It's all overIn my opinion, there are good and bad points for Chelsea having so much cash. First of...
no. arsenal have meagre funds compared to chelski(doesn't everyone) and modest funds compared to most,valencia won la Liga titles without doing a leeds or buying like chavski, here's the charlton manager and chief exec on the subject-
"Charlton manager Alan Curbishley believes that Chelsea's financial power is a danger to British football.
Curbishley, whose side faced Chelsea at The Valley on Saturday, told BBC Radio Five Live that Roman Abramovich's money has put Chelsea in a dominant position.
"I think it is a danger. You have got these great European sides, who have competed but they have competed with a bit of debt," said Curbishley.
"Abramovich has come to Chelsea and from day one the rules have changed."
Curbishley said it was good that Chelsea failed to lure Liverpool captain Steven Gerrard to Stamford Bridge in the summer.
"Chelsea signing Scott Parker from Charlton or Manchester United signing Louis Saha from Fulham is one thing," he added.
"When Chelsea go after Steven Gerrard and nearly get him, that's a little bit different.
"For me, when it didn't happen I felt perhaps that was a good thing."
Curbishley's fears were echoed by Charlton chief executive Peter Varney, who believes fans could turn away from football if one side dominates the game.
"It's like Formula One. If you see someone like Michael Schumacher winning a race every time it can become a bit predictable," Varney told Five Live.
"As with any sport, if there is a perception by the public that either one or a small number of clubs dominate, then that, in the long-term, will affect interest.
"That is something - as a league going forward - we are going to have to address because predictability is going to be the enemy of all of us in the end."
--
