It doesnt but in a sensible world the successful sides should have more cash to splash. Otherwise you risk clubs existence. Pompey, Leeds, Southampton, Chelsea ( pre RA ), City ( pre one off title win ), Rangers ( though a weird one as they are successful ). All of the above clubs are very lucky to still exist today. Whats worse, a club being more successful than others or clubs going bust?
Appreciate the point bit otherwise no one new would be able to catch United such as City and Chelsea and the pRem would be boring like La liga
I dont know. Arsenal would, Norwich used to be our main rivals as did Villa. Spurs would imo have mounted a title challenge in recent years as would everton. Newcastle United were once a major threat to us as well. There is always room for a challenger, some need large amounts of money, others have good tactics and determined players. The ones who last combine clever spending with good management ( on and off the pitch ). Some of Uniteds most important players of the last 20 years cost us nothing at all in transfer fees as well. Wonder if its possible to see the total cost of each title winning side and the teams directly below over the course of the PL?
Before Chelsea got rich have a look at the PL. United - 93, 94, 96, 97, 99, 01, 03 Arsenal - 98, 02, 04 Blackburn - 94 Since Roman United - 07, 08, 09, 11, 13 Chelsea - 05, 06, 10 City - 12 Looking at that it seems money hasn't changed anything. So maybe its something else?
I know it not the most accurate source but transferleague suggests Chelsea often outspent United pre 2003. Infact for a club who had no money back then you didnt half like to splash the cash. 1992/3, 1993/4, 1995/6, 1996/7, 1997/8, 1999/2000, 2000/1. You outspent us in those years We won 6 Premier League titles spending less than the side that averaged 6th.
We splashed cash we didn't have which put us in the ****. However you were able to, and quiteoften did, went out and bought players noone else could. You broke the transfer record a few times. You were the richest but you ain't now. And that my friend is what gets up your arse.
As a relatively independent observer (hi guys), both clubs have obviously needed to spend massively above their rivals to get where they are, but as it stands United make far more through the turnstiles but more importantly as a brand so maybe haven't grown in quite so much of an inorganic way. Also, they've had the fortune or strategy, depending on how you want to look at it, to have brought through more and generally a better calibre of youth player. Chances are, if Chelsea have another ten years like the last then they'll have caught up at least on the marketing and revenue front. It's probably fair to say United are close to peaking in that respect while Chelsea and City have some potential for growth.
It proves that even though you were rich for the last seven years and we have been in shed loads of debt we have come out on top five times compared to your once. Money is not the solution! (00 seems to have been a bad year for everyone )
Smashing a transfer record does not mean you have spent more than any other club, it means you have spent the bulk of your money on one player who will make a difference instead wasting it on three or four who will not. Take a look at transfer league.com and if you think it is wrong let me know which transactions you think are not accurate.
It proves that when Jose built the team he won back to back titles, United responded by spending shed loads and won it back. Had Jose stayed he would have won many more as you will soon find out. Money is one thing but having someone who can use it sublimely is another thing.
