Talk:Chelsea F.C./Archive 3

Chelsea Combat 18, etc

The following has appeared under this heading on my talk page:

...has NOT been proven, by any source. Very poor form to include it on the club page.

It was posted by the same anon account whose post to the Chelsea pageon the same issue [1] I had reversed. I'm moving discssion here as I thought others may wish to express their views too.

The reason I reverted the above post is because Wikipedia does not aim at reporting what is true but rather what is said by reliable sources. Whilst I know that the Donal Mcintyre programme linked here has been criticised, the Chelsea Headhunters article reports a similar connection. I can recall a World in Action report which also reported the link - I think that report was made in collaboration with Searchlight and involved the same mole as mentioned in articles linked from Chelsea Headhunters. Anyway, does anyone else have views on this matter?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Added 25th October 2008: "Wikipedia does not aim at reporting what is true" Again, it has not been proven, by any source. 66.194.44.250 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Home game-winning streak

"They secured the record on 12 August 2007, beating the previous run of 63 matches set by Liverpool between 1978 and 1980. The record is ongoing, and currently stands at 86 matches."

The streak was broken today, after playing Liverpool 0-1. 129.241.150.176 (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think we are, stupid? We know their streak was broken - and it was an unbeaten streak, not a winning streak. Michael 21:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Consecutive away-wins record

Chelsea now hold the record for most consecutive away wins in the League at 11 games. Can somebody add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Attendances

Chelsea's actually has the 6th, not 5th, average gate according to the source quoted. Please change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.164.49 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC) This is absolutely true - why hasn't this been changed? - ManU, Arsenal,Tottenham,Newcastle,Everton have all averaged 50000+ not so chelsea on 48260 (1955) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.73.160 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Shevchenko is not out on loan

I'm fairly certain this was done knowing that it is incorrect. Shevchenko is an AC Milan player. all ties with Chelsea have been cut. I'm changing it. Hernan Crespo is out on loan and is not on the list.66.229.78.176 (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

SHEVA IS OUT ON LOAN. Read his interview on Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1165842/Shevchenko-determined-brighten-miserable-season-England.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.10.124 (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Crespo's contract with Chelsea ended in summer 2008, he no longer is on loan from Chelsea 66.92.131.28 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Singular vs. plural

I've noticed a lot of edits contending whether the club is singular or plural. I don't know how English clubs are referred to but I noticed that when this article was promoted as featured, [2], and when it was reviewed and kept, [3], it was plural both times. So hopefully this point can be cleared up. My guess is it will be changed back to plural and once this is off the main page no one will care anymore, but at least there is a section now addressing this issue. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also want to point out to all the Americans out there, all sports teams in the U.S. are referred to in the plural, so this case is really no different. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a BrE thing, yes American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. And there's been numerous discussions on WP:FOOTY about this stuff, and the correct is "Chelsea Football Club IS a football club". chandler · 23:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me which is used, I just wanted to start a discussion for consensus, but like I said, when this article was promoted and reviewed it was plural. If the consensus has changed then that's fine with me. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement doesn't seem to resolve this issue at all. If anything it appears to me British English uses plural for this situation a lot of the time. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Standard UK English usage is to use the plural; the only possible example might be in the lede, where the phrase is "Chelsea Football Club .. is/are .. a London football club", but where the usage is "Chelsea have/has" or "Chelsea is/are" the plural is correct. Black Kite 23:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[4] How they write about them self. "Chelsea Football Club has been...", "Chelsea were popular...", " Chelsea FC was in the original plan...", "Stamford Bridge FC, Kensington FC and intriguingly, London FC were all rejected. Chelsea FC was what it was to be - and the story had begun." chandler · 23:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. Where it's talking about the corporate entity "Chelsea FC", then the singular is unexceptional, but otherwise the plural is always used in the UK (and this article uses UK English). In the UK, the plural is always used in these terms (and the same goes for other similar multiple entities, like music bands). For examples, see the rest of the article you quoted (i.e. "By Bonfire Night, Chelsea were firmly mid-table", "Chelsea were relegated to Division Two", "...and this time Chelsea were ready") etc ad nauseam Black Kite 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not missing any points... I just wrote how they write, I did not respond to your comment, shown by not having a ":" to indent it under yours chandler · 23:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been raised numerous times wrt to English football clubs (see here, for instance). In British English, the name of a football club is a discretionary plural, meaning it is acceptable to refer to it in either plural or singular form. The former is predominant in the UK, as the MoS notes. It also states that an article should retain whichever style it already uses, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Given that the article is about a British topic, it should retain the plural form, imo. SteveO (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Fowler’s Modern English Usage (first published 1926, my edition 1978) says that collectives such as army, fleet, Government, company, party, etc may stand either for a single entity or for the individuals who compose it, and are called nouns of multitude.
  

