Quote Originally Posted by Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie View Post
And as i've explained they haven't needed to, and FFP? Get real since when has that proved in anyway effective.

Chelsea spent almost 120 million in transfers fees in the summer, and that has only been lessened by selling Oscar to China for 50m....a player who was hardly playing

The Inflation of transfers from outside into the premier league because of the TV money, means that where spending 80-100m could get you 2-3 world class players, you are having to spend 150-180million.

Now without question Man United and Man City will spend that much if they need to, and although i agree that Abramovich is trying to put Chelsea more on a path to self-sustainability....if he thought they were in danger of being left behind by those two clubs that'd all go out the window.
This is false information. From what I'm looking at, Chelsea spent £112m if we want to ignore the players they sold. Include the players they sold, it's £28m spent in total. We spent £90m and had just over £6m from transfer income.

Since our sponsorship deals, Chelsea have not had their expenditure rise above £120m in the window. Arsenal - the most for us is just over £100m. That's not a huge difference. If we're able to spend that much in a window, it doesn't mean we can't afford World Class players, it just means it will take a couple seasons for us to build a team where others like City can get all their players in over one summer instead of two. And that fast turn around doesn't result in instant success....as we are seeing with Pep and Jose.

I'm getting all my info from here. The info you're putting out is false.

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premi...ntern=0#to-631

That ridiculous fee Man Utd paid for Pogba and the crazy money banded around for strikers shouldn't be viewed as the standard. If we'd have picked up Kante, Gabriel Jesus and Mkhitaryan that's under £100m spent.