Im sure the correlation to money and results goes all the way back. Remember reading that the early 1900’s shows the same thing. Sort of explains why its always cities which have the best team, towns and villages didn’t have as many fans so couldn’t compete in monetary terms in the early days.

In a more general reply, Buying the best player doesn’t guarantee success. Man Utd have bought a lot of seriously good players. Its the whole club that makes a team competitive. Man city are very well run and their facilities and academy help too. Lazy to just insinuate money is the only reason.

Yes, but they aren’t blaming intensity is my point. Its just accepted as a bad run, which is what it is.

No idea why this is downvoted 😂. Chelsea have been plagued with injuries and no-one has questioned it.
Barnes, Burn, Murphy and Anderson were all freak injuries that can happen anytime and not related to playing time. Tonali is also non football related. Targett’s injury he’d played 1 minute and barely played all season. Basically that leaves Isak, Wilson and Botman who are both victims of “intensity”, which in itself doesn’t account for the fact that more games is more chance of pickkng up knocks. Willock was injured last season so doesn’t count. Joelinton and Longstaff both picked up small injuries early in the season before the multiple game weeks.

So it is indeed lazy to insinuate that intensity and number of games has resulted in huge injury list.