the seedings and co-efficient ratings in the Champions League benefit an establishment minority, regardless of success in their domestic leagues. There is nothing steady or organic about that, it is a rush to grab the cash and then slam the door on everybody else.

'So can someone tell me what being classed a big club wins you?' Well Scott, let me tell you. It wins you respect and admiration from far and wide. Loyalty and pride from supporters who have no hope of ever visiting England, leave alone attend a match, yet they remain true to the cause nonetheless. It wins you a seat on G14, it wins you the power to establish the Premiership with your fellow 'big clubs'. Pedigree and class. We don't have an interfering chairman who made his money by ripping off his country. Our wealth has come through years of hard work and endeavour. We don't have a CEO who thinks the success of the club is down to him instead of staying out of the limelight and getting on with his job. We don't appoint egomaniacal managers that bring the club into disrepute. We played Rosenberg in the Champions League and Highbury was sold out. We sold out Wembley time and again for Champions League games at the turn of the century. We may not have won anything in the last two years, but we did come within a whisker of winning the Champions League with ten men and pushed a strong Chelsea all the way in the Carling Cup final. The fact you focus on the last few years is precisely because you have no history of success. No pride or attachment to decades of under achievement. It is something money can’t buy, you'll just have to earn it like the rest of us. When you have it, you will appreciate it. Right now, you dismiss it as a defence mechanism. How very immature, how very typical. Mahir, Sept 24.

MS: And let me tell you, Mahir, that being a member of G14 and carving up the Premier League with your other big clubs did not bring Arsenal respect and admiration far and wide. Everyone thought you were a bunch of chisellers, actually. And while you don’t have an interfering chairman, your former vice-chairman might be worth keeping an eye on, and his mate from Uzbekistan, while we are on the subject of where the money has come from. As for egomaniacal managers, your one does like getting his own way, too, and the only difference is your board has had the good sense to listen to him. Try saying no a few times and see how long he sticks around, though. And, finally, Barcelona were much the better team in the Champions League final. Still, as that nice Mr. Wenger says, everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home.

I wish Chelsea was still a small and perfectly-formed club. I don't want glory hunters, corporate entertainers, tourists and hangers on supporting my club and if that means we're considered small then so be it. Ces, Sept 24.

MS: I can see what you mean, but I think people can get too hung up on this idea of small is beautiful. When Kevin Keegan was Fulham manager, I was over there and everybody was complaining that you couldn’t get parked anymore.

Players and managers are more concerned with the present and the future than sport journalists seem to be. Until recently Chelsea was a club with a great future and Jose Mourinho was the guarantee for that. The appointment of Avram Grant changes it. Would Ashley Cole have left Arsenal to play under him? Would Florent Malouda have chosen Chelsea before Liverpool? If Chelsea cannot find a big manager to replace Mourinho, it is more than likely that the club's future will be as bleak and frustrating as its past. Mikael Hörnqvist, Sept 24.

MS: A bleak scenario, but not entirely misjudged. I agree, players do live in the present and, at the very least, Roman Abramovich will have to spend a lot more money to attract major players to Chelsea, as the name or the pull of working with Mourinho will not do it anymore. 

As a lot of people seem to be judging Chelsea on fan-base and attendances. Remember a few facts. Over one hundred years Chelsea's average attendance is the fifth biggest of all, behind only Manchester United, Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool. Most people when talking about Chelsea attendances only remember a period of poor, violence riddled crowds in a crumbling, windy stadium in the eighties. They forget the crowds of the forties, fifties and sixties. I can remember empty seats at Anfield in European and Cup games in recent years, too. Kevin, Sept 24.

MS: So can I, Kevin. As I said the point of my piece was not to rubbish Chelsea, but to highlight the unrealistic demands of the current owners that do not take into account the recent history of the club.

Same old, same old. Honestly, Martin, I expected better from you. You really must learn to hide your West Ham hat a bit better. Dixon9, Sept 25.

MS: Yes, when my dad first wanted to take me to West Ham 40-odd years ago, I should have said: ‘No, dad, what if I grow up to be a football writer? I must ensure my perceived impartiality at all times.’ Is that what you did? And then when you chose another career path, you picked your team then? If so, I admire you. Fantastic foresight. Unfortunately, I wasn’t that clever. I just carried on supporting a team, the same as most other boys, and the writing job came later. Too late to change then. Seriously, would you rather a football writer who did not have a team, who did not grow up with a feeling for the sport, of what it meant to supporters, and who would never, as last night, buy his ticket and go along and cheer his team with his kids just like the old days (for the record I’ve got three, two are West Ham and one is Chelsea like his mum). I wouldn’t. I’d want to know that the guy in the press box knew what it was like to be a fan on FA Cup Final day or had stomped home a few times cursing everybody from the right-back to the tea lady. The comparison with West Ham and Chelsea came from nothing but personal experience of the way London football works. I wasn’t trying to make West Ham sound bigger or more important than it is. As for a West Ham hat, I haven’t had one for years. I’m sort of a no-colours guy these days.

