Thats a good point Reverand, so Spurs have won how many this season with Kaboul?

What about Arsenal? If this Vermaelen is oh so good

Ramsey - would you care to address why Arsenal are behind Spurs despite...

1. Spending more on transfers.
2. Spending more on wages.
3. Having this Walcott player you claim to be so good
4. Having a manager in the top 6 managerial earners in football.

Or would you care to shout a bit more and talk about lemons

Fine then Ramsey, lets compare the teams of last weekend then. Gallas cost us 0 in replace of King. Defoe cost 12 which was 4 mil more.

Dumbasssss.

Comment deleted by Article Creator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Mix and match

To avoid that kind allegation I opted for the very last side AW picked

Would you like me to include Arshavin who starts reguarly? Unlike say, Bentley..

I can confirm I have already done the calculations, including Defoe instead of VDV. The Arsenal side still cost over 18 million more.

It was a myth that Spurs spend more than Arsenal. It is debunked Now start shouting again

'do we really spend more on wages? really? i dont think so.'

Financial company Deloitte don't agree with you. But I'm sure you know more than some of the smartest people in football market analysis

Arsenal announced the rise themselves

What a fool.

'we are behind you in the league becausewe signed or players late. all our bad form was before we signed them.'

Indeed, you are not as good as Spurs

'we will easily be above the sp uds by the end of the season..'

Big talk

spurs do spend more than arsenal.just because they're rubbish doesn't mean you didn't buy them. e.g 16 million for bentley.

Chamberlain 12 m

Arshavin 16 m +

Squillaci 6.5 m

Chamakh 10 m

Nice one for biting Rev

chaimberlain is 18 and is already better than lemon

arshavin scored 4 against liverpool. has vdv or modric or bale odne that?

squillachi had dzeko in his pocket. did king?

chamakh scored 10 goals in his first 17 appearances. almost as prolific as crouch........

at you.

erm... chamakh was free... you'll find crouch was the one who cost 10m
arshavin single handedly got us top four the season he arrived, so fully worth the 16 million we paid for him imo.

anyway, transfer fees don't really matter, it's the results that count (darren bent 17 million <laugh sorry). looking forward to see how the race for top 4 develops over the season.

Are you suggesting Arshavin is better than VDV, Modric or Bale?

Chamakh 10 million

here you go




Manchester City £537,670,000 £100,550,000 £437,120,000 £87,424,000
2 Chelsea £267,100,000 £122,200,000 £144,900,000 £28,980,000
3 Liverpool £309,540,000 £225,530,000 £84,010,000 £16,802,000
4 Tottenham £238,300,000 £162,100,000 £76,200,000 £15,240,000
5 Aston Villa £168,550,000 £100,400,000 £68,150,000 £13,630,000
6 Sunderland £146,900,000 £84,225,000 £62,675,000 £12,535,000
7 Stoke City £72,725,000 £11,520,000 £61,205,000 £12,241,000
8 Manchester United £217,200,000 £160,350,000 £56,850,000 £11,370,000
9 Fulham £76,975,000 £30,075,000 £46,900,000 £9,380,000
10 Bolton £73,150,000 £34,150,000 £39,000,000 £7,800,000
11 Wolves £45,525,000 £9,225,000 £36,300,000 £7,260,000
12 QPR £25,000,000 £2,050,000 £22,950,000 £4,590,000
15 West Bromwich Albion £51,085,000 £41,360,000 £9,725,000 £1,945,000
14 Swansea £12,355,000 £6,860,000 £5,495,000 £1,099,000
15 Everton £64,750,500 £63,750,000 £1,000,500 £200,100
16 Norwich City £7,475,000 £9,500,000 -£2,025,000 -£405,000
17 Wigan £63,500,000 £70,000,000 -£6,500,000 -£1,300,000
18 Blackburn Rovers £36,852,000 £65,690,000 -£28,838,000 -£5,767,600
19 Newcastle £93,100,000 £122,450,000 -£29,350,000 -£5,870,000
20 Arsenal £85,150,000 £116,500,000 -£31,350,000 -£6,270,000

wait that came out wrong.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/2006-2011.html

just go on that!!
proved you wrong. havnt i?

You silly boy

Look at the table again, unless you think Aston Villa have spent more than Manchester United

What the table illustrates clearly above all else, is that Arsenal are leagues biggest selling club

what are you on about? go on that link. it shows spurs the 4th highest transfer loss in the last 5 years. arsenal the least.

This is like watching two pensioners go at each other.

what it proves is that you are wrong. now stop embarresing yourself.

Stoke and Villa have spent more than Utd

What is an Arsenal?

Yes, transfer 'loss', what does that mean? That Arsenal are a selling club

What the table illustrates clearly above all else, is that Arsenal are leagues biggest selling club
===
so basically your first point about arsenal spending more than spurs went down the toilet, so you move onto this? at least aspire to be a good wum

Touché.