Soccer (Closing)

157 readers

1 users here now

This community is being retired in favor of !football@soccer.forum.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

communick@soccer.forum

rglullis

Chelsea FC face new questions over how Roman Abramovich funded success | Roman Abramovich (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 years ago by UglyWanKanobi@alien.top to c/main@soccer.forum

117 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EriktenHair@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We don't know how much City spent. They're accused of lying about it.

are "allowed" to spend more than City, because now their "football income" is huge is just mad to me.

tbh the rules aren't really about fairness. FFP isn't the real name anyway. It's about stopping the problem of sugar daddies getting bored and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces.

[–] hybridtheorist@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago

I thought we kind of know what's going out (as in wages, transfers etc) through their books and what other teams report. It's the dodgy money coming in that's the main issue.
Though imagine that 115 charges, there some on both sides!

Either way, even if you want to just make up whatever numbers you feel are right (let's say Haaland cost 120m for example) I still feel like they'd be short of the mad advantage Chelsea 2005 had. You couldn't massage the transfer fees to make them double what Man U, Chelsea or whoever spend. Plus it looks like Chelsea were lying all the time anyway.