Not a coincidence according to your captain at the time.
This is how these conversations go.
City are spending to gain success
Arsenal spent to gain success
But we did it by spending what we earned. We're principled
No, you used external money
err, you spent more
The fact is that you only became 'principled' after gaining success. I'm not pretending anything, that would be you superimposing recent financial policy onto the past.
The principle is the same for Arsenal in the 90's as it is for City in recent years. As for amounts spent, obviously you have to take into account monetary inflation, the increased influx of capital as a result of the success of the PL, the transfer window introduction, the G14, the CL and the increasing monopolistic environment (...and not to mention the greed of selling clubs who deal with newly rich clubs). Put it this way, superimpose Arsenal '95 into the modern environment and your net spending would be nothing like it is. You simply cannot compare the PL in the 90's to what it is now, nevermind transfer fees.
The main point tho is that this "we're so principled" is utter bollocks.
You are ignoring the fact we won things before...but anyway.
Actually you are right, taking in inflation and everything the amounts Arsenal spent in the 90's is exactly the same as what Chelsea and Man City have paid in the late 2000's, you are right.......
I think we must have got money for winning the leagues in 1989 and 1990? and we had sponsorships at the time and was filling up Highbury at the time etc so were we spending beyond what we were getting in? did we just get the 15mill from Fizman?
Or did we do quite well and have a strong fan base and use the income to finance the bigger moves for players? or did Fizman come in and say here is 15mill go and buy Platt and Bergkamp?
The latter doesn't really make sense as Fizman came in in 91 and the players were bought in 95/96.
I don't think it is sanctimonious of Arsenal and other fans to say that what Man City and Chelsea did/are doing is just ridiculous and not based on any business sense at all.
Other clubs have to pretty much work on things as a business which limits them, Arsenal did this in the 90's (I know you are denying this) What Chelsea and Man City are doing now is just way beyond and creates a ridiculously unfair advantage that the majority of other clubs just can't and don't have.
The only similarities lie in that Arsenal spent more money than some other clubs in the league around them at that point in time.
Man City and Chelsea are doing the same but at a ridiculous rate. They are spending many many more times than every other club in the league around them. there was a ridiculous stat of Man City in the last 5 years spending more on transfers than the whole of the Premier league teams have since the start of the premierleague (not sure if it is that, but something like that? correct me if i'm wrong?) you can't keep arguing that what Man City Chelsea are doing is the same as Arsenal, with stats like this, it is way and beyond what is normal and acceptable imo.
It's as ridiculous as saying that I earn money and a footballer earns money, we both earn money, so we are both well off. That is how over generalised I think your comparison is.
