Mourinho accuses Chelsea’s rivals of ‘buying’ the Premier League title

SteveH

BSoDL candidate for SW London
Joined
Jul 21, 2003
Messages
7,518
#22
we have 'bought 5th place' already - so it's a start

Arsenal deserve the title 'when you compare them to the others'.

Liverpool are trying to rent the title!
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
18,568
#24
Who was the last side to win the title without "buying it"? Leeds? The United side with all the kids in it?
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,618
#26
Who was the last side to win the title without "buying it"? Leeds? The United side with all the kids in it?
You seem to be slightly missing the point.

When Spurs were one of the richest clubs in the country it was because they were one of the most attractive and popular clubs in the country. Their ability to buy the best players depended on their being very, very good at providing entertaining, quality football. That sort of "buying the title" (which we were never that good at, actually!) is quite different from buying it with money that some mega-wealthy oil or gas thief decides to channel through some random football club.

When Manu or Arsenal won the title, though it hurts me to say it, they did it within the context of the sport. ManCity and Chelsea didn't, they simply bought it, and there's a fundamental difference there.
 

Japhet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2010
Messages
6,761
#30
Gotta love him really. Drops a grenade and sits back to watch the chaos that ensues. He knows how to entertain himself.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
18,568
#31
You seem to be slightly missing the point.

When Spurs were one of the richest clubs in the country it was because they were one of the most attractive and popular clubs in the country. Their ability to buy the best players depended on their being very, very good at providing entertaining, quality football. That sort of "buying the title" (which we were never that good at, actually!) is quite different from buying it with money that some mega-wealthy oil or gas thief decides to channel through some random football club.

When Manu or Arsenal won the title, though it hurts me to say it, they did it within the context of the sport. ManCity and Chelsea didn't, they simply bought it, and there's a fundamental difference there.
I don't think I'm missing the point, we seem to be getting at the same thing if anything. The last time the league was won by someone other than United, City, or Chelsea was 2002. Personally I don't see much difference between United with their £350M debt and City and Chelsea.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,618
#32
I don't think I'm missing the point, we seem to be getting at the same thing if anything. The last time the league was won by someone other than United, City, or Chelsea was 2002. Personally I don't see much difference between United with their £350M debt and City and Chelsea.
In this context there's a vast difference between Utd on the one hand and City and Chelsea on the other.

The debt that Manu had foisted on them was an acquistion manoeuvre by commercially-driven buyers that was only possible because of the existing value of the club. And if anything, it had a negative effect on their ability to spend money because, unlike City and Chelsea, it was genuine commercial debt that needed servicing. Usually, if you borrow, you get cash in return. All Utd got was new owners who wanted their acquisition costs returned. None of the money involved benefitted the club, only the owners. The direct opposite of Chelsea and Man City in fact.

City and Chelsea, however, had money thrown at them that they were free to spend on players, and literally as much as they liked, regardless of any financial return.

It was and still is the grossest distortion of any sort in the league, and no one else comes close, or ever has. Even Blackburn Rovers under Jack Walker, a similar thing admittedly, was small by comparison, and mercifully short-lived. And at least he'd been a supporter so could claim some connection with the club, not that that matters really, but it's better than the random hoisting of a badly-run shambles of a mediocre club to the highest levels.

Why they should be admired by anyone rather than despised genuinely baffles me.
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
4,611
#33
The best way to deal with mourinho is to simply ignore him. We all know he says these things to rattle his peers and take pressure off himself and his team. However I do enjoy it when he winds up Wenger, such an easy target too!
 

jurgen

Busy ****
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
4,490
#34
Infographic is wrong..... Brendan Rodgers has spent £289,050,000 in 3 years, he should be 8th.

..... Edit, no it isn't, it says TOP coaches. My bad
Mental amount of money.. as an average that puts him top doesn't it? £289m = 405.5m euros = 135m euros a season compared to Mourinho's 90.3m euros a season over 10 years. Smaller sample size of course, but that is crazy!
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
164
#35
no it's not. mourinho's net spending is probably close to that 90m while roger's net is anywhere near 135m. if a club spends 150m on incoming transfers but sells 150m worth of talent. you can't use the expenditures to beat the manager over the head with that club is going to get worse or at best stay the same as the previous season. liverpool has a talent identification problem and that's not only on rogers since they have some transfer committee.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Flaccid Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
3,618
#36
Once you can afford to out-spend any other club around, as Chelsea have been able to do for a decade now, you can buy certifiably good players rather than be forced to gamble as clubs with less money have to.

This means that the net spend over time can be reduced because you can sell those expensive players for good fees, replace them with new players on similar fees but higher wages, and keep journos in misleading financial stats for seasons to come.

Yet another reason why net spend on transfer fees is not a good indicator of anything really.
 

Danners9

Important First Team Player
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
12,266
#37
Sky just flashed up a graphic showing Chelsea have spent more than 100m more than Arsenal but, with the sales, Chelsea have a lower net spend.

If you took away the alarming and slightly suspicious fee for Luiz it would be a different story.

 

yawa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
10,836
#39
I think it's brilliant. Top mind games and you can tell its rubbed people up the wrong way and probably achieved exactly what he wanted. So fair play to him.
 
Top