No they almost certainly would not, but it is hardly relevant. Would those three have been so much better than Chelsea over the past couple of decades if it was not for their greater spending power? A healthy cash flow does not only reflect in transfer buys, it also enables teams to set up better scouting and youth systems. There will always be a team or two able to spend more than others ( I can remember when it was Sunderland !!! ) and we all know how a couple of famous European sides started this trend for mbuttive payments way back. It's nothing new even though inflation in the market has increased the sums. So now it is Chelseas turn. Good luck to them and thank god some other team has at last broken into the Prem cartel of AFC and MUFC which was becoming boring ,so I have to wonder where you found this competitvness in the league recently?
I dislike these mbuttive payments as much as anyone, but its all relative. Fact is that all sides who now win the Prem have bought their success and there is a fair amount of hypocracy amongst our pool fans in this group who condemn Chelsea spending in order to improve whilst urgently discussing how much Pool will spend to do the same.
It never was a level playing field although there now seems to be a sort of Chelsea envy which blanks out the recent past to convieniently forget this fact. As far as 21 for SWP is concerned the figure staggers me, but I suppose that when a simply decent 30 year old will attract sums of 3 or 4 million this kid is somehow worth it?
Regards,
LC
