Soccer (Closing)

154 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@communick.news

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

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

Chelsea walked financial doping so City could run with it.

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

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

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

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

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.top 1 points 2 years ago

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