Their 40m Etihad deal is supposedly going to double. They can't fill their stadium but claim as much commercial income than United, it's hilarious. They do have a home grown problem as well, will probably spend a fortune on shitty English talent if they get through FFP.
Have to think Terry makes that if he wasn't thinking about that sweet pussy he was getting from Glen Johnson's ho.
Really like the tactics with Zouma shadowing Fellaini. Hard with Drogba out there as a shadow of his former self but nice link ups at times and seemed one pass away a few times. Not sure what Dean was looking at when he said De Gea didn't handle. Should be a nervy second half.
@DTguardian: Mourinho on Herrera dive. "I'm happy it's not a Chelsea player because it would be on Sky as someone's crimes and cheating . ." Haha
@ChelseaActivity: Remember the days when we were slated for overspending on a team? CFC starting XI = £142m. MUFC = £213m.
@Zonal_Marking: Wenger asks journalist what happened at Stamford Bridge. "1-0, Arsene" "Ah, the usual"
"Hahaha United spends so much more than Chelsea." But you guys actually outspend us. "Well we beat you today, so there." Okay, but the tweet was dumb. Also, trophy count. "You weren't even a fan then so they don't count." Let me guess, can your dad also beat up my dad?
Isn't that gross spend? A bunch of our transfer activity has been funded by sales. This link shows Man U is above Chelsea in net spend over the last 5 years. http://bitterandblue.sbnation.com/2...er-league-transfer-spend-over-3-5-and-7-years
Yes, it is. I think gross spend is more relevant in this instance given the context of the tweet I replied to. Edit: No doubt Chelsea is doing some good business on and off the field, I just found that tweet to be incredibly misleading.
Gross spend seems more misleading to me. Chelsea obviously have more turnover in the squad but some of those buys that drive the gross spend don't happen without sales.
The tweet specifically referenced spending, so to me it makes more sense to respond to it with pure spending numbers. Chelsea's spent ~490m in the last 5 seasons to build their squad. United's spent ~360m.
I think the underlying point is United have committed just as many resources to the transfer market as Chelsea, the team who was supposedly ruining soccer.
Fair enough. I took it as "We're in 1st and just beat a team who's spent 70m more for their squad than we did, but people say we're the overspenders."