Carabao Cup & FA Cup Thread

[MefiX19 1,092]

what a surprise, Arsenal gets easiest draw in the cup!

[Despiadado.Maleante 1,046]

These draws are hand picked and still no one surprised Arsenal get the easiest games year after year.

[Reddish-Blue 2,488]

10 hours ago, Jason said:

Spare a thought for Mourinho. He faces Liverpool (a), Chelsea (a) and Man City (h) in the space of 10 days next month!

I can't wait! Imagine the media's reaction if United lose 2 out of those 3 games 

[Jase 43,479]

1 hour ago, Reddish-Blue said:

I can't wait! Imagine the media's reaction if United lose 2 out of those 3 games 

Are you suggesting that they will beat us?

[Special Juan 28,088]

Should be a good game...They have Antonio as top scorer and Payet as top assists....yet they are 18th

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

14 hours ago, Jason said:

Spare a thought for Mourinho. He faces Liverpool (a), Chelsea (a) and Man City (h) in the space of 10 days next month!

I hope he wins two of the three.

We've all read the posts where Chelsea fans are, wrongly, accused of caring more about Jose than they do about Chelsea. That is nonsense of course but sometimes it is even suggested that Chelsea fans would prefer United to beat us. I don't think anyone can seriously believe that, but I have read it in this forum.

Now there is a post hoping that City smash United in the EFL cup. This despite the fact it clearly suits us for United, the weaker team, to win that game. I Think it's legitimate to ask if it is the pro-Jose majority, or the tiny anti-Mourinho minority, who are putting their feelings about The Special One ahead of Chelsea's interests?

[Reddish-Blue 2,488]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

Are you suggesting that they will beat us?

Why would I suggest that?

I was merely trying to say that Mourinho teams don't lose 3 consecutive matches..unless there are significant problems in the dressing room!
 

[Reddish-Blue 2,488]

21 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I hope he wins two of the three.

We've all read the posts where Chelsea fans are, wrongly, accused of caring more about Jose than they do about Chelsea. That is nonsense of course but sometimes it is even suggested that Chelsea fans would prefer United to beat us. I don't think anyone can seriously believe that, but I have read it in this forum.

Now there is a post hoping that City smash United in the EFL cup. This despite the fact it clearly suits us for United, the weaker team, to win that game. I think it's legitimate to ask of it is the pro-Jose majority, or the tiny anti-Mourinho minority, who are putting their feelings about The Special One ahead of Chelsea's interests?

It really doesn't matter who wins the cup match between City and United.  

Both teams will be difficult to beat this season.  United may be weaker than City but you just know Mourinho will want to prove a point if he gets drawn against Chelsea. 

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

[Jase 43,479]

1 hour ago, Reddish-Blue said:

Why would I suggest that?

Just kidding! But it does look you're jinxing us.

1 hour ago, Reddish-Blue said:

I was merely trying to say that Mourinho teams don't lose 3 consecutive matches..unless there are significant problems in the dressing room!

Well, he just lost 3 straight games last week.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

11 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

I would certainly have been at that 1-0 game but I don't remember a thing about it. I would definitely not have been at the away fixture however. I never formed the habit of travelling out of London with Chelsea precisely because of the moronic behaviour of so many of the fans.

What a curse those people were and what untold damage they did to our club. They drove countless thousands of decent Chelsea supporters away from the terraces and were directly responsible for our lost generation of match going support from the mid-70s to the mid-90s.

That was a tough period for our club on  and off the pitch. Crowd numbers were bound to fall as the quality of football and footballer dropped dramatically. There is no way however that Chelsea football club should ever have posted average attendances in the low teens, or individual match attendances well below five figures.

Part of the problem of course was the complacent attitude of the board. An attitude that is well evidenced by that piece of 'it ain't our fault guv' nonsense from David Mears during the video. As crowds fell right around the country, football boards everywhere seemed focused on trying to avoid responsibility, and costs, rather than on dealing with the problem. Left to their own devices they may well have presided over the demise of the game in England. As it was, the government eventually forced them to act and, in so doing, rescued football from itself.

Complacency is not confined to the past however. These ignorant and violent people are still out there. If given the slightest encouragement, they would bring their ugly, criminal behaviour back to our grounds. They must not be given that encouragement. 

It wasn't like that every week no offence son but you do come across a bit Daily Mail at times. Going away with Chelsea was brilliant getting up early doors, dressing the part meeting your mates trying to bunk the train or into the ground countless teenagers were doing the same up and down the country. When I started going away with Chelsea I was 13 and there was rarely any major violence because we took so much support away and going to places like Shrewsbury etc we had more support sometimes then the home team. 

