In the late 90's, I made a note to myself that Arsenal and Chelsea were going to be the most successful London sides for the next 5-10 years. Unfortunately for us, I was correct. Why did I believe that? Well their clubs in general (meaning everything from the manager, board, the running of the club, team, etc.) were geared to success more so than us. With Gullit, Vialli and Wenger, both Ars*nal and Chelsea had managers who could take their teams forward. Dein, Hill-Wood and Bates were owners/board members who loved their clubs and possessed the ambition to make their clubs successful. What did we have? Sugar wasn't prepared to spend big (which ultimately one needs to do if you desire to be successful) and in addition we had managers like Gross. So, IMO, the reason why Ars*nal and Chelsea are ahead of us (on and off the pitch) is due to the ownership of all clubs concerned. Fundamentally there is no major difference in 'size' between ourselves and Arsenal (be it support wise or in a financial sense). I reckon we are a bigger club than Chelsea anyhow (both in terms of support and certainly in the context of tradition). So really there is no great reason why we SHOULD be behind them.
W*nger said it himself last season, the difference since the Premiership was formed has all been down the management. In A*senal's case they learnt from the mistake of appointing Bruce Rioch and replaced him with a one-man revolutionary in W*nger, someone who could not only win trophies but completely modernise the habits and infrastructure of their club from top to bottom while the board stayed out of the limelight and just wrote the occasional cheque. We got lumbered with a string of people appointed either because they were flavour of the month or tied to our history. None of them were really even close to being up to the day-to-day job, let alone modernising the club. Hoddle was the most promising but damaged goods and sabotaged by Pleat. We needed people with no ties to the club, with modern perspectives and winning attitudes. You can argue Sugar had too big a head for running a football club, but he wasn't the incompetent bandit of Irving Scholar and he did write out the cheques. However the fact that he appointed Pleat in a useless role and made such poor managerial appointments speaks volumes. If the chairman is not up to it, things get a lot harder. Chelsea are a different kettle of fish entirely as they got to the top by purely artificial means. At first Mathew Harding did it by playing the besotted rich fan role, pouring money into his club. But then Ken Bates continued it to save face after his "battle" with the martyred Harding and took it up a notch by spending vast amounts of loaned money, that's how they got success under Gullit and then Vialli and to be fair in the short term it worked. However they were terribly lucky to be rescued by Abramovich, a matter of months or even weeks from a meltdown. Most of these newbie Chelski fans have no idea of what Chelsea were like before the artificial money came pouring in, a smaller and less noteworthy club than West Ham (arguably) and ironically Leeds.
Even without the bottomless pit of money Chelsea have now they still finished 4th. I agree Send, Sugar did spend money. In 10 years he spent around £90m. Their are only a few clubs who have spent as much as that in that time period.
Sugar spent money but on mediocre players. He would never have spent £15 million on Shearer for example (or any other big transfer when he was Chairman).
If rumours are to be believed, Chelsea were 24 hours away from having the receivers called in because Bates was unable to make a payment on a substantial loan. Clanblue would be able to fill us in with the details I'm sure. Tottenham is a classic example of 'too many cooks'. Everyone there has their own ideas on how the club needs to be turned around, so they all stick their oar in, be it Sugar who appointed that ******** Pleat, through to the players like Sherwood, who took his fight with Hoddle through the tabloids and further destabilised things. It needs clear vision, like that of Bates ( a man so odious the British Government had to get involved in removing him from Grenader (I think it was) to prevent a revolution), his committment to Chelsea knew no limits, or Dein at A*se, who has the courage to admit he knows ******** all about the football side and just lets Wenger get on with it. It would seem that Levy has acknowledged his own ignorance and appointed people who can actually do the job. It doesn't require a shedload of cash to turn a club like Spurs around. A*se have spent less than us over the last 15 years and have far more to show for it. It's mostly about man-management. A*se have the wind of Wengers early successes behind them, and it's going to take a while to catch up. I really do feel (for the first time in a long time) that a Spurs Board have finally got it right on the management side. Hopefully, they'll let them get on with it, and we can see football we know a Spurs team should play at the Lane once again. One thing is certain, and that is it's going to be interesting watching our team develop over the next few years!
I believe we were a week away from defaulting on a Eurobond payment. That is why Gallas was about to be sold either to Barca or Arsenal, depending on which rumors you're ready to believe.
But you have a better chance of success if you spend big. The £90 million under Sugar didn't get us anywhere anyhow.