Posted August 24, 200915 yr This is a table printed in today's sun of transfer spending since July '08...to be honest the last time we spent loads was in 2006, but this is a good example of how other clubs have spent lots more, including United, yet don't get accused of buying silverware etc much has been said about arse not having much cash, but even they have spent more than us Man City £216m Spurs £102m Liverpool £81.3m Man Utd £76.3m Aston Villa £50.4m Arsenal £40.8m Chelsea £29m
August 25, 200915 yr Someone else posted something like this not that long ago, Brit. The post had the spending in the last 3 or 4 years and we were in about 4th place, behind Liverpool, Man U and City, I belive. And when you look at the last few years we've only signed, Zhirkov, Bosingwa, Anelka, strengthened in a few areas, and added some youngsters. We paid quite a lot to get the nucleus of our team, but we certainly haven't tried to buy the league in a while. However, we've also not won since we spent big....the premiership that is. but I think this year we could do it, and silence anyone that thinks we're only able to buy our success.
August 25, 200915 yr Who cares? As long as im happy I couldn't give a rats what anyone else thinks about Chelsea. They are always going to find something to complain about Chelsea as long as we are a successful side. I for one don't wish to be a less successful side so that other teams fans won't winge about us. Edited August 25, 200915 yr by Guest
August 25, 200915 yr We certainly never hear it from the media anymore. I remember in 2005 there were countless articles asking if we deserved an asterisk next to our names in the history books. Now theyre all busy talking about how players don't wanna sign for us, rather than us buying success
August 25, 200915 yr There's not a title that hasn't been bought in some shape or form. The only thing that differs is the amount spent.
August 25, 200915 yr We we spend, it is a cardinal sin, the ruination of football etc etc When other clubs do it, it is to be admired and we should all be impressed f**k em all
August 25, 200915 yr We we spend, it is a cardinal sin, the ruination of football etc etcWhen other clubs do it, it is to be admired and we should all be impressed f**k em all I can assure you we are not admired by many in the press. I cant wait to buy the title!
August 25, 200915 yr There has been many cases of clubs spending money without success, Leeds(my heart bleeds)Utd being the most prominent example. Cases of clubs spending big and winning big are few and far between, Blackburn would never have been in a position to win the EPL in 95 without spending Walkers millions. Apart from Blackburn I am struggling to think of any other team, that has spent loads of money, and won silverware they wouldnt of won without spending so much money.
August 25, 200915 yr I can assure you we are not admired by many in the press.I cant wait to buy the title! thats the right attitude, because when trophies inevtiably come to eastlands, the same media pricks are gonna dust off those articles and change our name with yours. Unless they find something new to bitch about
August 25, 200915 yr Apart from Blackburn I am struggling to think of any other team, that has spent loads of money, and won silverware they wouldnt of won without spending so much money. Man Utd (Keane, Cantona, Van Nistleroy etc), Liverpool (keegan, Toshack, Dalglish etc), Arsenal (Bergkamp, Henry, Viera etc) all brought significant players which contributed greatly to winning titles they might not otherwise have won. The only thing that differs tends to be over what period the money was spent.
August 25, 200915 yr Man Utd (Keane, Cantona, Van Nistleroy etc), Liverpool (keegan, Toshack, Dalglish etc), Arsenal (Bergkamp, Henry, Viera etc) all brought significant players which contributed greatly to winning titles they might not otherwise have won. The only thing that differs tends to be over what period the money was spent. Sorry not having that, all those clubs mentioned (and us) have been successful before spending bucket loads of cash. They may not have won the titles they did, true, but thats a bold statement, Blackburn had no recent success before they spent a small fortune (at the time) on a team capable of winning the league. Citeh, the same if they have any success in the near future. Remind me what success did Citeh and Blackburn have immediatley before they spent loads of money ?
August 25, 200915 yr Sorry not having that, all those clubs mentioned (and us) have been successful before spending bucket loads of cash. They may not have won the titles they did, true, but thats a bold statement, Blackburn had no recent success before they spent a small fortune (at the time) on a team capable of winning the league. Citeh, the same if they have any success in the near future.Remind me what success did Citeh and Blackburn have immediatley before they spent loads of money ? Citeh have a fantastic record see below: The league twice (in 1936-37 and 1967-68), the FA Cup four times (in 1903-04, 1933-34, 1955-56 and 1968-69), the League Cup twice (in 1969-70 and 1975-76) and the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1969-70. 33 years without a trophy isnt a long time!