Chelsea did attract a type of supporter who I would say wasn't into football or football violence but into vandalism and Anarchy they were society's problem not footballs. A football club can only do so much it's down to the old bill to police the surrounding streets and seeing as Chelsea were almost bankrupt they couldn't afford to do much. If you think the Tory government deserves any plaudits for saving football then your talking utter bollocks. Thatcher hated football tried to bring in ID cards her government blamed the fans WRONGLY about Hillsborough  Colin Monynihan got a plane load of England supporters sent home from Sardinia there crime they were English. They didn't make it out of the airport. Here's a snip of what Thatcher tried to bring in.

Thatcher backed the identity card idea, wanting it spread nationwide. It offered power over fans. Legislation for it was included in the Football Spectator Act, restricting access to grounds only to those who had signed up for the National Membership Scheme (NMS).

Anyone not a member and gaining entry to the ground “shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to both”, stated the Act.

^^^^^ That's fucking Orwellian 1989 England or is it 1984 ?

 

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

For me the 70s and 80s were the best time to be a fan. OK bit short of silverware, but the games were the best to attend, though obviously not for some.

On to West Ham game, I reckon that Olympic Stadium is the kiss of death for them. The Boleyn ground had atmosphere, close to the action, a bit like SB.

Hope we learn from them with our development. So on the positive reckon loads of teams will win there - the negative being a Watford mate went the other week, and said the segregation is non existent, and with our history of punch ups with them, carnage looms. The stewards either don't give a fuck or are too heavy handed - so some tell everyone to sit down, whilst others ignore people stood up -that was why you had loads of West Ham fighting amongst themselves last week.

I expect them to sort out the segregation, especially as we may have around 15 000 going

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

2 hours ago, Iggy Doonican said:

It wasn't like that every week no offence son but you do come across a bit Daily Mail at times. Going away with Chelsea was brilliant getting up early doors, dressing the part meeting your mates trying to bunk the train or into the ground countless teenagers were doing the same up and down the country. When I started going away with Chelsea I was 13 and there was rarely any major violence because we took so much support away and going to places like Shrewsbury etc we had more support sometimes then the home team. 

Chelsea did attract a type of supporter who I would say wasn't into football or football violence but into vandalism and Anarchy they were society's problem not footballs. A football club can only do so much it's down to the old bill to police the surrounding streets and seeing as Chelsea were almost bankrupt they couldn't afford to do much. If you think the Tory government deserves any plaudits for saving football then your talking utter bollocks. Thatcher hated football tried to bring in ID cards her government blamed the fans WRONGLY about Hillsborough  Colin Monynihan got a plane load of England supporters sent home from Sardinia there crime they were English. They didn't make it out of the airport. Here's a snip of what Thatcher tried to bring in.

Thatcher backed the identity card idea, wanting it spread nationwide. It offered power over fans. Legislation for it was included in the Football Spectator Act, restricting access to grounds only to those who had signed up for the National Membership Scheme (NMS).

Anyone not a member and gaining entry to the ground “shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to both”, stated the Act.

^^^^^ That's fucking Orwellian 1989 England or is it 1984 ?

 

Thatcher did indeed hate football and I hated her politics. It's quite funny to associate me with the Daily Mail. Nothing could be further from the truth but I know you can't be trying to imply that Daily Mail readers are the only people who despise violence, vandalism, racism and other forms of antisocial behaviour.

My away journeys with Chelsea were all within London. The lads with whom I went to games did travel however so I had regular first hand reports of what went on. Of course there was the fantastic Camraderie but there was also plenty of the behaviour I did not want to associate with then, and do not want to associate with now.

The large-scale violence or vandalism did not erupt every week but it was seldom far from the surface. Low-level or small scale outbreaks were weekly events.

When The Blues were out of town, I would go with various friends to games at White Hart Lane, Craven Cottage and most often, at non-league Plough Lane. As you rightly say, the ugly attitudes were widespread around the game but I promise you that I found the atmosphere at those grounds less highly charged than at Stamford Bridge.

Our own club planned to introduce ID cards before Thatcher ever came to power. I remember sending in my application form, photo, and £1 fee but the scheme never got off the ground and the quid was never refunded. At least that suggested they wanted to do something however and that was welcome. Normally, after each major outbreak, we had the standard condemnation in the next home program and the usual expression that you yourself have used today. The one about it being a society problem not a football one.