“They are treated as singular or plural at discretion... The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought the whole must precede division; and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree. That is a delicate distinction, and few will be at pains to make it... any attempt to elaborate rules would be waste labour. But... failure to abide by the choice when made, and plunging about between it and they, have and has, its and their, and the like, can only be called insults to the reader."

:It was this latter practice which prompted my revision (21:38, 14 March) which instigated this controversy, as in (my emphases)

"The team, founded in Chelsea in 1905, plays in the Premier League and have spent most of their history in the top tier of English football."

 :(Apologies to English football supporters, but even articles about Chelsea FC will be read by pedantic non-English Brits like me, if they are featured on the Main Page). Ragbin (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• As mentioned above though, this is effectively a WP:ENGVAR issue, given that discretionary plurals such as football teams and musical ensembles are almost exclusively treated as plurals in some areas (notably the UK), almost exclusively as singular in others (notably the US), whilst in some places both appear to be acceptable. Since this article has a strong national link (being an English football team), the UK variant should be used. Black Kite 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Champions

I don't understand something. Last night, I watched Manchester vs Porto, in a preview of the match it showed as if Barcelona had to play against the winner of that match. On the UEFA site however, it says Barcelona has to play Chelsea. Is the latter true? Mallerd (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Barcelona and Chelsea play each other in the semi final, Man United and Arsenal play each other in the other one. chandler ··· 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-finals

I think listing semi-finals is pushing it a bit much for an "Honours" section. Semi-finals aren't really an honour at all. At least players get a medal for being runner-up. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, even I agree with Sillyfolkboy. Mentioning the third place in the League is also not required. I'm doing the necessary edits. Gagandeep (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Premier League Asia Trophy

Chelsea won this in 2003, and yet it is missing from the honors section along with a few other minor trophys the club have won. They may only be minor trophy's but they deserve a spot in the honors section as they are honors, so can someone rectify this by adding all of the minor trophy;s we have won to the honors list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.234.8 (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Roster inaccuracies

According to the club website, Belletti has been officially removed from the roster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevormcguire (talk • contribs) 15:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Ben Sahar is currently on loan from Chelsea to De Graafschaap. Can somebody please add this? 66.92.131.28 (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sahar has subsequently been transferred to Espanyol and is no longer a Chelsea player. The following 12 Chelsea players are on loan as at 17 August 2009:

Stoch (FC Twente) Rajkovic (FC Twente) Di Santo (Blackburn) Sinclair (Wigan) Mancienne (Wolves) Bertrand (Reading) Mellis (Southampton) Sawyer (Southend) Taiwo (Carlisle) Van Aanholt (Coventry) Bridcutt (Stockport) Cummings (West Brom).82.61.47.26 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Makita International Tournament Winner:1993 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.39.14 (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

New Kits

Someone needs to update the images of the new kits, as they have had started to wear them that began with their Premier League match with Blackburn Rovers on 17 May 2009. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlo Ancelotti

Carlo Ancelotti is officially NOT manager yet - he will be manager on 1 July 2009. Guus Hiddink is still in charge as technical advisor. Please change this and make the edits on the 1st July. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's where it states Carlo Ancelotti will be manager effective 1 July, from a reliable source, UEFA: [5]

