Are Chelsea and City onfield success just side effects of a false economy?

As Aguero wheeled away into the corner after securing the goal that won the title,i must say i felt it was an empty feeling as i knew we'd simply bought it and not earnt it in a sustainable manner

 

tell me about it, likewise with Lampards 2 goals at the Reebok to secure our first League title in 50 years, I stood there feeling utterly disgusted.

 

And had Halsey not somehow found 5 minutes at Wembley in 1999 one has to wonder if the money might have gone somewhere else!!

 

I wondered why the celebrations to the greatest ending to a title battle in history were so muted in Manchester

and the streets of islington and highbury were rocking with tens of thousands of Gooners celebrating the commendable fourth place. That fourth place song is brilliant. Give me a C... Give me an O...

 

Youre nearly as bitter as your c unt of a manager at the time,Pulis

 

There are plenty of clubs whose operations rely on a benefactor who gained their fortune outside of football. Chelsea and City just happen to have the luck of having the richest ones, who took over top-end clubs (thus making their own luck to a degree) and don't mind making big losses. These owners might well move on at some point, but as Drogs points out their chances of then going into a steep decline after this are pretty small considering the current value and reputation of each business, both of which are in the ascendancy. I'm sure the supporters of both clubs would prefer their current owners to any prospective change and the uncertainty it brings, but they'd be silly not to enjoy the success their current models bring and I can see why Drogs and PPLF laugh at the idea the wins are tainted in some way.

 

I suppose the point is that without the massive cash injection you'd have been watching Man Utd win the title that year

 

And Arsenal wouldn't have had the invincibles without Danny Fiszman cash investment

From an interview with tony Adams
Those calling for more spending on the current team will be interested to learn how highly Adams rated Fiszman's contribution. "I think that a significant factor, 90 per cent, in why we achieved so much is that Danny Fiszman invested £50m in the club and we were able to go to the next level," he said. "I got my first decent contract at the club, so did David Seaman, we were able to bring in Dennis Bergkamp – and that was before Arsène arrived – David Platt, Patrick Vieira, Nicolas Anelka, and were able to pay them – top players from around the world.

"I'd like to feel that a good manager can get the best out of those players once you've got them, but more often than not, if you've got the best players you win the League,"


In what way are you not being hypocritical?

 

In that £50m invested into the club probably paid for improved contracts for existing players to take a good team to the next level, whereas you were a midtable club going nowhere until £700m allowed you to buy your way to the top.

To compare the two situations is stretching credulity to breaking point to be honest mate.

 

In 1995 when Fiszman donated £50 million into the arsenal coffers,it doesn't sound that large a sum in this day and age but to put it into perspective that year man city's turnover was £12 million,it wasn't until 2006 that City turned over more than £50 million
Do you really think it's stretching credulity to breaking point?
Really?

 

Yes I really do.

To try and compare Arsenal who operate within financial solvency to City who not so long ago posted a loss of £194.6m as benefiting from similar cash injections is ****ing ludicrous.

I've got nothing against City fans, I think they are some of the most loyal in the league, but don't make yourselves look stupid by trying to claim that your recent success is nothing to do with the massive financial doping you've benefited from.

 

I have never,ever said we hadn't bought our way in to the top table
I just can't stand the hypocrisy of other clubs supporters and officials in arsenals case who have all done something similar to varying degrees standing judge and jury

 

It isn't anywhere near similar, not even close. Trying to compare the financial management of the two clubs makes you look completely incredulous. It's a million miles from hypocrisy to say that Arsenal in have no way near been propelled to success by an obscene amount of cash directly injected into the club by a rich benefactor.

Also I'm not acting as judge and jury, I'm simply pointing out what you've admitted to in your first sentence.

 

I am not bitter in the slightest, and I won't hear a word against Pulis, the finest manager the Gills have ever had and despite the result I had a fantastic day out at Wembley and I saw 2 hours of rivetting football unlike the vast majority of city fans who were half way down Wembley way when you scored your first goal

 

I wasn't and he remains to this day a horrible bitter man

 

Piskie, Arsenal maybe not, but other clubs have. The OP is only slating City and Chelsea though. Sums of 20 years ago in comparison to now will seem obscen, but in reality it's of equal importance.

 

I'm not talking about other clubs though Drogs, I'm responding to paulpower who seems to think that a small investment by an existing shareholder into Arsenal to secure contracts for existing players back then, is somehow the same as £700m spent to completely rebuild City.

If you think that's on a par with what did Danny Fizman did at Arsenal 20 years ago, you're as deluded as he is.

 

Whether or not City or Chelsea fans agree the Arsenal way to run a club is the right way (commendable or not) in comparison to their business model is not really important. It doesn't hide the fact that their success
(which is what the original post is all about) was simply secured by a false economy they created. This would not have been possible with a well regulated financial fair play rule and their losses year after year are a clear indicator of that. I just wanted to know if everyone else felt the same or if most Chelsea and City fans were happy with the financial doping they have received to win their titles. Obviously the answer was always going to be yes!

 

Where have I slated City or Chelsea? It's just an observation. I know it's a subject which causes a bit of an issue amongst you guys when raised but it's not really slating your clubs is it?

 

Small investment?
That's probably 10 times that in this day and age.
It would be like wenger being handed a kitty of £500 million to spend

How is it in any way different to sheikh mansour or abramovich putting their cash into give the manager a transfer kitty?