http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...eas-for-first-time-in-more-than-a-decade.html Arsenal ruining football. Spent more then Chelsea (net) in the past two seasons and has a higher wage bill.
With revenues of £433.2 million, the increases have been easily afforded by United, as is the case for Arsenal, whose added spending for this current season is more than covered by a new kit deal with Puma that is worth £150 million over five years. Chelsea, largely due to their more limited matchday revenues at Stamford Bridge, are simply unable to significantly drive up their wages and also remain within Uefa’s FFP guidelines.
Going to be alot of unhappy players at Chelsea when it comes to contract renewals if they are already financially on the limits
If you read the article you'll realise it didn't say arsenal have spent more than Chelsea for two years.... All it says is that this season with arsenals increased wage bill they may go above Chelsea given that Chelsea moved in some of there highest earners. It fails to mention that arsenal moved on several players as well. The article doesn't actually give any evidence of arsenal spending more and all the figures show up until now Chelsea have spent more. In fact Chelsea have spent the most on wages put until the last couple of years wher the Manchester clubs have over taken you.
Not that I ever though Chelsea ruined football, but why do you think it is Chelsea are able to attract good players on normal wages now?
Tell us about the massive debt you have?? In the red but in the black?? you don't understand finance do you son.
How can it disagree with me when it doesn't say anything about it in the first place? 5Look at the transfers in the past two seasons and get back to me.
The article says arsenals wage bill reached it's peak at 166m in our last published accounts but that Chelsea have been static at 176m for the last few years. So your claim that arsenal have spent more than Chelsea for the last two years is disproved by the article you yourself posted in the OP.
So you posted a article about wages but your post was about transfers? Yeh ok. And either way, Chelsea getting lucky by selling Sideshow bob for 50m doesn't mean somehow you have spent less than us.
Chelsea spend more on transfers, spend more on wages but have got lucky getting very good prices for a couple of players and made good use of buying up young talent, loaning them out and selling them on. This has meant you can meet FFP.
Chelsea get lucky. Everyone else, good business I suppose? Incidentally, impressive result for you boys today.
