NOW WOULDNT THAT BE NICE

Is it just me, or is that whole thing the biggest pile of poo argument ever, no matter which club you point it at? Personally, Chelsea are my number one club of hate right now, but it's got nothing to do with the transfer fees as such, more their attitude and approach. Everyone says that Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, whoever, all try to buy success, they band each other's transfer spending around, and the whole thing's absurd. There's hypocrisy everywhere in these discussions. Everyone says Spurs are great because of their high level of domestic talent, but it's mostly bought and brought, not home reared. They too have tried to buy success, but from their local corner shop, not Tesco. It's still the same thing. There are virtually no clubs in the top flight who can't be accused of doing the same thing, trying to buy success. What else is the transfer market for after all. Perhaps penniless clubs, Man City, West Ham, Sunderland, Villa, perhaps they haven't done so to the same extent; but Portsmouth, Boro, Charlton, Everton, and any number of other clubs all have a high player turnover rate, all look to bring in new staff on a regular basis, and all spend as much as they can on new players. Buying success is a fallacy, and I reckon no club in the Premiership can really point that finger at any other. Perhaps Championship sides could say it with some level of accuracy, but everyone else are simply being hypocrites. After all, how many clubs sit on a transfer kitty and refuse to spend it? How many club's have the chairman approach the manager with £25m, and the manager saying 'no, you're alright boss, keep it, spend it on some pies or something, I'd rather bring some young lads out of the reserves than buy Thiery Henry or William Gallas'?