Maureen's been over dosing on the cockmuncher pills again, I see.

[7evens]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/jose-mourinho-ja bs-arsene-wenger-6148895 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/jose-mourinho-jabs-arsene-wenger-6148895)

Chelsea spending.
2014 - 82.6m
2013 - 136m
2012 - 54.5m
2011 - 91.5m
Total - 364m

Arsenal spending
2014 - 102m
2013 - 42.5m
2012 - 47.5m
2011 - 45.2m
Total - 237m

Minor issue of individual wages of top earners ?
What planet is he on :hehe:

[Berni]

argument. He knows very well that argument doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever, but he also knows that football writers currently have nothing concrete to write about, so they will run with his absurd angle on the story because a 'Mourinho/Wenger spat' - however artificial and spurious - fills column inches.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

But maybe that does not suit the media narrative before an Arsenal v Chelsea game.

Thing is we are big spenders, so he is right. Not as big as others of course but there is always bigger boys than you. Difference being, if you want a difference so you can claim the moral high ground, that we have earned the right or ability to spend big by the way in which the club ran it's business for 10 or whatever years.

[Monty91]

level the playing field. Chelsea are still enjoying the fruits of their decade of lavish - often unlimited - spending.

[Berni]

Indeed, it is noticeable on something like Sky Sports that mentioning the fact that Chelsea and City's success is due purely to sudden influxes of petrodollars is absolutely verboten. The clubs have always been discussed as though they competed on a completely level financial playing field. All through the 'x years without a trophy' thing, it was rarely mentioned that Arsenal were at a massive financial disadvantage against their competitors throughout that period. It was simply a narrative no-one wanted to pursue. I guess Sky doesn't ever want to admit to its subscribers that -far from being the romantic struggle it depicts in its marketing - ultimately football is just another money game.

[Monty91]

[Monty91]

[Berni]

piece. Even the thickest Chelsea or Arsenal supporter knows it.

And yet the fact that everyone knows it's nonsense and that no-one actually takes the argument seriously doesn't stop it being reported and discussed. Such is the depressing nature of football reporting. :shrug:

[Luis Anaconda]

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

Chelsea and (possibly to an even greater extent) City both accelerated a "project", to use a very modern footballing term, to become big football clubs. PSG have done it in France.

A lot of people get annoyed about it, personally I could not care less what other clubs spend and how they finance it. The tricky part is having climbed to the top to stay there. Much easier for PSG than the other two given they have no realistic domestic challenge but then they may as well be Celtic in that case until they realistically make a challenge in Europe.

[Berni]

Mind you, given that United is now essentially a black hole of debt, the concept of 'affording' things has become rather relative.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

United's spending last summer was a massive gamble with one aim, to regain their place in the Champions League. Being out for one year is an issue, being out for two could be a 'disaster' in footballing terms.

The gamble worked. The massive sums spent aren't really an issue as they are much bigger than us. They get 75m per year from Adidas alone, there is your Di Maria cost in one swoop.

[Berni]

purely out of interest.

The fact that it doesn't suit Sky Sports' marketing message is just one reason for not addressing the issue.I know there are good editorial reasons why it's not a line anyone wants to follow: 1/ Questions about 'financial doping' have the potential to get into murky moral, ethical, financial and political waters that are not the domain of a sports reporter and b/ most punters just want to talk about players and matches and would find such discussion irrelevant and extremely tedious.

[Monty91]

modern football where someone like Abramovich or Sheikh Mansourcan come in and blow everyone else out the water.

I also don't begrudge these clubs their bought success, since realistically the only chance of them joining the elite was to throw money at it.

Quite simply, I feel privileged and proud to support a club that employs the only manager in the world able to just about keep pace with them despite being at a huge financial disadvantage.

People are only now talking about us as title challengers, but on a couple of occasions during the austerity years I really don't think we were far off at all. That fact alone is outrageously underplayed and had we won the league during this era it would have made Wenger the greatest manager that has ever lived, imo.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

Arguably closer than we ever came in the interim.

[Berni]

underlying value of the club and the brand exceeds that. However, the question is what happens if that debt level keeps growing and the value of the brand starts to decline?

[Monty91]

accumulative efforts in steering us through the stadium move and winning the league during a period of unprecedented spending by other clubs.

I believe Liverpool spent about 100 million in the two years before their ‘nearly’ season.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

Which is fair enough.

Either way it would have been an utterly f**king ridiculous title to have awarded the man.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

There was reported contractual issues regarding loss of sponsorship or commercial income based on a non-qualification for Champions League in successive years.

I don’t know the full extent of their debt but do know it is massive, would probably need a real City type like Ears to fully explain it to me. I assume however it is a manageable structured debt based on pre-defined ‘successes’. It does not appear in any way to be stymying their financial muscle as our debt did us.

Different clubs, different financial models. Good luck to them.

As I mentioned to Monty earlier I genuinely do not care in the slightest if other clubs are massively in debt and sugar-daddied every summer. We have our manager and a fantastic squad of players, the other clubs have their managers and again fantastic squad of players. If our manager suspects an area of weakness in said squad he should address it as we have the money to do so. Then it comes down to September and 11 v 11 etc.

[Luis Anaconda]

the number of times they show Abramovich during a Chelsea game (well one of import) is quite staggering. There is no doubt who they think is the boss of Chelsea. Don't really see our board too often even if Silent Stan is there

[redgunamo]

taking his dog for a walk the other week.

[redgunamo]

actually *have* a billion quid, this is bad management, not good.

I've always found the suggestion enormously disrespectful of Wenger's achievements.

[redgunamo]

and importance of wealth that it now seems dull and somehow unsporting to bang on about it.

This contempt for money is a trick of the rich to keep the poor without it, as the man said.