Liverpool FC Forum

What about Arsenal ?

They used to spend a great deal off money then stopped - once they stopped spending ( when Chelsea arrived ) guess how many titles they have won

0

Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:32 pm wrote:What about Arsenal ?

They used to spend a great deal off money then stopped - once they stopped spending ( when Chelsea arrived ) guess how many titles they have won

0

I haven’t checked the figures but I’m pretty sure Man Utd comfortably outspent Arsenal when it comes to both transfer fees and wages when Arsenal won the title in 1997–98, 2001–02 and 2003–04. In fact, we probably did too.

Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:32 pm wrote:What about Arsenal ?

They used to spend a great deal off money then stopped - once they stopped spending ( when Chelsea arrived ) guess how many titles they have won

0

Abramovich and his money arrived in 2003 and they have won three titles since then. Is that really enough for £800m. Have City achieved enough with a £500m spend? Of course the money is important but it is not the only thing that matters. Take a look at where Real Madrid are in La Liga. If you want a soulless win at any cost football club then lets prostitute ourselves to some obscenely rich arab who needs a new plaything. Sorry that is not for me.

Arsenal spent more in 1997-1998

Man united spent alot more in 2001-2002

Chelsea spent alot alot more in 2003 - 2004

How the fk can 71% say no when only a few years ago everyone was praying for DIC and Sheikh Mohammed to buy us.

Let me ask you another question. If success on the pitch was the aim would you prefer the current owners or a Middle Eastern group?

Eagle » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:49 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:32 pm wrote:What about Arsenal ?

They used to spend a great deal off money then stopped - once they stopped spending ( when Chelsea arrived ) guess how many titles they have won

0

I haven’t checked the figures but I’m pretty sure Man Utd comfortably outspent Arsenal when it comes to both transfer fees and wages when Arsenal won the title in 1997–98, 2001–02 and 2003–04. In fact, we probably did too.

And in 91 we were winning the league - the fact people have to go back over a decade shows the point quite well.

Arsenal still spent money but how many titles have they won since Abramovich went mad - none

devaney » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:01 pm wrote:

Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:32 pm wrote:What about Arsenal ?

They used to spend a great deal off money then stopped - once they stopped spending ( when Chelsea arrived ) guess how many titles they have won

0

Abramovich and his money arrived in 2003 and they have won three titles since then. Is that really enough for £800m. Have City achieved enough with a £500m spend? Of course the money is important but it is not the only thing that matters. Take a look at where Real Madrid are in La Liga. If you want a soulless win at any cost football club then lets prostitute ourselves to some obscenely rich arab who needs a new plaything. Sorry that is not for me.

The fact they haven't win enough for their money wasnt the debate

How many titles would either of Chelsea or City won without the billions ? - Answer is none.

It's a simple fact that you need rich benefactors to win the prem - people willing to bankroll big purchases and big wages.

It's proven so over the last decade.

We won't ever win the league or anyone else for that matter without one.

Money wins titles. Money buys the best players. It's quite a simple fact.

tubby » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:32 pm wrote:How the fk can 71% say no when only a few years ago everyone was praying for DIC and Sheikh Mohammed to buy us.

Let me ask you another question. If success on the pitch was the aim would you prefer the current owners or a Middle Eastern group?

Whoever was willing to fund the player purchases to buy the best players to achieve success - that's not FSG

you can win the league by not spending big but it takes some doing.
people forget that we spent big in the past, for instance the deal to bring graeme souness to anfield was a record fee for a transfer between 2 english clubs and that was only a couple of months after breaking the british record signing kenny dalglish.
a year or so after that we broke the world transfer record for a under 21 player when we signed ian rush and a year or so later we signed mark lawrenson for another record fee as well.
in other words we just signed all the best up and coming players in the country.
if you used this modern era as a comparison we would be signing the likes of bale and wilshire, thats how we worked in the late 70`s/80`s.

In 2009 we came second and really should have won the league. That year our biggest transfer fee was 19 million pund Robbie Keane and sold him months late for 12 million.

Chelsea Paid 16 million pounds on Bosingwa finished

Man city paid over 30 million for Robinho along with many other huge fees and finished 10th

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:20 pm wrote:you can win the league by not spending big but it takes some doing.
people forget that we spent big in the past, for instance the deal to bring graeme souness to anfield was a record fee for a transfer between 2 english clubs and that was only a couple of months after breaking the british record signing kenny dalglish.
a year or so after that we broke the world transfer record for a under 21 player when we signed ian rush and a year or so later we signed mark lawrenson for another record fee as well.
in other words we just signed all the best up and coming players in the country.
if you used this modern era as a comparison we would be signing the likes of bale and wilshire, thats how we worked in the late 70`s/80`s.

You can't win the league without spending big.

It's not the 70s or 80s anymore - the game is vastly different

LFC1990 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:23 pm wrote:In 2009 we came second and really should have won the league. That year our biggest transfer fee was 19 million pund Robbie Keane and sold him months late for 12 million.

Chelsea Paid 16 million pounds on Bosingwa finished

Man city paid over 30 million for Robinho along with many other huge fees and finished 10th

But we didnt win the league

And pointing out single failures of player purchases doesn't really prove anything

Chelsea also spent £20 plus mil on Drogba and won three titles and a CL

City spend millions on players like Tevez , Aguero , Toure , Silva and won the league

Utd spent £24 mil on a 29 years old and will win the league

You only have to look on the faces of the fans when Aguero scored to see they didnt give a Sh*t when the money came from - they won the title

Yes the Tupperware fans are like that...

If we bought top class players and challenged for the title and won them to knock the scum back down 99.9% of fans wouldn't give two shits how that happened.

FFS we spent years being backed by rich benefactors including Littlewoods money buying all the top players in both the 70's and 80's.

Benny The Noon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:27 pm wrote:

LFC1990 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:23 pm wrote:In 2009 we came second and really should have won the league. That year our biggest transfer fee was 19 million pund Robbie Keane and sold him months late for 12 million.

Chelsea Paid 16 million pounds on Bosingwa finished

Man city paid over 30 million for Robinho along with many other huge fees and finished 10th

But we didnt win the league

And pointing out single failures of player purchases doesn't really prove anything

Chelsea also spent £20 plus mil on Drogba and won three titles and a CL

City spend millions on players like Tevez , Aguero , Toure , Silva and won the league

Utd spent £24 mil on a 29 years old and will win the league

Your missing the point.

City spent more than United that year and never won the league. Infact they have pretty much spent more than everyone else in recent years and won the league once and have qualified for the champions league twice since being bankrolled.

Look at Chelsea finished 5th last year behind the likes of Arsenal and Tottenham.

Tottenhams biggest aquasition was the 5.5 million pound Scott parker.
Chelsea paid 23 million for Mata