<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I did a terrible thing at the weekend. I bought the Mail on Sunday with my own money. I've been washing my hands every five minutes since, but nothing will make the shame go away. It's something I'll just have to live with... somehow. But they made me do it. The headline writers, I mean. They did it with a back page splash that read: 100M - ROONEY'S AMAZING NEW DEAL. And they're right - it is amazing for a 21 year old. On top of £115k a week he'll apparently get £10k a week more for image rights, which is especially good going for someone just questioned about a nightclub brawl with a file being prepared for the CPS. Combine that with his endorsements through Nike, Asda, Coca-Cola and EA Sports being worth a reported £6m a year and a £5m 5-book deal with Harper Collins and I make that £80m. Add two years already at £55k a week and his original £27m transfer fee and it actually comes to £112.7m using my rusty calculator. That's one heck of an investment in a single player, however young. But something niggles about it. You see, I recall just a few short months ago reports that Michael Ballack wasn't a free signing at all when you considered his signing on fee and wages that totalled £130k a week over three years, meaning he actually cost £20.2m. And Shevchenko too, whose £30.8m transfer fee had to be combined with £115k a week of salary and signing on fee, meaning he would really cost £48.8m. Together, these two players of indisputable world-renown would cost £69m and this was final proof that Chelsea were buying the League. Yet now it seems that paying £112m for just one player is an amazing deal and sends out a firm message to Roman Abramovich that he can't outbid Man United for everyone. I'm sure, somewhere along the line, we should be mentioning Rio Ferdinand's £30.1m transfer fee and £130k a week salary over 4 years (total £57.1m) but it only goes to make the point even more. I was listening to 5Live the other day and some alleged expert was telling us how it was only Roman's money that was preventing Man Utd from competing on a level playing field. I couldn't help thinking what he really meant was it prevented Man Utd having a free run at anyone they wanted by outbidding them in transfer fee and salary as they consistently used to over the last decade and more – how that translates into a level playing field, I don't know. They just don't like the kind of competition every other club has to contend with. And Sir Rednose was also at it on Saturday, suggesting if we lose this weekend's game we might buy another 6 players in the next transfer window. How easy it is for him to forget that we won the league in each of the last two seasons with a smaller squad than any other team in the whole Premier League, while we enter this season with less still. We won't buy another six players in January. Last season we only picked up Maniche on a free transfer in that window, while it was them who paid out. And in the season before we picked up Jarosik but released Babayaro, while they were the ones paying out again. And while the season before that we did pick up Parker for a significant fee (for what good it did us) it was Man Utd who were paying even more for Louis Saha as they mopped up forwards they didn't need. Now I know forgetfulness is a symptom of senility but I didn't realise that hypocrisy was another. But that trait doesn't only apply to him - it applies to all those Sunday journos who laud the re-signing of Tabloid Wayne for the self-same reasons they beat us over the head. And what do United get for their money? Well, certainly not someone who can count, that's for sure. Reports come through that Wayne reckons Chelsea will suffer from the number of players warming the bench, though searching for an actual quote of him saying that is proving elusive. A simple glance at the Man Utd roster shows us they have 33 first teamers, while our squad numbers just 23 including 4 keepers. Poor Wayne. He must be suffering from never having scored against Chelsea in his career and just got himself confused. Maybe he needs to be paid even more because it seems even £112m doesn't buy a goal against Chelsea. Well done to Man Utd, though. In their current guise of plucky underdogs who just happen to be the biggest club in the world and who won the Premier League 8 years out of 11 without destroying football, even though they're the world's most indebted club, having managed to avoid defeat they saved the game for the nation. And for Chelsea it's lucky we didn't win. Without having any prior history of winning anything (so they tell us) we failed in our bid to ruin the League's competitiveness further. But also, the club that pays Rio and Rooney £170m failed to beat the one who only pay £69m for Ballack and Shevchenko. They won't buy the league this year like they always used to, however hard they try.</div>Although i'm an Everton fan not Chelsea, I agree with most of it. Whatcha think?
