1. So CC - IF Romans net spend and JWH net spent are similar - how did Chelsea a club that had 1 (count it) title to its name in its entire history - go on to eclipse United and become the dominant side taking 5 League titles and 2 European cups - that's 7 major title out the clubs 7 in it's history. What was it that allowed this to happen. Were United suddenly shite? Did Chelsea have the best managers on the planet? OR did they not spend a shite load up front to get them into the top teir and put a top manager in place - then buy and buy and buy - and win and win and win - until they could fleece other teams and make their net spend look great...?
2. The talk about Real is another convo which goes in circles because you will not accept the facts.
3. Real ARE operating on a completely different playing field. One built through being the most successful club in Europe for decades. The most coveted club to play for - for many players, But also one more recently built on the glamour template that followed the Galactico era.. And era which wasn't - relatively speaking - the most successful on the pitch but which awoken the sleeping giant.
https://theterraceapparel.com/the-edit/sporting-icons-the-real-madrid-galacticos-that-revolutionised-football-in-the-early-2000s/#:~:text=The%20Gal%C3%A1cticos%20were%20not%20just ,UEFA%20Champions%20League%20in%202002.
In general the clubs that had huge net spends were the clubs that got to the top. See Chesl;ea - City - Real. A low net spend is rarely getting anyone to the top from a lowly position - and IF it does and it continues that club will very soon be lowly again.
4. @CC come on fella - if you don’t know that the EU & NATO are both completely controlled from Washington - you really do need a few lessons in geopolitics.
Bookmarks