Are Tottenham more appealing than Chelsea?

Guest on SkySports' Sunday morning Football show "The Sunday Supplement" had claimed that Tottenham are now more appealing than Chelsea having signed Fernando Llorente on deadline day. 

First and foremost it's important to remember that we only read opinion, rumour and speculation surrounding player transfers with no real substance or credibility to each of those stories concerning Chelsea until an official announcement is made by the club themselves.

The situation with the players that have reportedly rejected Chelsea after fees had been agreed is one that will rumble on for a few weeks yet with Ross Barkley taking to Social Media to deny reports that it was during a medical to sign for Chelsea that he changed his mind.

So to the Sunday Supplement and comments made of Fernando Llorente's deadline day move to Tottenham in particular. The Guardians football correspondent Dominic Fifield said:

"The one that really surprised me was Llorente, because he's worked with Conte before. I would have thought he'd get more games at Chelsea than he would at Spurs, and sometimes as first choice in certain fixtures.

Yet somehow they didn't manage to get him."

This was followed by the Daily Mirror's football writer Darren Lewis who added:

"It's also saying something that, back in the day, Chelsea were nicking Spurs players, not the other way around.

Now it's Spurs pinching a player and presenting a proposal to a player that seems more attractive than what is on offer at Stamford Bridge.

It was also fascinating to see [Romelu] Lukaku go to Manchester United instead of Chelsea, when the feeling at Chelsea was that he had unfinished business there. It looked like a shoo-in for him to go back."

I have to disagree about Llorente as I posted here a day or so before the deadline approached last Thursday. I said in that article that I would rather have Michy Batshuayi at Chelsea because he is far more mobile than Llorente and offers the team more than just lumping the ball into the box.

I have to disagree with Fifield's claim that Llorente would have started certain games at Chelsea if he had signed for us again for the same reason as above with the Batman being a better alternative for the team.

As for Romelu Lukaku? We all know that he chose Manchester United because he was probably offered ridiculous money in addition to his agent receiving a reported £7m fee to which Chelsea refused to pay. It's as simple as that.

I beg to differ with the opinion that Tottenham are more appealing than Chelsea for obvious reasons to which people seem to have forgotten about. Look at the success this club has had in the last thirteen years compared to Tottenham! Five Premier League titles, numerous FA Cup's, League Cup's and the Europa League establishing Chelsea as one of the biggest clubs in the world.

Just last season, Antonio Conte won the Premier League having made his famous tactical switch which has subsequently changed the way that other teams in the League approach the game tactically. He made a serious impact here having done the same with the Italian national side and with Juventus.

So tell me, why is there an opinion that a team that has come close to winning the Premier League title twice in two seasons but failed and a team that Chelsea have just beaten in their first game at Wembley in the Premier League be a more appealing prospect than us based on our record for success in the recent era?

Please..