• qu1x0t1cZ@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

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

      • OnlyOneSnoopy@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • trevthedog@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Did you read the article? Most of these off-book payments are from 2010-2017, after FFP had been introduced.

      • XxAbsurdumxX@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

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

        • Greasy_Boglim@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Man City pay a lot to players and management under the table though so this is apples and oranges

        • sewious@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I thought the issue is that when Chelsea got taken over, what they did wasn’t “against the rules”

          • Caesar_Aurelianus@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months 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