Sturridge was £3.5m + £500k after each of 10, 20, 30 and 40 first-team appearances in competitive games + £1m if he gets an international cap. He's done all of that, so it's £6.5m. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...ridge-could-cost-Chelsea-as-much-as-6.5m.html Cole was £5m + Gallas. You definitely got a good deal there. He was trying to distort the prices. No Lampard in your squad, but Hutchinson made it? Come off it. Essien was £24.4m and I'd suggest that you probably have spent less on fees than City, but the whole thing misses out a ton of extremely expensive players. The ones that I've mentioned, of course, but also the likes of Shevchenko, Drogba, Wright-Phillips, Zhirkov, Bosingwa, Anelka, Malouda... the list's virtually endless. His point about wages is equally distorted. City have gone ahead in the last season, though we've yet to see those figures, but you still spend about £100m a season more than a team like Spurs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18248540
Their double winning side of 61 cost twice as much as anybody else's at the time. When they became the first club to float shares on the stock exchange they spent mini fortunes. In the 80s our net expenditure did not once exceed £1m or probably even half that whilst Spurs regularly exceeded 4 times that amount. The game has always been the same, the playing field has always been unequal only for the first time in about 60 years it's different faces and the rest of the footballing world/media doesn't like it.
Sorry, sir, I will give all your posts a third read in the future before replying. Apologies once again, my lord. Everyone, make sure you read YV's posts a second or third read before replying in the future, or face a ban
We earned £100m more than Spurs last season and next season too probably, as we are Champions League winners and our brand is getting stronger as yours get weaker.
It was an honest mistake. When listing 54 players and thinking of over 100 at once you are bound to make oversights. I don't think many if any Chelsea, United or City fans would argue the sides or squads I have listed are close to their strongest. I wasn't look at overall expenditure I was basing it on most probable squads for next season
Why ignore the rest of your spending? If you spend £20m on a player but you don't use him, you don't get your money back. I doubt that's even true. Other than Oxo-cube and Gervinho, nobody in the Goon side was particularly expensive. You had Bosingwa (£16.2m), Essien (£24.4m), Mata (£23.5m), Mikel (£16m), Malouda (£13.5m) and Cole (£5m + Gallas, however you want to value that). How did you work out the value of each side?
I don't think that I have, Drogs. He's being intentionally misleading with your figures, while trying to claim that you've spent less than those around you. His original point about other sides spending money has some validity, but that's not what people object to. Spending vast amounts of money that's not generated by the club is what people equate with financial doping. City have done that in the last few years, but Chelsea have done it for a very long time. I'm sure that you all don't care, but then why object to people pointing it out and try to pretend that it's not true?
We earned 250m euro in 10/11; you earned 180m. For 11/12, we will break the 300m euro barrier, while you will go down to around 150m euro. We are a bigger club than Spurs that earns more money and can buy better players. When you guys get regular Champions League football, you can compete with the big boys too.
That's another thing overlooked by some of the Spurs fans on this thread. We generate far far more more money than any other London club commercially and through television/broadcasting and merchandise. As a "brand" we are bigger than Spurs or Arsenal. Arsenal don't make the losses we do and their revenue is only slightly higher than ours due to match day income and having a larger stadium. Only Bayern, United, Real, Barca and possibly Liverpool (in some areas) are bigger than us in terms of brand therefore they in reality (as well as Arsenal) are the only ones that have a valid case IMO. Our football club is run differently to Bayern for instance but that doesn't make their method any better than ours. At least we are run vertically so decisions can often get done more quickly
His point was that we're not the only culprits to over spend, United and City have also both done so. Essien won't get much game time next season and he said he made a mistake by leaving Lampard out. United also have people he didn't mentioned who were expensive, same with you lot.