The BBC also states he will take over on 1 July. However, Hiddink is definitely not manager still; his contract expired yesterday. See here. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK...but BBC does not state any specific date of Hiddink's departure, however, he is still technical advisor to the club. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, there are rumors that Hiddink will take the position of manager for Chelsea, after the owner sacked Ancelotti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.212.55 (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Away and third kits

where's the evidence for the third being white? i cant find anything to prove, i believe the yellow kit may be kept as it is distinguisable from the other 2, and chelsea won the FA cup in that kit. and the new away shirt is confirmed on the chelsea megastore, a blue/navy striped with neon yellow. Replacing the black. XTomScottx (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The away kit was probably changed due to leaked photos of the supposed new third kit. Also, they will not be keeping the yellow one from the 08-09 season, because on Chelsea's website, it's listed clearly as 08-09 Third kit. Rhinophant (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Transfers

Should we have a list of the past seasons' transfers?

2009-10 NEW SIGNING SQUAD NUMBERS.

NEW SIGNINGS DO NOT HAVE MUMBERS CONFIRMED UNTIL THEY ARE SEEN WEARING THEM IN PRE-SEASON, EVEN THEN IT CAN CHANGE AS DI SANTO'S DID LAST YEAR. HE HAD 36 IN PRE-SEASON AND EVENTUALLY GOT THE 9 SHIRT. WEARING A SHIRT WITH A NUMBER IN TRAINING DOESN'T MEAN ITS THEIR SQUAD NUMBER. WAIT FOR A COMFIRMATION PLEASE! AS SOON AS YOU HAVE SOME PROOF YOU CAN ADD IT IF YOU GET THERE BEFORE I DO. THANK YOU PEOPLE. XTomScottx (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Honours

The World Football Challenge and the Premier League Asia Trophy are just pre-season friendly tournaments, not regular competitions. As such, player appearance and goal stats from these competitions do not count in official records. Furthermore, the official Chelsea website does not list them among the club's honours ([6]). They do not need to be included here, imo. SteveO (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lock

Should someone lock this article? I remember taking some time fixing this page after a rival fan wrote offensive words instead of nicknames, location, etc. --Tk TommyKim (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Coaching Staff

I think the job titles should be capitalized because they are unique. For example, there is a difference between politician and President. Also, the coaching staff section on the current season page is capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.181.174 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Squad Details

Two things, why isn't Frank Lampard listed as vice captain and when was Slobodan Rajković ever assigned a squad number? 118.100.127.149 (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

He had #4, you know he's part of the first team...look at the official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyds13 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He's not listed on the official website: 118.100.13.178 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Captain symbol

don't use it, as it has no hyperlink. unless someone knows how to link it to captain?keep captain and vice-captain as the links they currently are in by the guidelines of all football squad articles. thanks. XTomScottx (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea History

I feel the Chelsea history summarry is too short, can I extend it? Sonyds13 (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)sonyds13