August 25, 200915 yr Sorry not having that, all those clubs mentioned (and us) have been successful before spending bucket loads of cash. They may not have won the titles they did, true, but thats a bold statement, Blackburn had no recent success before they spent a small fortune (at the time) on a team capable of winning the league. Citeh, the same if they have any success in the near future.Remind me what success did Citeh and Blackburn have immediatley before they spent loads of money ? Remind me what success Utd had before the brought Keane and Cantona. Oh yes it was back in 1968 wasn't it.
August 25, 200915 yr As of last year the spending was pretty significantly against us over a five year period, we need that to even up a little bit, I have this 5 year graph but as others have mentioned, Citeh, the Spurs, and the Scouse and Many Yoo spent pretty significantly this year? Can anyone fix up this graph I guess it's two years old...or does anyone have a link to a better graph with five year spending totals?
August 25, 200915 yr Chelsea can be accused of anything from grand larceny to first degree murder, because we are who we are, just look at that little dust up with the reserves, big headlines, Chelsea in friendly game mayhem, but read the article and it mentions many times the ref expressly condemns the other team, so why the big headlines? because we are Chelsea, so take every thing with a big pinch of salt or just give up reading tomorrows fish and chips wrapping.
August 25, 200915 yr Remind me what success Utd had before the brought Keane and Cantona. Oh yes it was back in 1968 wasn't it. and liverpool had gone quite some time before a massive injection of money from the moores family.
August 25, 200915 yr I always remember that when Abramovich took us over there was a fascinating article in the Sunday Times listing the biggest spenders in the decade or so of the EPL prior to Roman's arrival. Top of the tree? None other than our barcoded cousins up North!! Newcastle United had spent the most..................... and look what they had won!
August 25, 200915 yr Remind me what success Utd had before the brought Keane and Cantona. Oh yes it was back in 1968 wasn't it. Buying 2 players doesnt mean they bought the league, what about Scholes, Giggs, Butt the Nevilles, didnt they have something to do with their success ? Buying a whole team and a reserve team in 1 year could look like you are trying to buy the league.
August 25, 200915 yr Buying 2 players doesnt mean they bought the league, what about Scholes, Giggs, Butt the Nevilles, didnt they have something to do with their success ? Buying a whole team and a reserve team in 1 year could look like you are trying to buy the league. theyve broken the english transfer record several times of late and have always spent as much or beyond everyone else since the inception if the prem. even before that they were a big spending club.
August 25, 200915 yr Buying 2 players doesnt mean they bought the league, what about Scholes, Giggs, Butt the Nevilles, didnt they have something to do with their success ? Buying a whole team and a reserve team in 1 year could look like you are trying to buy the league. Scholes, Butt and the Neville only made the team on a regular basis from 1994 after the initial 2 title wins. G Neville and Butt made some rare appearances before then but only during end of season games. Also bought for the initial title winning team were the likes of Bruce, Pallister, Hughes, Schmeichel. Ince, McClair, Parker, Kanchelskis. Going on from there they have invested heavily to ensure they kept on winning it. That could be interpreted as buying the title, I oprefer to call it maintaining the squad, something Liverpool did very well in the 70's and 80's. This is the aspect we don't appear to have learnt....yet. And what's to say Citeh will win anything even though they have eclipsed our initial spending spree? By the way who was it that bought a whole 1st and reserve team in their first year? Certainly wasn't us. Edited August 25, 200915 yr by geezer
August 25, 200915 yr By the way who was it that bought a whole 1st and reserve team in their first year? Certainly wasn't us. I mean Citeh, not us mate.
August 25, 200915 yr Author As of last year the spending was pretty significantly against us over a five year period, we need that to even up a little bit, I have this 5 year graph but as others have mentioned, Citeh, the Spurs, and the Scouse and Many Yoo spent pretty significantly this year? Can anyone fix up this graph I guess it's two years old...or does anyone have a link to a better graph with five year spending totals? I can't post a better table but the one you have posted has to be inaccurate...some of those figures can't be right
