Match Reaction vs Bayern Munich (home)

[Letters]

It's worth noting that Chelsea have about a billion players out on loan to clubs who aren't rivals, City's owners bought a whole new club to stockpile players

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

However i'd also add as a caveat that even with the stockpiling of players that their wage bill isn't significantly larger than ours (these non rival clubs won't be paying the wages of these players)

That's on Wenger, he hasn't learn his lesson from putting Denilson and Bendtner on 50k a week

[Letters]

Denilllll......son!

[Power n Glory]

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.

[Penguin]

We do have money but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking we can compete with City, Chelsea or United financially. We probably have enough in the bank to go all out in the market but don't forget that a lot of that money is only there because we've been careful with our spending. We can't afford to waste that on £50m dud signings like Torres, whereas the other three can easily shrug it off and spend another £100m in the next window. That's the difference.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Sorry £113 million, obviously i'm wildly distorting (False information ha ha)

Chelsea have spent 300 million in transfers in the past three seasons, they have recouped more by getting rid of players they didn't need

But again you miss my point, whether you want to accept it or not the tv money has inflated the value of players we'd look to bring in from abroad. This is why we had to pay over 70million just for Mustafi and Xhaka, why Leroy Sane cost Man City over 40 million etc.

A Griezmann a year or so ago would cost about 40 million, now it's between 60-70 million.

Now will Chelsea spend 180million a year every year? No because they won't need to because they have the most settled squad at the moment, but the idea that they couldn't is absurd.

City and United are no where near where they want to be so they will continue spending in the 150million+ bracket until it works for them

We cannot spend that much

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

We do have money but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking we can compete with City, Chelsea or United financially. We probably have enough in the bank to go all out in the market but don't forget that a lot of that money is only there because we've been careful with our spending. We can't afford to waste that on £50m dud signings like Torres, whereas the other three can easily shrug it off and spend another £100m in the next window. That's the difference.

We can go all out on one player but this is not something we could do continually as and when we need to, Chelsea/City and United can that's the point i'm making

It's not papering over the myriad failures of Wenger, it's an acceptance that 90% of the time the title winner will most likely be Chelsea, City or United (or the way it has been for over a decade)

[Letters]

Why are we talking about money anyway? We're struggling to compete with Spurs.
There was a time when money was a factor in why we weren't competing, it's not a factor now.

[Power n Glory]

We do have money but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking we can compete with City, Chelsea or United financially. We probably have enough in the bank to go all out in the market but don't forget that a lot of that money is only there because we've been careful with our spending. We can't afford to waste that on £50m dud signings like Torres, whereas the other three can easily shrug it off and spend another £100m in the next window. That's the difference.

The £100m we can afford to spend each season is from what we generate from the stadium, sponsorship deals and TV money I suspect. I don't think any of the money spent has come from us having to dip into the money we have in the bank. What is it? £200m?

We can't compete with those clubs when it comes to the quantity of players and can't afford to stockpile players. I think Chelsea have learned from that episode and City may follow considering how things are going for them.

With the money we generate, we should be able to match them 11 v 11. That Chelsea team top of the table aren't that better than us man for man either and that was the consensus earlier in the season.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Why are we talking about money anyway? We're struggling to compete with Spurs.
There was a time when money was a factor in why we weren't competing, it's not a factor now.

Sigh.....it's simply to clarify to people that even when we get rid of Wenger we won't be going toe to toe with Chelsea, City and United every season

People here seem to think it's a be careful what you wish for argument, it's a "he's got to go but don't expect miracles" argument