The history section here is only meant as a summary. More detailed information can be found at or added to the History of Chelsea F.C. article. SteveO (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, the Gael Kakuta/transfer ban episode does not require a mention here, imo. Wikipedia is not a news service, and such detailed information is not needed in a seven paragraph summary of the club's 104-year history. The History of Chelsea F.C. and Chelsea F.C. season 2009-10 articles are the appropriate pages. SteveO (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NOT#NEWS refers to scores and fixtures and the like, i.e. routine news coverage, it doesn't apply to timely noteworthy and unusual information. Seeing as the general reaction to this from everyone in football is 'wow', and quite a few people wrongly believe it is unprecedented, and if it sticks it could well ruin the club's next two seasons (bearing in mind ruin for Chelsea is not win the CL), then it quite obviously deserves to stay in. If you insist on being dogmatic and count number of lines, or treat any current event as news regardless, you will just be removing it every few days when every man and his dog reading the article wonders why it isn't in there and adds it again, with the potential for mistakes as the facts of the incident contains a number of nuances beyond a simple one liner. As for length, you should see the version before I cleaned it up and properly worded and referenced it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Steve that the history article is probably the best place for mention of the transfer ban. It's going to go to appeal at the CAS. (FC Sion are already there and had their ban suspended while procedures are on-going.) There is quite likely to be some sort of a change to the Chelsea ban either as a result of a verdict or the length of the legal process. I don't think it's worth having a featured article left to the whims of court procedings. Once the process has finished and we can see how the ban (if it remains in place) compares with similar ones, we can discuss things.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would expect any Featured Article to contain up to date and relevant facts, and not leave readers questioning why Wikipedia is so glaringly deficient when 99% of them at the moment will be arriving because of the reaction to this ban. I know all about Sion and CAS, I read the source and was the person who added it to Wiki today. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, this is only a summary section and I don't see how a transfer ban, currently newsworthy or not, is notable enough to be in a section that otherwise only covers key moments in the club's history. Mourinho's spats with various people or Tommy Docherty sending home eight players for breaking a curfew were also 'wow' news when they happened, but they're not significant enough to be mentioned here. I'm not arguing for having no mention of it anywhere, which is why I did not remove it from this page's sub-articles, both of which go into enough detail to warrant it. Eduardo being banned for diving is also unprecedented and newsworthy, but it doesn't get a mention on the Arsenal F.C. article, for the same reasons. SteveO (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENT applies. A similar ban for two periods reduced to one on appeal is not mentioned in A.S. Roma as that did not happen yesterday..Peter cohen (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have deleted it without waiting for the result of the debate. It's not a point for WP Recent as you're trying to point out. It's got a lasting influence on the club if the decision about the ban stands. Anyway, how should Wikipedia be up to date if things that happened recently were not supposed to be mentioned? That's the point, Wikipedia is up to date because it's constantly updated! That's what sets it apart from other encyclopediae! Also, that a similar event having happened to another football club is not stated in its Wikipedia article is not a reason for not having it in this article. Maybe somebode who thought, like you, that it's unnecessary to keep Wikipedia up to date simply deleted it without any discussion. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're claiming that the status quo should be maintained pending the discussion of a disputed edit per WP:BRD, then the status quo is withe this item out. As for your post comment of "It's you alone who thinks so", have you read thsi thread? You'll find that your post makes it 2-2. No consensus yet for inclusion.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I see it's out then, how utterly pointless. I came back late, but for the record, players being sent home is not in anyway comparable. As for the Eduardo incident, this is a logical fallacy, you cannot claim that what happens in other articles controls what happens here, because that is a simple circularity. I could go there now, and add it. (Infact, if Wenger had been right in his claim of unprecedentedness instead of just complaining, I was even contemplating an article on it) Your theory is, if it stuck there, I could then come here and re-add this. Patently nonsense. And anyway, even if it were true, the Eduardo incident is quite obviously focussed on the player, not the club. But forget Arsenal, this event not being in this article only makes this article look pretty crap imho, but if other people can't accept that, fine, I'm not going to repeat points already made. As usual, the world will keep turning, and people will turn elsewhere for information, and ignore Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You cited the general reaction to this as a reason for keeping it in. Those events were also front/back page news when they happened, doesn't mean they need to be here though. In the context of a brief summary of the club's century-long history, I don't see how this warrants a mention here. Being a current 'wow' event is irrelevant since Wikipedia is not a news service, it's an encyclopedia and coverage should be in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. If people are looking for blow-by-blow coverage of recent wow events in the news, then they should look elsewhere. SteveO (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

