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

You've only been going for 35 years ? You're only a youngster
Joking apart I totally agree with your post <ok

 

If my memory serves me correctly wasn't the money Fiszman gave Dein not for the club but for Dein's shares because he was up **** creek financially

 

I didn't say you had massively outspent us - although adding wages in you probably have. But that is as it should be because you have much greater income than us, based on way more success (going back particularly, but even in the last few years getting into the CL). £8m is neither here nor there, if your figures are correct we've spent about the same (no idea if they are).

Where I do draw the line is when you go on endlessly about about our Gross spend as if that is the be all and end all. And you've said it dozens of times.

I've already said in this thread that Arsenal are the best run club in the division, but you keep wanting to argue with points I haven't made.

And even if I ignored one of your points that doesn't mean I have mistaken gross v net.

 

A fun table:

please log in to view this image

If Arsenal were to win the league in the face of this, it would be a stupendous achievement.

 

Facking Hell treat, where have you been hiding?

 

SD you're tying yourself up in knots fella. You said

When I'd clearly explained before that in the last 5 years you'd spent £122m more gross and £8m more net than Arsenal on transfers. It was in response to Colinlee who had said that we'd massively outspent clubs like yours on transfers, when if fact the opposite is true.

Now don't force to me explain it to you again or I'll make you write it out a hundred times as punishment

 

Why don't you **** off and support City? You've just revealed yourself as a shallow, materialistic prick. I for one would hate it if a sugar daddy took over our club, ripped the soul out of it and attracted entitled, glory hunting twats like you.

 

I'm just a pragmatist. The game has evolved, we need to evolve with it, you keep living in the dark ages if it makes you happy. We started to lose our soul the moment Wenger made us a european style club, leaving Highbury was the final piece, we're barely an English side anymore as it is, so what's wrong with more change?

 

What a confused pile of ****e comment that is Kyle. You accuse Suker of living in the past and say we should evolve and then whinge about us having done exactly that.

 

There's evolution, and there's revolution. Wenger took it too far. We're a foreign team who happens to play in North London.

 

Presumably then you want a team of Charlie Adams playing in a 38k stadium.

I think Suker got it wrong when he said you should go and support City, you'd be better off supporting Stoke

 

Out of interest, what constitutes the 'soul' of a club and how did Wenger compromise it?

 

He took away our identity.

 

Which was what?

 

You need to be more specific than that.

 

Barlinnie has no internet connection

 

Money has always made a difference in football and there was always some positive feedback as success breeds income which breeds success. But the difference now is that the difference between the CL and the PL and then the FLC is so vast that it is becoming self-perpetuating with the only way of breaking in being having a billionaire benefactor.
Don't you just yearn for the days when a club could go from mid-table mediocrity to winning the double, like Spurs and Arsenal did in 1961 and 1971?

 

We've always been in the Premier League and had top flight stability for 14 consecutive years until Roman came in.

 

I'm one of those that always forgets that football only started in 1992.

 

All those European Championship and World Cup wins by England prior to us and Manchester City being bought by multi-billionaires were great.