Lets get something straight, we where the better team against liverpool and arsenal.

Tottenham was pretty dominant first 17 min, but between 17 and 37 chelsea where dominating 11-11.

As for quality of play chelsea are 3rd in possession, 2nd in big chances created, 4-6th in xg-points.

There has been more outliers against in terms of results then for chelsea.

Only teams that created more quality chances then chelsea was brentford and newcastle (that includes 5 preason games)

Chelseas issue is mentality and clinicality, same arsenal been suffering from over a decade (and the main reason I see liverpool like a more likly titlecandidate then arsenal.

That beeing said, chelsea is a good example why to much change aint good for you.

If they ran the takeover properly (sporting people in before 400m spent) and do change over 3 years instead of 18 months.

You have sheffield, burnley and luton doing you favors

Honestly I hate tottenham, but this aint really the same thing as chelsea and city are up against

That I agree with, but remeber that quality also allows you to use players like akanji, rico, stephen very often

That is actually only partly true, city has one of the smaller squads - though oep rotates alot in his “17” outfield squad

Issue with discussion is that city and chelsea didnt break the same rules as everton.

The addition of profitability and sustainabily rules with alot harder punishment makes evertons present rule breaking a bigger issue.

As for city and chelsea (Im a chelsea fan) I dont want to win outside the rules, but there has been questionable things around both arsenal and liverpool the last decade.

If we withheld 20m 2012, its not like that was 1. Uncomon, 2. Affected our ffp (by the rules applied 2012)