UglyWanKanobi@alien.topB to Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball@soccer.forumEnglish · 1 year agoChelsea FC face new questions over how Roman Abramovich funded success | Roman Abramovichwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square117fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkChelsea FC face new questions over how Roman Abramovich funded success | Roman Abramovichwww.theguardian.comUglyWanKanobi@alien.topB to Football / Soccer / Calcio / Futebol / Fußball@soccer.forumEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square117fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-squareMicah_JD@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoChelsea walked financial doping so City could run with it.
minus-squarequ1x0t1cZ@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoI’m sure I read somewhere that relative to transfer fees at the time Chelsea were bankrolled more than City.
minus-squareXxAbsurdumxX@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoYes. Adjusted for inflation, the amount Chelsea spent under Abromovich is insane even compared to City.
minus-squareGreasy_Boglim@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoMan City pay a lot to players and management under the table though so this is apples and oranges
minus-squaresewious@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoI thought the issue is that when Chelsea got taken over, what they did wasn’t “against the rules”
minus-squareCaesar_Aurelianus@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoThere weren’t any FFP rules. Earlier the 3 foreigner rule made clubs rely on regional players so they couldn’t just splash money all over. If there weren’t that rule then Berlusconi would’ve bought the whole Dutch national team
minus-squareOnlyOneSnoopy@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoOur funds came openly and directly via the owner, there were no FFP issues to try and skirt around at the time. City are funded by fake sponsors in an attempt to bypass FFP.
minus-squaretrevthedog@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agoDid you read the article? Most of these off-book payments are from 2010-2017, after FFP had been introduced.
Chelsea walked financial doping so City could run with it.
I’m sure I read somewhere that relative to transfer fees at the time Chelsea were bankrolled more than City.
Yes. Adjusted for inflation, the amount Chelsea spent under Abromovich is insane even compared to City.
Man City pay a lot to players and management under the table though so this is apples and oranges
I thought the issue is that when Chelsea got taken over, what they did wasn’t “against the rules”
There weren’t any FFP rules.
Earlier the 3 foreigner rule made clubs rely on regional players so they couldn’t just splash money all over.
If there weren’t that rule then Berlusconi would’ve bought the whole Dutch national team
Our funds came openly and directly via the owner, there were no FFP issues to try and skirt around at the time. City are funded by fake sponsors in an attempt to bypass FFP.
Did you read the article? Most of these off-book payments are from 2010-2017, after FFP had been introduced.