Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Have to agree with Hangtime there, Leeds bought and bought there way up the league and almost cost them the club.
Chelsea could basically have gotten the titles they got with only 1/4 of the spending, if that, because the base of the squad was there before they started to spend silly money and most of those players Mourinho bought are long gone for normally big losses.
Then again, they were in debt because they'd improved a lot but also spent quite a bit already improving. Utd, Arsenal, Spurs, Villa, Pool, they all spend lots for success, the only difference is Chelsea aren't in debt at the end of it and Arsenal haven't got sucked into paying the 20mil + prices regularly aswell as lower wages and some pretty lucky huge deals, like Petit/Overmars.
City are spending very very big, but no more than Chelsea, however two years before Mourinho took over, the Chelsea team was still fairly similar, the City squad now compared to two years ago is, does Ireland count, was he playing two years ago, thats about it. But then they had a significantly worse squad than the one Chelsea started with, and likely haven't spent any more when you factor in the costs of Gallas, Lampard, Hasselbaink, Cudicini and everyone else who was already there.
Despite not liking their treatment of Hughes who had done a fantastic job, and not being fans of Adebayor, they play good attacking football and thats good for the league so I'm FAR happier they get in 4th and we see them play on tv more often than the dire and boring to watch Liverpool..... Liverpool have been largely boring to watch for 5 years anyway, actually more entertaining to see them lose than win for most fans.