I ignored he rest because I don't see the relevance if those players aren't contributing. If we spent £2m on a player and put him in the reserves I don't see why that should count. Expenditure on first team, youth team and reserve team should all be separate in my view. If I wanted to be misleading I could have included Adebayor £25m, Toure £16m, Santa Cruz £18m. I'm not trying to hide anything here. The only reason why I selected squads is because it's the only even way to do it. 18 players vs 18 players. Why should City be penalised for having a bigger squad than say Chelsea? If I did it any other way then you could have a squad of 20 costing £300m and a squad of 30 costing £200m. I'm not trying to hide anything only prove that we spend no more than United do and less than City but for some reason STILL get criticised for spending more than any other club. That was my only point
Their backline was £26m and ours was £23m but bear in mind 2/3 of ours was on one player who's valuation now would be nowhere near that, from there on bar Torres I didn't think there was much in it but if I'm wrong I'm wrong I ignored he rest because I don't see the relevance if those players aren't contributing. If we spent £2m on a player and put him in the reserves I don't see why that should count. Expenditure on first team, youth team and reserve team should all be separate in my view. If I wanted to be misleading I could have included Adebayor £25m, Toure £16m, Santa Cruz £18m. I'm not trying to hide anything here. The only reason why I selected squads is because it's the only even way to do it. 18 players vs 18 players. Why should City be penalised for having a bigger squad than say Chelsea? If I did it any other way then you could have a squad of 20 costing £300m and a squad of 30 costing £200m. I'm not trying to hide anything only prove that we spend no more than United do and less than City but for some reason STILL get criticised for spending more than any other club. That was my only point
You don't get criticised for spending a lot of money, you get criticised for having spent a load of money that you haven't generated. You've done so since Matthew Harding (RIP) invested way, way back. City get similar criticism and Utd don't because their owner/s actually take money away from the club. You're making some money now, just about, but that's following decades of massive overspending. That's why people don't see it as an achievement. The same thing could've been done at West Ham, for example, who were in a similar position to you and had won the same number of trophies when you started this trend. It's not for me to say whether it's right or wrong, but it's not really much of a sport if it's down to who can chuck around the most cash, with no fear of a player failing. If he flops, then just get rid of him and buy someone else for another massive fee. Relatively little risk involved, where your opponents don't have the same privilege.
It's well known Berbatov's leaving, yet there he is on the bench. Cleverley also was considered a starter alongside Carrick last season but injuries kept him out. You also list a bench of 3 defenders and a DM who all just happen to be cheap ignoring more expensive defenders and listing more attacking benches for the other two in order to help keep the price up. It's nothing to do with what we were talking about though(London teams).
The days of football clubs spending what they earnt went out the window when The big 5 at the time United, Spurs, Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton (Moreso Spurs and United) demanded that a breakaway league was formed or else they would pull out and form their own league without permission of the FA. In turn Sky came in and then so did all the external investment from overseas etc. Ironically those 5 clubs are the biggest moaners/critics of Chelsea and City when you could argue it was those clubs that attracted the likes of Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour to England (albeit indirectly). That was sheer greed as those 5 clubs wanted to pull even further away from everybody else and not share the money with the rest of the football league. All the Premier League has done is make sure the rich get richer and poor get poorer. That in turn strengthens the barriers that had always previously existed. How else could Chelsea (a team who had only been promoted 2 years prior to the PL inception) have realistically been able to compete with United, Liverpool and Arsenal who were milking all the PL money and along with CL money getting even richer. There was a time in the early days of the PL where anyone could beat anyone anywhere and league titles were scarcely won on more than 75 points and teams scarcely relegated on more than 30. Those days are long gone now due to the money involved. I'd argue money from sponsors like Nike, Barclays and shirt sponsors/UEFA is no more or less "earned" than money from an owner who is part of the club and it's decision making therefore can choose when and what he spends (on)
What's that got to do with the price of fish? This isn't a "criticise Chelsea for spending money" thread. This all came from me saying that you're the team to beat and favourites of the London sides, that comes from years of buying up the best players. It's not a criticism in anyway but you get all defensive, missing the point by comparing yourselves with the Manchester teams and comparing our spending from 30-50 years ago. I've never said we've never spent large amounts of money or that it's a bad thing, just that your current squad is vastly more expensive than ours, Arsenal's and anyother London club so naturally you'll be favourites to finish as the top London club and that's what you should expect.
Berbatov may want to leave but as far as we know he is part of SAF's plans, he is in America on pre-season playing games. His situation is no different to Modric's last year. I didn't list defenders who were cheap I based on the benches of last season and defenders that are more versatile. Look on any bench and I guarantee out of 7 players you will see 1GK and 2 defenders. The rest will always be midfielders mainly attack minded ones. There is no conspiracy here
You've changed your tone. You said Chelsea should be top dogs as we spend the most money. If Chelsea spent the most money 10 seasons running and came top dogs eight times, would that not be success? Cash does not equal success. It took City four years to win Prem for example, Newcastle did not win it at all
You tell me if it's success. I'd suggest it's not on it's own as you have vastly outspent every other London club during that period but it's up to Chelsea fans and ultimately, RA whether it's success. I'd lean more to the trophies won during that time as success both in terms of lifting pots and hitting/exceeding your goals. As for City, it took them longer for many reasons and I've never suggested that money = titles but there is an undoubted correlation between money spent and league position in particular. Yes there are anomalies and money is by no means the only factor but when you spend 2/3/4 times what the clubs around you do on highly rated new players it indicates that you're favourites to finish highest.
