YV but you make out as if we're the only ones that spend money. Last season both United and City's team was more expensive than ours. If we assume the strongest XI of the big 3 teams are the following: Chelsea Cech - £6m Ivanovic - £9m Luiz - £24m Terry - Free Cole - £5m Mikel - £12m Ramires - £18m Hazard - £32m Mata £23m Marin - £6m Torres - £50m Total - £175m United De Gea - £18m Jones - £18m Ferdinand - £30m Vidic - £7m Evra - £6m Valencia - £16m Scholes - Free Carrick - £16m Young - £18m Kagawa - £12m Rooney - £30m Total = £171m City Hart - £2m Richards - Free Kompany - £7m Lescott - £22m Clichy - £7m Silva - £25m Toure - £24m Barry - £12m Nasri - £22m Tevez - £25m Aguero - £38m Total = £184m _____________________________________________ Then if you look at the Subs bench: Chelsea Hilario - Free Hutchinson - Free Romeu - £6m Meireles £12m Sturridge - Free Bertrand - Free Cahill £7m = £25m United Lindegaard - £4m Giggs - Free Smalling - £10m Evans - Free Nani - £14m Hernandez - £6m Berbatov £30m = £64m City Pantilimon - £3m Zabaleta - £7m Kolarov - £17m Milner £26m De Jong - £16m Dzeko - £27m Balotelli - £24m Total = £121m ---------------------------------- Chelsea = £200m United = £235m City = £305m As you can see we are far outspent by the others. Factor in wages and us and United are probably equal, but City way way ahead.
This is a thread about London teams and adding (assuming Oscar is being announced after the Olympics) £70mill or so of players to the already most expensive side in London would make you the team to beat and finishing higher than the other London teams should be the minimum you should achieve. Oh and you clearly loaded United with their more expensive players and dodged a few for Chelsea, not that it matters you all spend loads
Chelsea to finish top london club probably, then us, and then the spuds. Even without RvP we're stronger than the spuds.
As a Fulham fan, I like this a lot! I can't see us finishing above Arsenal though. If you measure London's top team just by the results between the London sides, don't forget we were second last year, and would have been top if we'd beaten Spurs on the last day. I can see us punching above our weight (i.e. above at least one of Spurs, Chelsea or Arsenal) again, but in the proper league table 4th in London is the most I'm expecting. Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal will all finish above us. I can see any of the three being improved, and any of them falling apart. At a push, I'll say (through gritted teeth) Chelsea to be London's highest finishers. But what I like almost as much as us being ranked third is that Holty left West Ham out altogether.
Well YV, unfortunately the league table is not calculated on net spend. Otherwise Spurs would have a won the league since 1961, especially in the 80s
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you genuinly not understand what I've been saying? Eitherway you should give my posts a good 2nd or 3rd read before you try to be smart.
Leaving aside the fairly transparent attempt to alter the figures by including two players with a grand total of 12 league appearances for Chelsea, Sturridge wasn't free and Cole wasn't £5m. £6.5m and a 15% sell-on clause for the former and a player rated at about £20m + £5m for the latter. No sign of Essien, Lampard, Ferreira or Lukaku? Come on, DL. You can do better than that.
West Ham have just signed Spiegel from Grasshopper...make of that what you will. They are a force to be reckoned with.
£3.5 mil for Sturridge actually and Cole was only £5 mil. He was also mentioning the strongest starting line up which doesn't include those players (in his eyes) but even with the £13 mil for Lukaku, £10 for Lamps (I think) and whatever for Ess, Chelsea are still well under City.
It does sound like they have bought some kind of species. Their new signing?... please log in to view this image
Plus Gallas, wasn't it? I think he only had one year left and I believe £13-16mill was the value place on the Cole deal with Gallas included. As I've said before though, it doesn't really matter a whole lot as this was about London teams and what's a few £100mill to you teams anyway?
Cole was £5m. Lampard I thought I had included. We paid no transfer fee for Sturridge that was a tribunal. Lukaku won't be with us next season so why include him? He wouldn't make our bench at the moment anyway nor would Ferrerira
I did it based on most likely squads for next season. I could easily have included the likes of Anderson £18m if I wanted to deliberately manipulate figures or better yet rule Torres out as an anomolie. If you take Torres out the team that drew 0-0 with Arsenal ours was actually less expensive than their team
