How Long 922

I am amazed that you are amazed. I never suggested there was no difference in Chelsea's spending and most others. There obviously is. But so what? You should, for your own sake, take a closer look at your own arguments. Facts are,

1. Every team buys players. 2. They do so in order to try to improve...... to buy success. 3. They will spend as much as they are able to afford to achieve this goal. 4. It has always been the case in football that some sides are richer than others and can spend more. Chelsea did not invent this, they are just an extreme.

I am sure you would not dispute these, so now explain what is this big difference which makes a side admirable if it buys players over 2 or 3 seasons but not if it buys them in one? What is this hidden magical moral difference in the way you. and plenty of others, view them? Seems to me that the only difference is that this is not the way things are normally done? So please explain your theory which seems to be...'.It is fine for a side to try to get to the top by buying the best players it can afford as long as they do this over a few seasons but not quicker'. Why?

It is amusing to remember that this handicap you now see - of most managers only being able to afford to add a few players each season - was thought by many ( and I was one of them along with most papers and other fans) to be the best way to mould a team. Chelsea were going to fall flat on their face after all that big spending and we would all laugh. Seems we were wrong. It can be done if the manager is astute enough. Seems that their success leaves us with only the objection that it just ain't fair ?

I can enjoy watching the Chelsea games on Sky (sometimes) because they play fine football. No doubt the supporters of minor league clubs made up of kids and old men enjoyed the TV skills of Arsenal and Man U over the past seasons, just like me, without any thoughts of unfairness because they had such spending power. Things are not fair for Colchester but they should be for Pool. That is some strange logic.

Maybe the fact that the main areas for this 'buying success' charge ( which ignores the fact that everyone else is trying to do the same) is coming from Chelsea's main rivals is significant? What else have they got to try to dilute the success?

The point which I think is undisputable and puts you argument into perspective is a fact which we all know to be true, if we are honest. If any of the other big sides were given an injection of £400 mil to improve the side where would all those ' we are poor but we are honest' arguments go to? Would your contrived and illogical reasoning be soon forgotten with all the rest and replaced by the question of which top 4 internationals should we get first?

So much for the morals of spending big and fast because we all know the answer don't we?

The Chelsea manager is a lucky bastard and it is natural if we feel a bit envious. But attempting to distort logic to give some flesh to your feelings arrives at hypocracy because all fans would just love Raffa, AF or Wenger to have the same amounts to spend. True?

Or maybe I do you a diservice? Maybe you are the one in ten thousand who would say, "No! No! ..... it just isn't right" LoL....pigs might fly.

It's just envy chum. Thats fine. We all feel it at times. Do yourself a favour and stop tying your reasoning into contorted knots by pretending it is something else. because it does not stand up to inspection, does it?

It is the way we can enjoy football again, whether it comes from our own team or others. Just dump all those artificial reasons to hate or dislike your main rivals. Strange isn't it? It is always the main rivals. So much for objectivity. Hate Chelsea? Dislike Arsenal? Loath Man U? All a bit chidish maybe ?

LC

LC