Works both ways though. How much money have ManU and Chelsea spent? Their expenditure has equalled trophies.
But the point still stands, Arsenal sell two quality players and replace them with Vermaelen which was good and replace Ade with? Chamakh?
United rarely splurge for the sake of it. Their purchases over the past few seasons have been to replace players sold, retired or youngsters for depth - Young, De Gea, Jones, and Hernandez.
Chelsea, whilst they were sporadic in spending in the beginning of Roman's rule, I believe they've eased off by comparison.
There's no doubt that you need to invest in players to be successful. Anyone who disputes this is a moron. But splurging on players merely because there's money available is reckless, irresponsible and can backfire. Look no further than City for an example of this. Players who aren't even training with the first team would almost all walk into the starting squads of most EPL teams - Adebawh*re, Santa Cruz, Bellamy, Bridge, SWP and A.Johnson. That's roughly 100m worth of talent, and substantially more in wages, rotting away in the reserves.
City of course are on the extreme side of things, but are a prime example of spending money for the sake of it doesn't always work.
I want Arsene to spend 50m on new players just as much as everyone else, but the players must be better than our current squad.
Dzagoev would be another one high on my list. Young, extremely talented and 'cheap' by EPL standards - 12m.
