Flayer posted:

Bigger stadium, higher revenue, more valuable squad, better youth set-up, far superior historical achievements.

brapbrapbrap posted:

It's like a rich man saying he wants to be a poor man but instead of giving all his money away and going to live in a council house, he sits in his mansion waiting for hyper-inflation to happen.

Transatlantic Gulp posted:

What an absolutely loving terrible straw man you've set up there

brapbrapbrap posted:

And it also makes them hypocrites because if they REALLY did want to go back to grass roots etc they'd piss off and support FC United. But they don't because that would mean giving up £30 million players, Champions League etc. Hypocrites.

Humuhumu posted:

Yes, encouraging clubs to be fiscally responsible insead of spunking money like a lottery winning chav indicates a a clear anti city bias.

I mean they're the only club to spend a ridiculous amount of money on players recently, right?

quote:

"We want a healthier environment which will allow smaller clubs to invest in their infrastructure and be able to compete with the bigger clubs, knowing that they can only spend what they earn."

Lyric Proof Vest posted:

agreed. Right now arsenal can find a youngster and say "yes you might not get as much money coming to us, but we play in europe, will develop you into the best you can be and then repeatedly break you in training

Vando posted:

It's not even based on banking, it's based on spending it all and then hoping the prestige generated in doing so attracts investment.

TyChan posted:

I wonder what they're going to do with all those man-made islands.

Badgerman posted:

Adnar posted:

how does Chelsea make so much more than Liverpool on matchday? double ticket prices or do they have THAT much more corporates?

Mr Pepper posted:

Except if you're Tim Howard, Landon Donovan (only his most recent stint with Everton), Clint Dempsey, Brian McBride, and Brad Friedel.

irlZaphod posted:

This is what what sent around work, I don't know how much truth there is to it, but if it's genuine then it's hilarious.


I really hope they do owe Qatar Airways 20p.

Mickolution posted:

Harry Redknapp.

Oceanbound posted:

Goldman Sachs put out a 69-page World Cup and Economics 2010 booklet. In it bankers try to write about football.

luvd posted:

i don't feel comfortable telling you how to feel

w00bi posted:

Wouldn't it rather be Fordstam will just use Chelsea to pay off the debt, rather than Chelsea obligated to pay their debt?

Grez posted:

It's not the amount of debt that counts it's the profit/losses made.

Lyric Proof Vest posted:

mate got offered a season ticket in the kop for £600. season tickets we have are 3 times that, each

ibroxmassive posted:

That's only 100,000 Catalans paying 50 Euro each a year for a deacde.

Iggy Pop Barker posted:

I think Man City are a good example too, they had a loving amazing youth system for a long time - giving them players like Richards, Ireland, Onouha, Hart and Barton at a time when their first team wasn't great - as well as a couple of dozen other prospects that didn't quite 'make it' but were good enough to be sold to Championship clubs for ~£1m a piece. That really seems to be on the back burner now they're minted, the monopoly money has forced out or relegated to the bench (for a time) most of the above players and the next lot won't get the same amount of pitch time to prove themselves.

Pissflaps posted:

Was Taters posted:

That's hurtful, man.

sweek0 posted:

Well good to see Man United and Chelsea are against it as well, at least. Wouldn't be surprised to see City backing Liverpool here.

quote:

It is understood that Arsenal, Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur will continue to back the existing arrangement that last season paid each club £17.9m, while Wigan chairman Dave Whelan reacted with outrage.

BunnyX posted:

If there is one thing City are after it's more money so very surprising not seeing them supporting it.

Lot 49 posted:

I don't remember Manchester United ever being owned by by a sugar daddy who bought them all the best players.

Must have been before my time.

Byolante posted:

^^^^
Just because American plastics will post obliviously for free it doesn't make it slavery.


Nike sweatshops vs importing workers from the third world then confiscating their passports so they are unable to go home. Hmmm, if only you could work out which was worse.

w00bi posted:

Better than you think.

http://andersred.blogspot.com/2012/02/income-up-costs-down-chelsea-getting-in.html

The overhaul in the wage bill which started with the parting of Carvalho/Ballack/JCole is starting to pay off.

I don't know if Chelsea can generate significant transfer fees this Summer (Kalou, Malouda, Lampard?) to offset any purchases...but whatever purchases are made the focus will be on wage control as we just saw with the Cahill transfer saga.

Eric Cantona posted:

There's nothing wrong with the transfer window.

Pissflops posted:

Everybody goes everywhere and nobody goes anywhere in this farcical, corrupt merry-go-round designed to fleece you and me and line the pockets of the rich and greedy.

Hegav posted:

I guess it's a "hurr durr Man City is only owned by Mansour for Abu Dhabi publicity reasons" post.

Masonity posted:

I don't usually have much Man U sympathy but I'm not sure it's fair to say they were built on infusions of cash. If anything the board have taken money out of the club. They are built on huge sums of cash made by being one of the biggest teams in the world with a very well thought out merchandising and legitimate sponsorship deals.

Lot 49 posted:

once their owners start arranging City style sponsorship deals.