Quoting amounts mean nothing. In the 80's you could buy the equivalent of Messi for about 2.5 million. There was a lot less money IN football then (ie before global merchandising took off like it did with the invention of the premier League). And footballers were paid a fraction then compared to what they are paid now.
Personally I think City deserve it. They've played the best football, scored an obscene amount of goals and have had the best player.. Nope not Suarez .. Toure. When you really evaluate performances over the Season Yaya has been a monster. 24 goals ,18 assists and a 89% pass accuracy. Third best player inEurope this year. (After Ronaldo, and Ibra)
The reason for quoting amounts was to show that of the three clubs I quoted, the highest spender was the lowest achiever therefore it could be argued we didn't buy the league as was quoted by drogs. Our first league title in the 80's we bought one player Steve Nicol who went in the reserves and didn't play a game. The second league title the following year we bought one player Gillespie who didn't play a single game either. That's 2 consecutive league titles with only 2 players bought neither of whom played a first team game. That doesn't look like buying the league.
Same goes for Chelsea. Everyone predicted when Roman took over that we would win 9 back to back PL titles and rule English football forever! 3 titles in 10 years.............And City have won 2 titles in what? 6 years since Sheikh took over? If we bought the titles, then what did we buy the years we failed to win the league? Look at Real Madrid in Spain, in the last 20 years they have probably spent more on players than the rest of La Liga combined (£170m on just CR7 and Chimp boy). How come they havent won the last 10 La Liga's back to back? It takes more than just money. If it didnt, then Liverpool would have won a PL title by now
Of course it takes more than money to win a league title but there is an obvious advantage to being able to buy up just about any player you want.
This is how I see it too. Fair play to City. They won playing some lovely football and their fans, by and large, haven't been massive twunts about it. They're well aware how lucky they've been with the monies invested in the club and they seem gracious in victory. Who knows, maybe they'd have been similarly gracious if they won without said monies but as I can't recall them ever winning owt before they got it I can't say... They clearly have a nice advantage with the financial backing but there are many other elements which they had to get right too.
afcftw is correct, it doesn't guarantee you a win (you and City can't both win it) but it gives you a big advantage that the rest of us, including Arsenal, have little chance to overcome. The fact that Arsenal were so close is praiseworthy indeed, but you and City will now probably spend the money to move ahead of them again.
I was initially responding to drogs comment that we bought the titles in the 80's - which as you rightly say it takes more than money. I think for Chelsea fans and now city fans, it's great to rejoice winning after years and years of faithful support with no trophies, those fans can experience what we Liverpool fans experienced on the 70's and 80's. But ... it is initially as a result 'these days' of not big spending but massive spending. I'm not having a dig but Chelsea have won more since RA than in all their history before. That makes it obvious it was about the money. And again as you rightly say if it was just the money Chelsea would have won more titles. My answer to that is the initial cash injection has the desired effect - sweeping up trophies - but it starts to even out as the other clubs become tactically more efficient against the big name players/teams [just as an example]. I'm sure Chelsea and city fans couldn't care less about how the titles have been won, and sometimes other fans are just jealous in their remarks, for fans of clubs who are trophy poor I understand that response as well.
Were Manchester United's title wins genuine (the bulk of which won during periods when they had spent the most)? Were Liverpool's title wins genuine (many of which won during periods when they had spent the most)? Were the title haul of team x genuine? (majority of which won during periods when they had spent the most)? Everytime Arsenal beat a "smaller" side, is it a genuine win? (considering our wage bill makes theirs look like peanuts) Should the definition of "genuine" win be confined to under dog victories? Should the OP be consgined to a f**king asylum? (I know the answer to this one)
Been over this, inflation in football has grown a lot faster than 'real life' inflation. There's no point in dragging up this stuff as nobody will ever agree. People have their opinions fixed in terms of who 'sold their soul' or who 'bought the league'.
a) The fact that we were so close significantly dents your argument so don't brush it aside as "praise worthy". The discrepency in pay is not as elastic as the discrepency in ability - ie paying 3 x as much does not make City's players super human compared to ours (just makes the owner's less rich). In other words the highly paid City players still need to perform in the big games (like put 6 past us) and not buckle like little wimps when the going gets tough (like ours do) b) They get an advantage for spending more because this is a PROFESSIONAL sport. Those who wish for money to have a minimal impact on outcomes should take up following an AMATEUR sport
I can agree with most of that, but your point in post 2 I would argue with. Indeed it is a professional sport and discrepancies are correct based on achievement. Through gritted teeth I would say Arsenal have earned their competitive advantage over Spurs (for example) but it is a very different thing to change the whole basis of competitve advantage with a huge injection of unearned money. Liverpool and Utd have built an advantage over years (I know that's not the whole story (G&H and Glazers have muddied the water for example)) City and Chelsea are just lucky and our teams have to be better run than them just to compete. Money and shrewd purchases would be unstoppable, money alone maybe not.
Had Abramovic bought for example Stoke, then it could well be argued that Stoke would have won the league by now and Chelsea would still be looking at their last title win being in 1955. What Liverpool and Man U did was earn their money through success, with Man U becoming dominant at just the right time for them (PL / CL money). In my opinion, there is a big difference between an investment of several hundred million pounds from a sugar daddy and earning wealth through commercial means.
Had Abramovic bought for example Stoke, then it could well be argued that Stoke would have won the league by now and Chelsea would still be looking at their last title win being in 1955. What Liverpool and Man U did was earn their money through success, with Man U becoming dominant at just the right time for them (PL / CL money). In my opinion, there is a big difference between an investment of several hundred million pounds from a sugar daddy and earning wealth through commercial means.
You are right about inflation but the point was we didn't always spend the most when we won the titles. Chelsea and city have. It's not a cheap dig, just a fact. I actually don't go in much for the finance arguments, so boring. My philosophy is support your team, enjoy the successes, get over the defeats, support your team, enjoy the successes ......
We should all heed this to be honest. If I wanted to discuss finances I would have become an accountant.
