Some sense at last. It happens with every club, but moreso when it is players moving across from one PL club to another. I remember a few years back when they were pushing the Terry to City Saga for weeks on end, similar thing with Torres to Chelsea If a manager is even spotted in the stands watching another club while off duty it instantly means he is scouting a player, if a player hasn't played a full 90 minutes against Blobby FC or whatever it means he instantly wants a move and is unhappy at the club. The beauty (and perhaps beast) of the press is that they can create stories out of seemingly nothing
And yet you feel that Spurs fans commenting on a story like this is somehow slandering your club? Now do you see why you're being ridiculous?
Insinuating that this right wing feminist trash of a newspaper has a sports editor that supports Chelsea in my view is slandering our club
And you spend about three times as much as we do, so you should be able to avoid losing to most teams.
Net Spend of PL clubs since 2006. Chelsea = £89.65m Spurs = £89.2m Bear in mind that includes the Shevchenko and Torres transfers which inflate the prices significantly. Since PL inception, you could argue Spurs have been the biggest underachievers with them having spent nearly £100m per trophy compared to the £40m per trophy or so Chelsea have spent obviously with Arsenals being far lower than that. We beat every team last season bar Everton, Newcastle, Liverpool and Villa but we finished above them all which will do me
Why 2006 and why haven't you included wages, which at the last count was £174m to Spurs' £67m? Wages are the most important part of a team's expenditure. You can have £50m to spend on a player, but if you can't offer him the £200k pw that he wants, then it doesn't matter. Prior to your massive overspending, firstly under Bates with Harding's money and now under Abramovich, Chelsea had won 4 trophies. Sorry, but you've bought your success with other people's cash.
Money has always played a big part in success. Every team is where they are now because of money, plain and simple, don't let bitterness get in the way of that though Spurs wages are low but you more than make up for that in transfers
No. As I've shown, we quite clearly don't. You're just peddling another tedious myth. Money hasn't always paid as big a part as it quite clearly has in your case. You were basically Fulham's answer to West Ham, prior to some massive overspending. This is all completely irrelevant to the topic at hand though, so please stop posting paranoid rambling on here. Thanks in advance.
In terms of net spend you far outspend any other club bar the top 3 and Liverpool, that is a cast iron fact, even though I would concede your little 15 minute stint in the CL was impressive given your wage structure Every club is where they are because of money, that is a fact. Money has always played a huge part in football, moreso than anything else
Whatever you think our net spend is, our wage bill is utterly dwarfed by you, Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd and City. It's not even close. Our transfer spending doesn't make up the difference, especially the £100m+ difference a season with your lot. Stop with the paranoid rambling now, please. You've been asked enough times.
If you are right about the net spend being almost identical, then considering your wages are over 100m more than ours, then your last point is not true at all. Since 2006 you would've spent way over 600m more by the end of the year! And before 2006 the gap would have been even bigger.
That is true, but on average you spend nearly £10m per season than Arsenal on transfers Arsenal, Chelsea, United and Liverpool may significantly outspend Spurs in terms of wages but they earn more than Spurs as they are bigger clubs, that is the key piece of information you are missing out As I said money has always played a huge part in football. You spend more you get more, simple as
That is true but our turnover is pretty much double yours not to mention that we play CL Football year in year out and finish higher in the tables and win more competitions so we also earn more money than Spurs. In terms of Wages in proportion to turnover we aren't even close to being the top club. Arsenal may pay their players more than Spurs but as I said, their turnover is nearly 4 times that of Spurs so they can afford to
Arsenal's wage bill has been artificially inflated by property sales in the last two years, DL. The last time it was to the tune of something like £156m. You've gone completely off topic with this now. No more comments that don't relate to the original point, please.
