Quote:
Originally Posted by sherer
didn't it take Chelsea 2-3 years to win the title even after Roman came in. First they had Ranieri and then he left before they bough in Jose. It's not just the money but also down to the manager too, although without both I don't think it is possible to win the title anymore.
I think what TheDaddy is trying to say that it doesn't really matter, from his point of view, where the money comes from the fact is we have used that to further our success
|
Thats another thing people seem to forget. It could also be argued that arguably the big name signings have not contributed to title success eg Sheva & Ballack. The manager should definately take credit for a lot of success, but then the Man U fans will say well Jose was bought too.
---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ B
Is it really all that hard to understand? The majority of United’s first time at the moment were bought, no question about that but the money used was earned by the success of yesteryear’s teams! We dominated the 90s, this was due to an unbeatable youth policy and players bought at going rates and not (then) hyper-millions, which the few exceptions of Cole and Pallister.
Chelsea's current success is soley down to the Russian appearing from nowhere. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just as long as the fact is acknowledged.
|
No the money used for buying your current squad is got by extending your overdraft. And how much did you pay for Ferdinand and Veron? definately not the going rates at that time.