Self-absorbed Scousers at it again this morning...

who has man? You've lost me.

 

No chance. I've got the cockbend market all stitched up

 

Liverpool.

It's a myth that they haven't tried to "buy" the title.

 

You've not read it correctly mate, the World's highest spenders who haven't won their domestic league in that timeframe.

 

The red ****e.

The myth that they've not spent any real money is one perpetuated by them.

Since the inception of the PL in '92, they've spent £650m gross, which is £37m more than United......

 

It really royally pisses me off when people have a go at Chelsea or Citeh for 'buying the title'. Nobody 'bought the title' more than Utd under Ferguson or indeed Liverpool. How many times have they collecitvely broken transfer records? When Fergie first went there he signed players for HUGE money at the time - Pallister, Bruce, Phelan, Webb, Ince, Wallace etc. British football had never seen such a spending spree. And nobody has a go at Juve, who in their history have been solely funded by Fiat. If they were made to be self sufficient they'd have gone bust in the 80s!

 

Money = Success and always has done.

It's just that in recent years the amounts have become heinous.

Jack Walker bought the title as a trinket for himself with Blackburn, but at a fraction of the cost that City have paid for it with the Oil £.

You could argue that Allam has bought you lads PL security and a Wembley appearance with the £80m he's chucked at it, everything's relative, but ultimately £'s = pots, at every level of the pro or even semi pro pyramid.

 

Without showing incoming transfer fees that table could be a bit misleading.....

 

How? The table is of biggest spenders. It doesn't matter how much these teams got from selling players.

 

But after that they were only a cup team till Roman arrived.

 

Is there a table of transfer income in that time? I'm guessing Arsenal would be high up in that, and Liverpool and Man Utd would be well above Chelsea and Man City.

 

To a point you're right Chelsea & City have outspent the next closest by over £270m net....

Here's an interesting stat for you, you've outspent us by £26m net in the PL era...

tbh unless you include wages then it's all a bit skewed, as when you look at fees alone, Arsenal have only outspent Hull City by £14m net in the post '92 PL era

 

So how does that mean they have no pedigree?


By the way, contrary to what everyone seems to believe, Chelsea played in the UCL before Roman came in, and won the Cup Winners' Cup in '98...

 

So you're still reading this **** thread?

 

I just have a distain for clubs that attempt to buy success.
Chelsea, Man C... Liverpool at least have a youth setup.
I am sure that the other 2 forementioned teams do too, but why bother when you have the money to raid any club?

 

I think the previous few posts, about spending of ALL the big clubs should've rendered this point irrelevant.

 

I'd say that's cos players'd rather live in a thriving metropolis like London than in a city like Hull, so they'd rather go down south.