And Giles Smith Agrees with me :
"Another difference: when Abramovich arrived (and this isn't often enough said), it continued a revival of Chelsea's fortunes on the pitch that had begun a decade earlier, in 1993, with the appointment as manager of Glenn Hoddle, and which had already seen the club, after a quarter of a century of abject potlessness, achieve consistent top six finishes in the league, some presence in the Champions League, and victories in the FA Cup and Cup Winners' Cup.
In other words, the club was undeniably transformed by new and unforeseen wealth in 2003, but (critical point here) there was already something in place that could be transformed.
Manchester City, by contrast, have spent the best part of 30 years now, dashing from one comical foot-shooting incident to another, leading a one-team campaign for the return of the days of good old music hall entertainment and generally boiling themselves in a bag, over and over again.
There's quite a lot of work to do, is all we're saying, and some of that is work which (whisper this bit) has nothing to do with money at all."
Source:CFC website