Rodgers has spent over £280million at Liverpool and won......
comment by ＴＬＬＬ ★ (U4640)
posted 4 minutes ago
Rodgers has spent over £280million at Liverpooland won......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh was it Rodgers who was that everyone was trying to buy the league
£280million = 0 trophies
Can't even buy a trophy
Im sure we have plenty of trophies
OP
Chelsea have been buying trophies for the last 10 years, what's new. They are a lottery club winner.
spurs managed to spend their only lottery win and go backwards
please see above article!
you are one of the ballbags i am talking about
comment by helvellyn spur (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
OP
Chelsea have been buying trophies for the last 10 years, what's new. They are a lottery club winner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't realise there was a club lottery, sounds interesting.
Spurs have shelled out 100's of millions of players and can't even manage a top four place apart from once every blue moon.
Levy has had more Managers than Roman
As much as the next club try to yes. As much as United, Liverpool and Arsenal have in the past - Spurs double winning side didn't come cheap at the time despite what a certain Spurs fan will try and have you believe.
Worked amazing well for Blackburn as well - but as a small family Lancashire club on one seemed to mind!
Nature of the beast, especially nowadays!
What has changed Brummie is the lack of anybody coming through the ranks at Chelsea and City, the top 2 clubs. Teams that had success in the past had those eg Utd in the 90's or cheap buys, who became superstars eg Keegan and Clemence at Liverpool. I guess it is because their owners demand success immediately...
Of course I am glad Spurs cannot get in the Champions League, but their wage bill is a fraction of Arsenal and Chelsea. There is no way they should be expected to finish top 4. I have no idea why anyone thinks they should.
Chelsea and City had no choice though GUNNER if they wanted to break the stranglhold Utd and Arsenal had up to 2003 and as I remember at the time everyone was happy to see that, complaining the title race had become boring, with it being a two horse race all the time.
Nowadays there are at least 4 horses running
Keegan apart, where they got lucky, I don't accept that they were cheap buys. I grew up accepting that the next big thing to come through the ranks at lesser clubs would be cherrypicked by Liverpool for decent money for the time.
What has changed in modern time is that transfer fees have risen exponentially, even taking into account inflation and that all started before Chelsea and City joined the rich list!
What has changed in modern time is that transfer fees have risen exponentially, even taking into account inflation and that all started before Chelsea and City joined the rich list!
----------------------------
Exactly
BrummieBlue
Dyson, Henry, Baker and Allen were all freebies or very little. Norman and Smith did not come for a lot, agreed players like Blanchflower and Jones were not cheap for the era, but pound for pound no way can you compare how much spurs spent to assemble their double team to the amount Chelsea spent and are still spending to maintain their place at the top table.
You're Right. Spurs couldn't remain Winners
Least you Still have your Rattle and you're now in Long Pants
You also omitted to mention MacKay, and then if I'm not mistaken were the 1st club to pay £100,000 (bar a pound) for Jimmy Greaves.
Not forgetting the spree you went on in the 80s/90s on players such as Gazza, Wadle, Lineker, Klinsman, Archibald, Crooks, Ardiles, Villa, Sheringham, Anderton etc, etc and formed a team that couldn't beat Chelsea for almost 20 years!
Please don't lecture about buying stuff!
BrummieBlue!
You also omitted to mention MacKay, and then if I'm not mistaken were the 1st club to pay £100,000 (bar a pound) for Jimmy Greaves.
For somebody who supposedly is an old time supporter, you should know that Jimmy Greaves was not playing for Spurs during the double season he was playing for Chelsea, Mackay cost money agreed, nowhere near a record fee for the time though.
You are living in complete denial if you think the clubs of yesteryear spent anything like Chelsea, City and United are spending these days in the pursuit of success. All spending obscene amounts year on year.
I have no wish to engage in any sort of argument with you Brummie, but you seem to be in a bubble of denial that money has in anyway contributed to the success of Chelsea, and are trying to equate the spending of clubs over 50 years ago to the absolute spend fests that go on in the modern game.
BrummieBlue!
Not forgetting the spree you went on in the 80s/90s on players such as Gazza, Wadle, Lineker, Klinsman, Archibald, Crooks, Ardiles, Villa, Sheringham, Anderton etc, etc and formed a team that couldn't beat Chelsea for almost 20 years!
