City don't bother me - no one wins the Premier league without spending lots of money, whether in transfer fees, wages or investing in a cracking youth set up. And no one won the old first division without having significant financial clout. What City are doing, and what Chelsea did is not different in principle, it's just a matter of scale. My dislike of Chelsea (sorry, District Line) is purely a local rivals thing, not a money thing. As for the rest of the top clubs, my attitude towards them ebbs and flows. I used to dislike Manchester United during their lean years because of the incessant moaning of their fans and the belief that they had a divine right to win the league title. Strangely, I now like them because I've found myself pulling for them in so many title run-ins with Chelsea, and in recent years I've started to regard Liverpool the way I used to regard Manchester Utd. Arsenal are currently putting themselves in that category for me, as well. I should stop there before I turn everyone against me. My point is that it doesn't offend me when a club owes it's success to money. That's true of any successful club. Whether we like it or not, money is part of the game and it always has been.
Totally agree with you and no need to apologise by the way. Problem is football fans (in general) are hypocrites. United bought the Worlds most expensive Goalkeeper, Worlds most expensive Defender and Worlds most expensive teenager and nobody bats an eyelid. Same thing with Liverpool. It seems in the eyes of the media and many football fans alike that when Liverpool and United spend big, it is "investing well and strengthening the squad" yet when Chelsea and City spend big it is "Buying the League" and "Ruining Football". A lot of Liverpools success in the 80s and why they are loathed by many is because they actually had all the financial clout to take the best players away from the smaller clubs. Apart from West Ham (who got relegated soon after anyway), Chelsea didn't raid their rivals for players in the way that City did. You could argue City used to divide and conquer tactics to take Adebayor, Clichy, Toure, Barry, Milner and Lescott who are basically bit part players now. The English players we did take was from clubs like Blackburn and Charlton who at the time were nowhere near us in the table People have short memories
"It seems in the eyes of the media and many football fans alike that when Liverpool and United spend big, it is "investing well and strengthening the squad" yet when Chelsea and City spend big it is "Buying the League" and "Ruining Football"." Because they are owned by billionaires who are just playing Football Manager while Liverpool/Man Utd are self-sufficient
Denial will not change the fact that Chelsea and City could not buy all those players without any outside financial backing
Just imagine a mega London United team? That surely would dominate the Premiership and Europe? We have Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs at the top 5 of the prem.
United got rich off a share issue, Liverpool got rich off the Littlewoods money. Chelsea were still the biggest spenders leading up to Roman's takeover which proves you are talking out your rear
Chelsea were overspending after Matthew Harding's investment in '94, which is why you went from being South London's answer to West Ham to actually winning stuff. From Gavin Peacock and Mark Stein to Ruud Gullit and Mark Hughes. Then the spending really started, with Di Matteo and friends.
"Chelsea were overspending after Matthew Harding's investment in '94, which is why you went from being South London's answer to West Ham to actually winning stuff." Exactly, which is why District Line is full of bullshit
Oh! Come off it. Citeh, for instance, have a wage bill that is currently higher than their entire turnover. Forget silly, old fashioned, words like profit. How could they, or Chelsea, be where they are today if they were run as legitimate businesses? The answer is, they couldn't. They would have gone bust ages ago.
We're all - even my little old Fulham - in glass houses. We wouldn't have flown up through the divisions so quickly without Al Fayed's money. Even the clubs who are (or claim to be) living within their means are still where they are because they are willing and able to spend money to generate success. In the old days when directors weren't allowed to make a profit and clubs were run by a handful of local businessmen, those businessmen were expected to put their hands in their pockets to keep the club going. It's the same as it ever was, just a different scale. What's new is that in the 90s they changed the rules enabling directors to gain financially from their clubs, which - unless I'm mistaken - isn't likely to happen anytime soon with either Chelsea or Man City.
How is that any different to when Joe Lewis started splashing the cash and you spend £80m to avoid relegation? We consolidated our position in the top flight after relegation and after a few seasons of midtable mediocrity decided to spend big, what's the issue? We had to start from further back to most clubs. Whilst you were spending ridiculous sums of money on Sergei Rebrov, Chris Perry, Dean Richards (R.I.P), Chris Armstrong and Les Ferdinand we actually invested in some bargain signings like Franco Zola, Gus Poyet, Vialli, Gullit, Flo who between them cost a poultry £5m. What we did is no different to what Stoke are doing now, those that invest wisely have the most success
Spurs' spending is self-sustained, due to our well known wage limit. Chelsea overspent, nearly went bankrupt, got bought by a Russian crook and then massively overspent again. Comparing the two is absolute lunacy. How do you think you got that list of players to sign for you? Because you gave them massive wages! Did you think that they went to Chelsea because you wear a nice kit or something?
I think the current number is about right. It's just we need to replace Arsenal and Chelsea with Charlton and Palace to make the league far more tolerable...
There is no Premier League club that is operating on a profit. Only Stoke, WBA and Wolves come close. If you listened to the poster above you it would help. Fulham wouldn't be where they are without Al-Fayed. Wigan wouldn't be where they are without Whelan. Wolves wouldn't be where they are without Hayward. Stoke wouldn't be where they are without Coates. Crawley wouldn't be where they are without the Arabs. Next year same will be said for Leicester. Notice how as soon as Newcastle, Blackburn and Middlesbrough owners pulled the plug it wasn't too long before they went down. At the end of the day this can be applied to all levels of the game. The reason why the SPL for instance is such a poor league is because there is no money in it. In the 90s, every top player wanted to play for Celtic or Rangers, nowadays it is just for Championship and League 1 fodder
Spurs' last half-year figures showed a profit. I think Arsenal have shown a profit for some time. Both clubs have a wage bill that is far lower than average, at about half of the club's revenue.