The people causing the trouble were created in wider society, but they manifested their behaviour at, around, or en-route to football grounds. Only when Football was forced to accept the costs of policing, increased stewarding, CCTV equipment, better ticketing arrangements and other measures, did the situation begin to improve. The responsibility for dealing with this scourge was always in the hands of football but it took the government to make them live up to that responsibility.

Who gained most from the improvements? Football clubs and football players. Once more people, not just those with thick skins or high tolerance levels, were prepared to associate themselves with football again attendances rose, sponsors came into the game in force and the road to the riches of the Premier League was cleared.

I too was 13 when I attended my first game. (Away to Arsenal 1973.)

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

5 hours ago, Reddish-Blue said:

It really doesn't matter who wins the cup match between City and United.  

Both teams will be difficult to beat this season.  United may be weaker than City but you just know Mourinho will want to prove a point if he gets drawn against Chelsea. 

It doesn't matter which way you try to cut it, United are the weaker team. If we manage to get past West Ham then it will clearly be better for Chelsea if we are joined in the quarter-finals by the red half of Manchester, not the blue.

In any case, one motivated manager with something to prove to his former employers, is not going to outweigh the impact of several motivated players with something to prove to their former manager.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

1 hour ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Thatcher did indeed hate football and I hated her politics. It's quite funny to associate me with the Daily Mail. Nothing could be further from the truth but I know you can't be trying to imply that Daily Mail readers are the only people who despise violence, vandalism, racism and other forms of antisocial behaviour.

My away journeys with Chelsea were all within London. The lads with whom I went to games did travel however so I had regular first hand reports of what went on. Of course there was the fantastic Camraderie but there was also plenty of the behaviour I did not want to associate with then, and do not want to associate with now.

The large-scale violence or vandalism did not erupt every week but it was seldom far from the surface. Low-level or small scale outbreaks were weekly events.

When The Blues were out of town, I would go with various friends to games at White Hart Lane, Craven Cottage and most often, at non-league Plough Lane. As you rightly say, the ugly attitudes were widespread around the game but I promise you that I found the atmosphere at those grounds less highly charged than at Stamford Bridge.

Our own club planned to introduce ID cards before Thatcher ever came to power. I remember sending in my application form, photo, and £1 fee but the scheme never got off the ground and the quid was never refunded. At least that suggested they wanted to do something however and that was welcome. Normally, after each major outbreak, we had the standard condemnation in the next home program and the usual expression that you yourself have used today. The one about it being a society problem not a football one.

The people causing the trouble were created in wider society, but they manifested their behaviour at, around, or en-route to football grounds. Only when Football was forced to accept the costs of policing, increased stewarding, CCTV equipment, better ticketing arrangements and other measures, did the situation begin to improve. The responsibility for dealing with this scourge was always in the hands of football but it took the government to make them live up to that responsibility.

Who gained most from the improvements? Football clubs and football players. Once more people, not just those with thick skins or high tolerance levels, were prepared to associate themselves with football again attendances rose, sponsors came into the game in force and the road to the riches of the Premier League was cleared.

I too was 13 when I attended my first game. (Away to Arsenal 1973.)

I was nine first home game vs Charlton (1975) 13 first away game QPR 1979 where we practically took over Loftus Road 

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

2 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

For me the 70s and 80s were the best time to be a fan. OK bit short of silverware, but the games were the best to attend, though obviously not for some.

On to West Ham game, I reckon that Olympic Stadium is the kiss of death for them. The Boleyn ground had atmosphere, close to the action, a bit like SB.

Hope we learn from them with our development. So on the positive reckon loads of teams will win there - the negative being a Watford mate went the other week, and said the segregation is non existent, and with our history of punch ups with them, carnage looms. The stewards either don't give a fuck or are too heavy handed - so some tell everyone to sit down, whilst others ignore people stood up -that was why you had loads of West Ham fighting amongst themselves last week.

I expect them to sort out the segregation, especially as we may have around 15 000 going

Will they give us that much FB ?. 9,000 at the Emeriates a couple of years ago which holds 60,000.

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

28 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Will they give us that much FB ?. 9,000 at the Emeriates a couple of years ago which holds 60,000.

Yeah seen all sorts bounded about 2,500 to 15 000. Isnt it 10 % or something ? You just know theyre going to stitch us up on H and S grounds, and Sky are going to be crawling all over this

[LDN Blue 7,903]

20 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Sky are going to be crawling all over this

Nah, they're showing Manc derby and Liverpool-Spurs. Left Chelsea alone this round lmao.