Not sure where you were in the 1980s Brummie, but I think you will find Chelsea only beat Spurs three times between 1980 and 1990. You need to brush up a bit on your facts, instead of wild guesses.
We probably only played each other three times in the 80s - went a bit pear shaped for you after that though didn't it
If you read again I never tied anything down to specifis dates but generally refering to your spending.
Once again you still can't seem to differentiate the difference between level of spending from those days and now. Suffice to say at the time you were spending more than the average club - end of story.
Chelsea were in those days doing it the right way as you would describe it, with probably one of the best youth teams of recent years, producing the likes of Greaves (yes I know you didn't sign him until after the double - but you still broke record ground with his signing - I never said otherwise), Venables, Bridges, Harris, Bonetti, Osgood, Cooke and Hollins.
However that's all by the by, perhaps you would rather have a league table were the teams are placed in order of highest income - that way we can dispense with all the football and give the title to Man Yoonited every season!
Brummie, did Spurs outspend their rivials to such an extent as Chelsea, City and United are now, the answer is no.
United, Wolves, Burnley, Ipswich, Liverpool, Everton all won the title during the times you reckon Spurs were spending lots of money. Absolutely no way comparable to Chelsea and City blowing all opposition out of the water with their spending sprees.
Lets put it another way then, even in 62 Eddie McReadie was one of Chelseas biggest signing at £5,000 - four times less than some of those players you claimed were signed for "very little" in the late 50s.
Would you have won the league in those years without all that investment - probably not!
No one is claiming it is like the astronomical prices that are being paid today but it's all relative to the time - and you spent big at the time and won the league, others didn't and failed to. It's not a science!
Inflation in football has grown at about 1000 times the normal rate, that's a very rough estimate but still gets the point across. For instance, £5000 in 1962 would not equate to say £30m today, would it? even with inflation factored in. Not taking sides though, just throwing that in there.
Sign in if you want to comment
Are chelsea buying the league?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 21/8/15
Rodgers has spent over £280million at Liverpool and won......
posted on 21/8/15
comment by ＴＬＬＬ ★ (U4640)
posted 4 minutes ago
Rodgers has spent over £280million at Liverpooland won......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh was it Rodgers who was that everyone was trying to buy the league
posted on 21/8/15
£280million = 0 trophies
Can't even buy a trophy
posted on 21/8/15
Im sure we have plenty of trophies
posted on 21/8/15
OP
Chelsea have been buying trophies for the last 10 years, what's new. They are a lottery club winner.
posted on 21/8/15
Spurs only use Homegrown
posted on 21/8/15
spurs managed to spend their only lottery win and go backwards
posted on 21/8/15
please see above article!
you are one of the ballbags i am talking about
posted on 21/8/15
comment by helvellyn spur (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
OP
Chelsea have been buying trophies for the last 10 years, what's new. They are a lottery club winner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't realise there was a club lottery, sounds interesting.
Spurs have shelled out 100's of millions of players and can't even manage a top four place apart from once every blue moon.
posted on 21/8/15
* on players
posted on 21/8/15
Levy has had more Managers than Roman
posted on 21/8/15
As much as the next club try to yes. As much as United, Liverpool and Arsenal have in the past - Spurs double winning side didn't come cheap at the time despite what a certain Spurs fan will try and have you believe.
Worked amazing well for Blackburn as well - but as a small family Lancashire club on one seemed to mind!
Nature of the beast, especially nowadays!
posted on 21/8/15
What has changed Brummie is the lack of anybody coming through the ranks at Chelsea and City, the top 2 clubs. Teams that had success in the past had those eg Utd in the 90's or cheap buys, who became superstars eg Keegan and Clemence at Liverpool. I guess it is because their owners demand success immediately...
Of course I am glad Spurs cannot get in the Champions League, but their wage bill is a fraction of Arsenal and Chelsea. There is no way they should be expected to finish top 4. I have no idea why anyone thinks they should.
posted on 21/8/15
Chelsea and City had no choice though GUNNER if they wanted to break the stranglhold Utd and Arsenal had up to 2003 and as I remember at the time everyone was happy to see that, complaining the title race had become boring, with it being a two horse race all the time.
Nowadays there are at least 4 horses running
Keegan apart, where they got lucky, I don't accept that they were cheap buys. I grew up accepting that the next big thing to come through the ranks at lesser clubs would be cherrypicked by Liverpool for decent money for the time.