@ Peter Cohen: Yes I read the discussion. And all the edits claiming the part about the ban shoult be removed came from you. You wrote it twice, that's what made two edits in favour of removing the text. You obviously seem to think you count twice. And maybe you didn't read my text carefully because your answer to it is besides the point as is waving with any random Wikipedia policy not because it fits (which it doesn't) but just because you want to get rid of a piece of text you don't like. And your answer is incomplete - you didn't answer to any of my arguments. And if you cite the status quo: It was WITH that text and you're trying to have it deleted, not the other way round. So it's got to stay at least until this dispute is resolved. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I also endorsed the removal of the text. I was the one who originally removed it and then brought the discussion here. SteveO (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article, you'll find that there has been no point at which this item has been in for more than 24hours. There is no long-standing status quo where it was in and yet you claimed that and the untrue belief that it is just me against as the grounds for keeping your preferred version. SteveO is one of the main reasons this article became and still is a featured article. I know about WP:OWN but when there is no consensus the people who have the long-term knowledge of the article are the ones whose opinions should count. The reason is that they are aware of issues that have been raised about the article over the longer term. For example the article has been brought to featured article review Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Chelsea_F.C./archive1 where WP:RECENTism was raised by a number of editors as a reason to question featured status. His protection of the article against overemphasis on a piece of news is this influenced by the long-term concerns raised by experienced Wikipedians.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no wonder the item hasn't remained in the article for a long time. The reason is that you kept deleting it. It never had a chance to stay in for more than 24 hours. You're creating facts which you then cite as a reason for not letting any new information enter the article. That's not what I expect of someone who claims to be an experienced Wikipedian. --Krawunsel (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Chelsea banned from signing players until 2011

Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA has banned Chelsea from signing players until 2011. As a Manchester United fan, I should be happy. But I feel the main reason FIFA (Foolish International Football Association, as I call it) have banned them is because English clubs are too successful for FIFA to handle, and thinks if English clubs get any better, we will rule the world of football. Should a section be added? And what do you think about the issue? Conay (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed in the section immediately above. FYI, I've also removed a word from your post. While plenty of English WP:Reliable sources have said similar about him, WP:BLP applies.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Conay, you could try and add that section but Peter Cohen will delete it rightaway because he personally thinks it's not important enough to keep. --Krawunsel (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alleged anti-semitism

This article refers to "Chelsea fans sing[ing] the infamous 'gas-a-Jew' chant at Stamford Bridge". Can anyone explain what this is all about? Is Chelsea a more anti-semitic club than other football clubs? What is the history behind this real or alleged anti-semitism and this infamous chant? Thank you. 86.178.229.129 (talk)

Actually Chelsea is a jewish-club. What I mean by that is that it was found by jewish men, notice the name Chelsea. The name Chelsea comes from an israeli word. I'm not too sure about us signing that though. Sonyds13 (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting thanks. 86.179.151.201 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

What? Chelsea's name comes from the London Borough of Chelsea and Kensington, though Stamford Bridge is actually located in Hammersmith and Fulham, but there was already a club known as Fulham. Why they didn't elect to be called Hammersmith FC, no one knows really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.202.149 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't anti-semitic in the true sense. The 'gas-a-jew' chants (wrong though they may be) are purely a vehicle for abuse of London rivals Tottenham Hotspur, which is located in/near a suburb of London with a relatively high Jewish population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.201.38 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What About Avram?

Avram Grant Was A Chelsea Manager Too, What about him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.3.102 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The list here only includes managers who won trophies with the club, hence no Ranieri, McCreadie, Scolari etc either. SteveO (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit proposal

"fans can only enter the stadium through the Fulham Road entrance" This should be "through one of the two Fulham Road entrances" David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidgdg (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Formation date

Chelsea was formed on the 10th of March, not the 14th. See the Chelsea website: http://www.chelseafc.com/page/TeamHistory/0,,10268~1800325,00.html Can someone please edit this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelsea barca (talk • contribs) 07:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done - thanks ~ mazca ^talk 09:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Change verbs from plural to singular

I've noticed that in the article, the word have is used instead of is. Shouldn't it be the latter, since it is talking about one club, not two. Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 06:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See above. In British English football clubs are usually referred to as a collective, so Chelsea have won as opposed to has won is correct. SteveO (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. However, I thought that when Chelsea is referred to as the Blues, that's when plural verbs are used, eg. The Blues have won the premiership; but when Chelsea is used, shouldn't singular verbs be used - Chelsea had won its third Barclays Cup? Sp33dyphil ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yossi Benayoun

