Soccer (Closing)

157 readers

1 users here now

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

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

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

[–] Micah_JD@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (7 children)

Chelsea walked financial doping so City could run with it.

[–] qu1x0t1cZ@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I’m sure I read somewhere that relative to transfer fees at the time Chelsea were bankrolled more than City.

[–] XxAbsurdumxX@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Yes. Adjusted for inflation, the amount Chelsea spent under Abromovich is insane even compared to City.

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

I thought the issue is that when Chelsea got taken over, what they did wasn't "against the rules"

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

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

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)