Yes. Next article please.

Arsenal managed it...

Wait, tell me the Spurs spending of let's say their first team squad.

How much did Bale, VDV, Modric etc. cost?

MUFC are where they are due to their success from over a decade ago, that is what has made them into the biggest club in the world.

"Arsenal managed it..."

That was 8 seasons ago though (can't believe it's been that long). Arsenal have built good teams in recent seasons that can mount a title challenge and Spurs have done the same this season but unless you have big bucks then you will always be remembered as nearly men and not the real deal. Sad but it's true.

Bale £7m
VdV £8m
Modric £16.

Not even enough to buy a Carroll or 2/3 of a Torres. Good business.

Spurs have spent a lot of money, you can't deny that. The difference between Spurs and the likes of United, City, etc is that they pay absolutely nowhere near in wages. They don't even have any good youngsters coming through because the likes of Manc clubs, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool offer them far more money.

How much did Veron cost or Berbatov or Carrick or well I could go on.....Man U bought the league before City even thought of it

Spurs have spent a lot of money but also made a lot of money from selling players. Good business.

I cant put Man Utd in the same group as City and Chelsea. Manu earned their money by winning things and then investing it again much the way us and arsenal have done over the years. Chelsea have bought tittles as have blackburn and city will do soon.

I still think the league can be won without buying half a team every year.

Spurs will never win the league as they are inferior to Man Utd and they accept it, they are happy to beat 80% of teams and think doing ok is successful. I dont like Spurs but I am not wumming here I believe the Spurs we are seeing now is the best team Spurs have had in years but I cant see Harry or a few of the big players staying there

^ what have spurs won?

That was 8 seasons ago though (can't believe it's been that long).

-----

Jeez, time does fly. And i guess the times have changed since those days. Clubs like City and Chelsea have a clear advantage over everybody else. Frankly its unfair that they should be able to do what they've done to date, ie totally distorting the transfer market with their crazy spending, blowing everybody else out of the water.

Here's to hoping that the FPP rules have teeth, but i'll remain sceptical for now. Money talks

You can't deny a club like United the right to spend when their success earns it, they are self sufficient.

The artificial injection of cash into clubs makes it extremely hard not only to compete in the league but also in the transfer market. The best players hold out for offers which are wholly unrealistic for a sustainable club unless you're as successful as United have been.

Hopefully City's bubble will burst like Chelsea's has done, and/or they'll fall foul of the financial fair play rules. Whatever happens we need to get a new stadium - and fast - or face falling further behind the oil barons with every passing season

Bale's left boot, new stadiums aren't all they are cracked up to be...

Moan moan moan maybe you would do better if you didn't roll over for man u twice a season an Chelsea too.

Batmanu

Maybe if the management spent some of the revenue it generated you'd be singing a different tune..?

Short of playing all our friendlies in Qatar and selling the naming rights of our stadium to a sports chain we have to do something in the next few years to keep up financially.

The Adventures Of Batmanu Eboué & R...

Spurs have spent a lot of money,



Spurs have spent nowhere near United, City or Chelsea. All clubs have spent money, but nowhere near the millions that Man United, Chelsea and City have spent. The current Spurs First XI cost less than £50 million.





VCityblueloz, the dude abides!

Moan moan moan

So you think Man City would be anything than a perenial yo yo club without your billions, like you have been for the past 50 years.

Komakino (U7809)

Every trophy on offer bar the champions league.........You?

Sorry.. but how can Man utd be self sufficient when they are 700 million in debt ?

Problem we will have is the greed of todays players

I really believe a wage cap is the only way forward

Decspur

Pretty much the same, but don't make out you have earnt your relative success because recent history says you have had very little success.

"Spurs have spent nowhere near United, City or Chelsea. All clubs have spent money, but nowhere near the millions that Man United, Chelsea and City have spent. The current Spurs First XI cost less than £50 million."

Spurs have a big net spend over the last 5 or 6 seasons though so they have spent a lot of money on transfers. The difference is unlike the teams you have mentioned their wages are not even close. If Spurs had the budget of any of the big clubs then they would be very realistic title challengers but then again you could say the same about Arsenal, Liverpool, or any other club in the league. City were nowhere until the Sheikhs came along.

Sorry.. but how can Man utd be self sufficient when they are 700 million in debt ?

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

Because they were bought using loans, just like when you get a mortgage - as long as you make the payments every month you're self sufficient

Their debt has come from the owners borrowing the money and heaping the debt on to the club. Not really fair on anyone connected to the club before they turned up.

Money talks in todays football, thats why i think it will be hard to compete for the title untill we get new stadium

I agree with the wage cap idea Weare.. it's worked wonders for rugby league and the NFL - drastically improving the competitions as a spectacle