What he said. Inflation can not be taken into account at all. A more accurate comparison would be what players cost to buy back then or average earnings for a top flight player. Compare that to the market of the last 10 years and it'll be evident that Roman's level of investment was 100% dictated by the crazy money already being spent. United for instance had only recently spent 30 million on a defender and 30 million on a teenager. To further hammer home the point, Jack Walker 'only' had to spend 10's of millions to make Blackburn competitive. That's how much and how quickly the game changed in the 21st century. 125k back in the 30's seems like that would be a hell of a lot of money in football terms and probably more comparable to Roman then you'd care to admit. Whose to say where Arsenal would now be without it.
Wrong. I don't dispute that we weren't promoted in the way we were. I said that we are in the top flight on footballing merit as our 13 league titles demonstrate.
It was in 1913. Even further back. You didn't earn the position to win those trophies. You hadn't won anything at all before being promoted for no sporting reason. Arsenal's entire history is based upon something that you, by your own admission, didn't earn. Yet your stance on this entire thread has been that Chelsea and City don't deserve to be where they are, as they didn't earn it.
Yes, but are you suggesting that Arsenal would have never been promoted to the first division otherwise ?
Arsenal have earned their place in the top flight by demonstrating that they can win that league. 13 times in fact.
Chelsea have earned their titles by... winning their titles. What's the difference? Your argument is even weaker, as you shouldn't have been in a position to win them in the first place. Utter hypocrisy.
Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance, Piskie? I believe that's what you're experiencing on this thread.
Yes I know what cognitive dissonance is and no I'm not experiencing it because I don't support your view. In psychological terms it appears that you have such a bee in your bonnet about it because of a deep seated bitterness towards Arsenal because they were promoted at the expense of Spurs, who also wouldn't have merited a place on footballing merit either I wonder if you would still be making the same complaints if Spurs has successful lobbied to be promoted despite being relegated ?
Spurs were relegated from a league where at least one match was fixed. We have no idea if the results of the rest of the games were legitimate. Liverpool and Man Utd should've been relegated. Wolves and Barnsley should've been promoted.
You don't understand any of it Are you still claiming that Arsenal had to 'resort to crime' to get promoted ?
