There is a correlation between money spent and league position but 5purs should not use that as an excuse. I would have settled for 10 trophies in 10 years under Roman after the amount he has spent (although most credit should go to JM); I doubt City will win that much in a decade under the sheikhs. Equally Spurs should have challenged Chelsea and Arsenal more in the past 20 years considering the amount they have spent
Someone mentioned fish... I think all of this "who spent what" business is something of a red herring. The real determinant of power in the EPL is the ability to pay wages. Who, of the top London sides, pay the highest wages?
With respect, I believe that that is the wrong correlation to use. The fairest correlation is "amount of wages v overall league finishes v time." I'm willing to bet that Arsenal began to dominate Spurs when they began to pay excessively higher wages than us, and that CFC began to dominate us both when they began to pay excessively higher wages than either AFC or Spurs (although there may not be such a gap between the wages bills of CFC and AFC). Certainly, there is no way that that Spurs should have been challenging either you or Arsenal over the last decade, given the vast discrepancy in wages paid to players. We simply do not pay the kinds of wages to keep the very top players at our club; and the fact that we have been competitive since the Jol days says a lot about the way in which Levy has run our club. Everyone bangs on about Whinger the Professor, but the higher plaudits ought to be reserved for Levy.
Excuse for what? Not finishing as London's top club? It seems like a valid reason to me, unless you lot underachieve again or we blow a 13 point lead. To be honest, I really am not bothered much about finishing above you. If we have a good season and finish third I wouldn't mind if you won the league, the progression of my club is far more important. Edit: I'd agree that we should have been a lot closer to Arsenal but that doesn't account for them overachieving in terms of money spent or that we started off with a vastly weaker side. You lot I disagree with for the last decade.
The other thing that is always overlooked is the disruption caused to clubs like Spurs by those with the cash to splash. Look at how our season was destroyed by United tapping-up Berbatov, as a prime example. Arsenal, despite their greater income and ability to pay higher wages than us, may well find that RvP's decision not to renew his contract may have a devastating impact on their season. The Gooners all point to the fact that, last season, they lost both Fab & Naz, and still finished 3rd; but the reasons for that were (a) Redknapp cost us, and (b) RvP turned in a consistent run of outstanding performances, the like of which very few players have done at any time in the EPL. With him gone, there is a very chance that they will crash and burn; and although it cannot be said that United/£ity/Juve are tapping him up (because they've all made offers through the accepted channels), the fact that Whinger isn't yet resigned to losing him could be their downfall. CFC, by contrast to both Spurs and Arsenal, have been protected from all of this. Your problem, ironically, lies in getting rid of your star players! That has made for a very stable platform from which to mount your successive challenges, season in and season out.
Chelsea dominated Spurs (and very little else) in the 90s (preHarding) when we payed poorer wages than Spurs
Quite possibly - I don't have any facts or figures to hand to confirm you right or wrong with that statement. But none would doubt that the game is very different today, than it was 20 years ago. The fact is, that in the modern game, money talks. The ability to pay top players to stay at your club through one or two contract extensions is absolute key to mounting any kind of challenge to the EPL or European titles.
Exactly. I object to PNP's simplification of it all. Look at Real during the Galactico era. Despite spending the most I think they won the league only once, didn't win the CL st all. If it was that simple then why were Chelsea not able to win the league pre-RA?
Spurs have a billionaire owner and a billionaire chairman. Yet more often than not Chelsea gets the “Romans hobby” **** thrown in their faces. It seems to me that it’s the dead opposite. The saying speculate to accumulate is obviously a big part of Romans business plan and its working. The same plan is not part of Joes or Daniels it seems!
I'd add that I know Spurs now cant just pump money into the club (FFP etc), however a little foresight may have been in order.
When do you consider the Galactico era? I'd say it started with Figo who joined for the 2000-01 season and continued further than 2006 despite what Wiki says. However even going by Wiki's dates they won 2 league titles and the CL which whilst disappointing for 5 seasons of extraordinary spending, they did create an incredible side and weren't far off achieving a lot more. You're going about it the wrong way around too by picking one club who spent big and comparing what they won. During the galactico era Barcelona weren't exactly moderating their spending either winning the same trophies in that time.
When do you consider the Galactico era? I'd say it started with Figo who joined for the 2000-01 season and continued further than 2006 despite what Wiki says. However even going by Wiki's dates they won 2 league titles and the CL which whilst disappointing for 5 seasons of extraordinary spending, they did create an incredible side and weren't far off achieving a lot more. You're going about it the wrong way around too by picking one club who spent big and comparing what they won. During the galactico era Barcelona weren't exactly moderating their spending either winning the same trophies in that time.
Jeez YV no need to ramble on, I heard ya the first time For me Galactico era started in 2002 but both Valencia and Barca pipped them to titles in that time. With the players they had they should have won far more
Well, apparently (according to a Chelsea lad on your board) running expenses are discounted for the purposes of FFP, so if we suddenly double our salaries over night, we'll keep all of our star players, plus we'll be able to buy a whole load more at knock-down prices when their contracts expire. Sorted.