What has changed in modern time is that transfer fees have risen exponentially, even taking into account inflation and that all started before Chelsea and City joined the rich list!
posted on 21/8/15
What has changed in modern time is that transfer fees have risen exponentially, even taking into account inflation and that all started before Chelsea and City joined the rich list!
----------------------------
Exactly
posted on 21/8/15
BrummieBlue
Dyson, Henry, Baker and Allen were all freebies or very little. Norman and Smith did not come for a lot, agreed players like Blanchflower and Jones were not cheap for the era, but pound for pound no way can you compare how much spurs spent to assemble their double team to the amount Chelsea spent and are still spending to maintain their place at the top table.
posted on 21/8/15
You're Right. Spurs couldn't remain Winners
posted on 21/8/15
Least you Still have your Rattle and you're now in Long Pants
posted on 21/8/15
You also omitted to mention MacKay, and then if I'm not mistaken were the 1st club to pay £100,000 (bar a pound) for Jimmy Greaves.
Not forgetting the spree you went on in the 80s/90s on players such as Gazza, Wadle, Lineker, Klinsman, Archibald, Crooks, Ardiles, Villa, Sheringham, Anderton etc, etc and formed a team that couldn't beat Chelsea for almost 20 years!
Please don't lecture about buying stuff!
posted on 21/8/15
BrummieBlue!
You also omitted to mention MacKay, and then if I'm not mistaken were the 1st club to pay £100,000 (bar a pound) for Jimmy Greaves.
For somebody who supposedly is an old time supporter, you should know that Jimmy Greaves was not playing for Spurs during the double season he was playing for Chelsea, Mackay cost money agreed, nowhere near a record fee for the time though.
You are living in complete denial if you think the clubs of yesteryear spent anything like Chelsea, City and United are spending these days in the pursuit of success. All spending obscene amounts year on year.
I have no wish to engage in any sort of argument with you Brummie, but you seem to be in a bubble of denial that money has in anyway contributed to the success of Chelsea, and are trying to equate the spending of clubs over 50 years ago to the absolute spend fests that go on in the modern game.
posted on 21/8/15
BrummieBlue!
Not forgetting the spree you went on in the 80s/90s on players such as Gazza, Wadle, Lineker, Klinsman, Archibald, Crooks, Ardiles, Villa, Sheringham, Anderton etc, etc and formed a team that couldn't beat Chelsea for almost 20 years!
Not sure where you were in the 1980s Brummie, but I think you will find Chelsea only beat Spurs three times between 1980 and 1990. You need to brush up a bit on your facts, instead of wild guesses.
posted on 21/8/15
We probably only played each other three times in the 80s - went a bit pear shaped for you after that though didn't it
If you read again I never tied anything down to specifis dates but generally refering to your spending.
Once again you still can't seem to differentiate the difference between level of spending from those days and now. Suffice to say at the time you were spending more than the average club - end of story.
Chelsea were in those days doing it the right way as you would describe it, with probably one of the best youth teams of recent years, producing the likes of Greaves (yes I know you didn't sign him until after the double - but you still broke record ground with his signing - I never said otherwise), Venables, Bridges, Harris, Bonetti, Osgood, Cooke and Hollins.
However that's all by the by, perhaps you would rather have a league table were the teams are placed in order of highest income - that way we can dispense with all the football and give the title to Man Yoonited every season!
posted on 21/8/15
Brummie, did Spurs outspend their rivials to such an extent as Chelsea, City and United are now, the answer is no.
United, Wolves, Burnley, Ipswich, Liverpool, Everton all won the title during the times you reckon Spurs were spending lots of money. Absolutely no way comparable to Chelsea and City blowing all opposition out of the water with their spending sprees.
posted on 22/8/15
Lets put it another way then, even in 62 Eddie McReadie was one of Chelseas biggest signing at £5,000 - four times less than some of those players you claimed were signed for "very little" in the late 50s.
Would you have won the league in those years without all that investment - probably not!
No one is claiming it is like the astronomical prices that are being paid today but it's all relative to the time - and you spent big at the time and won the league, others didn't and failed to. It's not a science!
posted on 22/8/15
Inflation in football has grown at about 1000 times the normal rate, that's a very rough estimate but still gets the point across. For instance, £5000 in 1962 would not equate to say £30m today, would it? even with inflation factored in. Not taking sides though, just throwing that in there.
Page 2 of 3