The official megastore which is itself part of the official website has shirts available with his name and the number 10. I believe this is now a valid indication this is his squad number.

also Franco Di Santo, Scott Sinclair and Michael Mancienne have returned from loans and are now members of the first team squad, and must be listed on the squad as this is the club they play for. XTomScottx (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok I fould it, any comments as to yhis being his ongoing number? http://www.chelseamegastore.com/stores/chelsea/products/product_browse.aspx?free_text=benayoun Is there any official statement from Chelsea that he will play at ten? Personally I don't think selling his shirt is a decent way to announce his number and in my eyes doesn't equate to an official chelsea announcement - and we can't really add, as sold at the Chelsea mega store. Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It would seem quite clear he will wear the number 10 shirt next season; why would any football club sell replica shirts to their supporters if the details on them were incorrect (ie wrong squad number)? Also, I can't see why chelseamegastore.com should be discounted as a WP:RS. It is produced by Chelsea themselves afterall. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

But there have been cases where the club has sold shirts with numbers on then the player has appeared with another number and IMO this is not an official announcement from the club. Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I imagine chelsea are playing a martch soon and the issue will be resolved but if someone want to use what I consider to be WP:OR to the WP:RSN to see what they think about it as a claim of an announcement that will be a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Slobodan Rajković

Should we list him on the First Team or in the Reserve article? He is a Chelsea player and should be listed, maybe he could become a first team member after Ricardo Carvalho's departure, if not he will be a reserve. I have listed him in Reserves for now. XTomScottx (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cobham Training Ground Page

Just a question, but would it be a good idea to start a page for the training ground in Cobham? If so, are there enough sources of reference to create one? Laks.t.cfc13 (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Torres

Does NOT play for Chelsea yet. Can someone please remove him from the current squad, or explain where this magical number 9 and confirmation has come from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.84.177 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

HA! 90.203.152.52 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Iwikireader, 11 May 2011

Chelsea F.C was founded on March 10 not May 10.

Iwikireader (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony Hunston

Has anybody here ever heard of a Chelsea player called Tony Hunston ? Played for the club circa 1924 to 1927. Made one Ireland international appearance before playing for Chelsea. Any info would be helpful. Cheers. Djln --Djln (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no record of him having ever played a competitive match for Chelsea in Glanvill's Official Chelsea Biography or the online player database. However, he does appear in the official team photo for the 1925-26 season printed in Ron Hocking's 100 Years of the Blues. Hope that helps. SteveO (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 9998martin, 5 June 2011

Bruno DeMichelis left Chelsea FC when Carlo Ancelotti was sacked, therefore should not be on the Chelsea FC wikipedia page as an 'Assistant First Team Coach.' MY source is the official Chelsea FC website in the management section. Link: http://www.chelseafc.com/page/TheManagementIndex/0,,10268,00.html

9998martin (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mischief over manager signings

can anybody explain without proper announcement,how can anybody put andre as manager.i know his stakes are hig but deal is not finalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.94.139 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.42.162.174, 20 June 2011

Can i get premision todit this page why not

217.42.162.174 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No you can't, unless you have an autoconfirmed account (4 days old and 10 edits). GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 217.42.162.174, 21 June 2011

hi its bruce buck i need to sort the team out

217.42.162.174 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me a reason to believe its Bruce Buck. GaneshBhakt (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lococard, 26 June 2011

Paul Clement is no longer the Assistant First Team Coach

Lococard (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Done as found source [7] Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:ChelseaFC flag.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:ChelseaFC flag.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 12 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Third kit

Any source to confirm the third kit design of white/black/yellow? Wouldn't it be more accurate to leave that blank until something is officially released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.1.203 (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The kit is not offcially confirmed but it will be the new third kit confirmed by reliable official source. So no need to leave it blank as it is also posted on the other Wikipedia page of Chelsea FC.--Shihan07 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)