Are chelsea buying the league?

We probably only played each other three times in the 80s - went a bit pear shaped for you after that though didn't it

If you read again I never tied anything down to specifis dates but generally refering to your spending.

Once again you still can't seem to differentiate the difference between level of spending from those days and now. Suffice to say at the time you were spending more than the average club - end of story.

Chelsea were in those days doing it the right way as you would describe it, with probably one of the best youth teams of recent years, producing the likes of Greaves (yes I know you didn't sign him until after the double - but you still broke record ground with his signing - I never said otherwise), Venables, Bridges, Harris, Bonetti, Osgood, Cooke and Hollins.

However that's all by the by, perhaps you would rather have a league table were the teams are placed in order of highest income - that way we can dispense with all the football and give the title to Man Yoonited every season!

Brummie, did Spurs outspend their rivials to such an extent as Chelsea, City and United are now, the answer is no.

United, Wolves, Burnley, Ipswich, Liverpool, Everton all won the title during the times you reckon Spurs were spending lots of money. Absolutely no way comparable to Chelsea and City blowing all opposition out of the water with their spending sprees.

Lets put it another way then, even in 62 Eddie McReadie was one of Chelseas biggest signing at £5,000 - four times less than some of those players you claimed were signed for "very little" in the late 50s.

Would you have won the league in those years without all that investment - probably not!

No one is claiming it is like the astronomical prices that are being paid today but it's all relative to the time - and you spent big at the time and won the league, others didn't and failed to. It's not a science!

Inflation in football has grown at about 1000 times the normal rate, that's a very rough estimate but still gets the point across. For instance, £5000 in 1962 would not equate to say £30m today, would it? even with inflation factored in. Not taking sides though, just throwing that in there.

Sandy misses Powdered Egg

comment by Mamba Number 5 (U1282) (U13041) posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago

Inflation in football has grown at about 1000 times the normal rate, that's a very rough estimate but still gets the point across. For instance, £5000 in 1962 would not equate to say £30m today, would it? even with inflation factored in. Not taking sides though, just throwing that in there.

-------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly correct and the point Sandy is missing and the point I'm trying to get across - the players he is saying cost very little, is true at todays prices but not at the fees of the late 50s

Brummie, sorry mate, but teams like Chelsea are spending £25 million on players and then not even playing them, and even loaning them out. When teams supposedly spent big years back, they were all first team regulars and most become legends at the club. The modern day big hitters just spend, spend, spend for the sake of it.


£5,000 in 1962 would in no way equate to £30 million today, £5,000 would probably equate to a million at most.

£5,000 in 1962 would in no way equate to £30 million today, £5,000 would probably equate to a million at most.

-----------------------------------------------------

That's what I said

Where is Adebayor btw

I think the point is whether Spurs spent loads more than the other big teams at the time like City and Chelsea have at times recently. No one is denying they spent money, but whether it was more than every other club or massively so I have not seen or remember any evidence of it. Funnily Everton in the 60's up to about 1970 were known as the Bank of England club and not Spurs or Liverpool.