I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on the Bill Nick front but he definitely splashed the cash when the squad needed rebuilding as Blanchflower and the spine were all nearing the end of their careers. Greaves was a record signing, others like Venables and Chivers were also record buys at the time.
Possibly so. However, the difference was that most of the money spent was earned, not from the pockets of some fabulously wealthy sugar daddy.
When seanDCFC asked you "how much?" it was in reference to your comment #12355 that Jose spent a lot at Porto to win the CL. What does that have to do with how much other Portuguese clubs spent? I know your experience of the CL is extremely limited but it involves clubs from all of Europe not just Portugal And either way we have shown that Nett he spent under 500K to assemble that squad and in the years 2002/3 & 2003/4 that was the 7th highest in Portugal anyway so was far from being "more" than any other Portuguese club.
It depends entirely on your definition of earned. Football has always been a business. Like any business, the more successful ones will receive more investment. I'm yet to see the difference between what Abramovich has done at Chelsea and what Norris did it at Arsenal, RBS with Sunderland, Littlewoods with Liverpool or Sky with Man U. The issue has to be with the individual, it can't be down to the principle. My view is that Abramovich has put his own money into the club. He is part of the club therefore his investment is legit. In contrast we have clubs like Man U who owe the taxpayer in excess of £500m in debt yet still spend heavily. Sky and UEFA's money has killed football and fair competition. Go and see what it is doing to other leagues across Europe. CL clubs earn in excess of £50m a year. Money that can be used to strengthen at the expense of their rivals. Sky's promotion of these teams (i.e Sky 4) and dismissal of others also brings in extra commercial revenue on top of UEFA money for that cartel of clubs. Is that really fair? What have Chelsea/City/United/Arsenal done to earn that money each year? It's a complete monopoly, IMO and any club that wishes to break it should be commended, not vilified. Football is not a script, no team should have a divine right to win or always be at the top which is the case now.
Can anyone confirm or deny that the car park is off limits for a trolley dash? If it isn't, I'll be doing a trolley dash at the Knightsbridge branch of Waitrose.
Every team buys players. So everyone buys trophies by your logic regardless of if they make a profit on transfers or if the lose £100m+. So why single out Mourinho?