Comments

[Colin]

The questioning of Chelsea's status a a "big club" is a valid point. In my opinion you can only be classed as a big club on three criteria. These are size of fan base and stadium, and the ammount of trophies and titles you hold. Whilst you can easily change the size of your stadium, it is diferent proposition to change your clubs history and cannot be achieved overnight. Thierry Henry described Arsenal several times as a "little club". On paper Arsenal have an outstanding stadium, great manager, excellent squad and have been finished second to Real Madrid in income figures released last week. However Arsenal have never won the European Cup/Champions League and Henry left for a team who have won the holy grail twice.
In my mind we have two teams in this country who can be classed as truely great Liverpool and Manchester United and everyone else, including Chelsea, cannot be counted.

[Nick]

Well, I can't see much sign of Martin's West Ham addiction doing him serious damage as a writer. As for the "bigness" or otherwise of Chelsea - I would suggest we make a division between "big" and "great". I think that any club can be big, with enough money to win trophies and attract supporters. The question is, can they set a new standard for play, be recognized as a force in the game, and generally achieve a significant series of results over a meaningful period of time. You can't judge any club's greatness based on 5 years, although you can certainly say they are/were big, based on attendance etc. For my money, Chelsea are certainly big, but we can't say they are great until we have seen another 5-10 years from them. If in 10 years time they have more trophies and continue to be in the top 3 consistently, I think they might be great. My best guess is that we shall see a relative decline to top 6 status in England over that period. Mourinho may not have delivered beautiful football, or very ethical conduct, but he was successful. I doubt that Grant can produce the same results, especially with Uncle Roman peering beadily over his shoulder. Mourinho was strong enough to get his own way, and so succeeded. Is Grant? And what happens to the replacements that will start to occupy the Chelsea roundabout once Grant is replaced? Ranieri II anyone?

[Mr Blackett]

A big club is a club achieving big things. As much as it pains me to say it, Chelsea are a big club because of the influence they have on the league, domestic cups and Champions League. Simple innit.

[Ces]

'I can see what you mean, but I think people can get too hung up on this idea of small is beautiful ... everybody was complaining that you couldn't get parked anymore.'

Ah, I get it. Availability of nearby parking is inversely proportional to the size of the club. In that case, Chelsea must be a very big club indeed!

[Larry Sequeira]

Chelsea have been a prominent London club since the fashionable sixties. They are a modern rather than a traditional club. Chelsea's location makes them unique. They've always latched on to the King's Road / Fulham catchment area fame and their young supporters believe they are a big club! I agree with Peter Hill-Wood who said tradition is linked to longevity and certainly Arsenal, Spurs, Fulham and WHU have that with their fanbase. Without reservation I definitely concur with Martin's comments.

[jonathan anthony]

I suppose there is a handful of big clubs in the prem, those that regularly attract 40000+. In truth there is only one truly big club in this country on a global level and that's Manchester United and for Chelsea to try and compare themselves to the United blueprint is something of an insult to fans' intelligence

[bob sharp]

If Chelsea is not a big club why did Mourinho's departure get more ink and airtime than the Pope's death.

[Ben]

I'm not surprised this debate had such a response. It's a question that is impossible to answer because of all the different and entirely valid ways of defining a big club.

What I am surprised about, is that you didn't sneak in some praise for Frank Lampard in your article!

[Colin Blues]

Mr Samuel I am not your biggest fan, but even I have to admit that your response to the gentleman who questioned the integrity of your article because you are a West Ham fan was spot on!

[Paul King]

Chelsea are not a big club because there is only one big club in London - Arsenal. England has 3 big clubs - Arsenal, Liverpool & Manchester United. This is a fact. Travel all around the world from the US through Asia and the Far East onto Australia and ask anyone to name 3 English Football Teams, and these 3 are out on their own in terms of fan base, popularity, success and fame. Check out the all-time top-flight League table - Same 3 on top. Check out the most seasons in European Football - Same 3. Check out Most Championship Wins - You Know ! Chelsea, Tottenham & West Ham - Big Clubs ! Do me a favour and dream on !