Ah... we welcome debatable challenge like yours unlike some
whose only intent is to try and ridicule others... What you have
said may sound reasonable but in a reasonable world, people invest
money to make money... don't you agree?
Chelsea's situation we should put it as "Special" did the players
won the title fair and square from the funds provided? How were
they assembled in the first place that is questionable agree? ...
For example take Newcastle, they are one of the profitable club in
England but now that they have quite a number of injuries can they
go out and buy another team? Well, no but chelsea can and have.
They have bought a player for one position... 6 months, 1 yr he
doesn't do well, they go out and buy another... Many clubs would
not be able to re-finance another big money player for that same
position and will have to make do with what they had... But Chelsea
can... So, it bring us to the question again... was the titles won
fair and square? Well, Lars-Christer Olsson, chief executive of
European football's governing body doesn't seem to think so.
Cos no genuine investor would continue to put in that kind of money
without expecting a return on their investments... And as you have
said, "if other teams have the same financial ability, will they
not use capitalise on it too." Well, i am not too sure about that
cos people go in to make money and not lose money... that is for
sure. But one thing i do know and that is... No other teams have
that financial ability as of now.
I belief even the Pool takeover would not spend money like that
base on DIC's track record that they invest to make money and not
to lose it...
So... this itself should qualify as buying titles when history
remembers the chelsea years... 
