Like it or not DLS, there's a direct correlation between money and sustained success.
Big clubs are just that because they've got plenty of sustainable income. The clubs you mention (apart from Man City) spent big, short-term but couldn't sustain their spending and they (sure as there's sh*t in a cat) didn't and couldn't "constantly spend big". Those who can afford to "constantly" invest, without doubt, reap the rewards.
It only stands to reason that those who can pay the highest wages can attract the best players; quite simply they'll have their pick. What does it matter to Chelsea, for example that they've bought some utter sh*te when they can afford to discard the failures and attract players with the promise of high wages and, er, success.
We could and should have built on the runner's up spot and with additional investment we may well have done so. Yeah "money talks".
It "talks" from take-over bids to transfer funds and from sponsorship deals to wages. To suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, crass.
Arsenal are famous for having a wage cap and have done for as long as I remember, in my lifetime they've won the title in 98, 02 and 04. This being a time when United no doubt had higher wages, Newcastle, Liverpool ourselves, Chelsea certainly in 04 - Ambrovich's first season, Leeds during the early 2000s. But of course it's clubs with the biggest wages who win? Right.
Chelsea have had Ambrovich's millions since 2003 - seven years. If it was down to money they'd of won the title every year surely? No, they haven't because they've had managers who can't handle the pressure such as Ranieri, Grant, Scolari and even Hiddink. They couldn't take to them the League title despite having Ambrovich's millions.
Have as much money as you want, if you don't have a manager who can handle it then you'll get nowhere. City have had Erikson, Hughes and now Mancini and still won nothing. Why? Because their managers aren't good enough and because their board genuinely believe they are a big club who should have instant success. They shouldn't, because they're not a big club.
Also if it came down to money, then why do clubs like Blackburn who over the past decade haven't had a pot to piss in, outdo clubs like Sunderland who've spent big regularly. Since Sunderland's return to the Prem in 07/08 - they've finished below Blackburn every year. But the Black Cats will have outspent the men from Ewood Park. But of course it's down to money.
Money suits people's arguments when it comes to us failing. When it comes to others making a balls up of it, then it doesn't really hold much weight.
Look at all the clubs who've splashed out on brand new spanking stadiums because they've got the money to do so.
Southampton went from the Dell to St Mary's - now in League 1.
Derby went from the Baseball Ground to Pride Park - now in the Championship.
Middlesbrough went from Ayesome Park to The Riverside - now in the Championship.
Coventry went from Highfield Roard to the Ricoh - now in the Championship.
That's just a handful of clubs in my lifetime who've moved grounds because they could afford to and it's cost them dearly, especially Saints who went into administration. Man City are another prime example - moving from Maine Road to the City of Manchester Stadium which 1) they can't sell out, 2) they've had no success since moving.
Money, money, money. Yep, success is all down money.
Money does talk DLS, Chelsea won the Premiership solely because the money they spent, same as Blackburn and same as Utd. All these clubs have won titles largely down to the money they spent as well as good management.
City will also win the title in the next 3 seasons. Money does talk sadly and why top players go to City now and not us because we have none and why City and Chelsea are now supposedly big clubs. It aint down to there fan base or history.
Top players got to City? Didn't Kaka, Ronaldinho, Berbatov, Gerrard all tell them to F**k off. Oh my mistake they did get Kolo Toure, Gareth Barry and Craig Bellamy. Yeah F***ing great, top players. And if you think they'll win the League within three years, you're in for a great surprise. City will turn into Newcastle, spend big, get nowhere, sack manager, spend big again, still get nowhere, sack the next manager.
And United won the League with a side that was built around their youth side. In later years, because of what happened early 90s, they've had the money to splash out on huge transfers. And now it's costing them as they're in more debt than us and will ultimately be forced to sell their prized assets.
Blackburn won the League and have done nothing of any note since bar one League Cup in 2002. Why? Because they outspent their means and got ahead of their stations. Thought they became a big club and went down the route of sacking any manager who didn't have a 90% win rate, just ask Roy Hodgson who took them to Europe in his first season then a slow start to his second saw him get the boot.
Chelsea won the League because of Mourinho's man management and how he got them fighting for one another, something Anceloti has replicated. If it was down to money then why didn't Ranieri, Grant, Scolari or Hiddink take them to the League title? Hiddink probably would of given a full season to be fair.
But there's much more to winning the League than money. If you can't manage your players, then you'll get nowhere.