UglyWanKanobi@alien.topB to Main@soccer.forumEnglish · 10 months agoChelsea FC face new questions over how Roman Abramovich funded success | Roman Abramovichwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square117fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10cross-posted to: football@lemmy.world
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkChelsea FC face new questions over how Roman Abramovich funded success | Roman Abramovichwww.theguardian.comUglyWanKanobi@alien.topB to Main@soccer.forumEnglish · 10 months agomessage-square117fedilinkcross-posted to: football@lemmy.world
minus-squareMicah_JD@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months agoChelsea walked financial doping so City could run with it.
minus-squarequ1x0t1cZ@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months agoI’m sure I read somewhere that relative to transfer fees at the time Chelsea were bankrolled more than City.
minus-squareOnlyOneSnoopy@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months 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-up1·10 months agoDid you read the article? Most of these off-book payments are from 2010-2017, after FFP had been introduced.
minus-squareXxAbsurdumxX@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months agoYes. Adjusted for inflation, the amount Chelsea spent under Abromovich is insane even compared to City.
minus-squareGreasy_Boglim@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months agoMan City pay a lot to players and management under the table though so this is apples and oranges
minus-squaresewious@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months agoI thought the issue is that when Chelsea got taken over, what they did wasn’t “against the rules”
minus-squareCaesar_Aurelianus@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·10 months 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
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.
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.
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