All these complaints about financial doping, what nonsense.
First off what is the meaning of the term "a financially doped club" well from those that complain the term could simply be replaced by "team richer than mine" that is purely all it means. Notice how none of those who use the term ever suggest they may be doped compared to say Barnett or Forest Green. No their team has just the correct about of money and while richer teams than them are financially advantaged, poorer clubs than thier own deserve the disadvantage they have.
Secondly, of course it's all nonsense. Teams finances and on pitch fortunes come and go.1961-62 Ipswich won the top league and Liverpool got promoted back to it. 1980-81 the top four were Villa, Ipswich, Arsenal and West Brom. Pick any season and do similar.
Since then those teams have regressed while others have advanced due to a mix of investment and sound management. The modern day financial doping fanatic (let's be honest it's mainly Spurs fans) ignores these completely normal changes that have always occurred and instead see just a conspiracy to hurt them. It's the same self absorbed thinking that causes many of them to think that the media are united in an anti-Spurs conspiracy.
So to recap, good to be rich, totally unfair some are richer. Spurs did relatively well for a few years, now not so much so everyone else has to be cheating.
Think that covers it.
Financial doping, let's moan about change.
posted on 6/8/21
As for "Nice copy paste from Wikipedia." well I wrote that part of the article, so no harm in me using it.
--------
This was a nice touch
posted on 6/8/21
tcw
Well by his logic it's up to his to disprove it.
posted on 6/8/21
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 1 hour, 28 minutes ago
welshpoolfan
I see you read the article but didn't comprehend it
You say City are financially corrupted, therefore the onus is on you to prove it.
As for "Nice copy paste from Wikipedia." well I wrote that part of the article, so no harm in me using it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say City are financially corrupted? My very first entry into the discussion was asking Boris for his proof that the Mail stated that the audits forn10 years were approved and signed off. He made this claim, so by your own comments the onus is on him to prove it. Note that I also never claimed he was false. I simply pointed out it was his claim and so the onus was on him to.
So it appears that I comprehended the article just fine, but you have come to a predetermined conclusion and are trying to fit the actual comments around.
posted on 6/8/21
comment by Just go already (U21166)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
tcw
Well by his logic it's up to his to disprove it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually by both of our logic it is up to you to prove it. You just haven't been able to comprehend my comments.
posted on 6/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 45 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi COYS #FreePalestine (U22178)
posted 7 minutes ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9821921/The-smoking-gun-emails-prove-Manchester-City-did-cheat-Premier-League-FFP-rules.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now post the link from the Mail a week later where (tucked away in another story) it stated the PL had audited and approved City’s accounts for the last 10 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you made the claim the burden of evidence to prove that claim is in you.
Also, wouldn't that be the point. The PL audited the accounts, but if City were cooking their books as suspected then the accounts they submitted wouldn't be accurate. Think it through Boris.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think what through exactly?
It refers to a hacked email from 10 years ago ammending a deal done 12 years ago.
The PL aren’t even interested anymore, complaints were made by other clubs so they have to investigate but they know there’s nothing there, not even the Mail’s smoking gun
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, so the Premier league are still investigating now because they aren't interested...
I though it was obvious what you had to think through but since you are struggling, I'll explain. You said the PL had audited City's books and approved them as some sort of evidence that they weren't cooking of the books. If City were cooking their books then by definition the books audited by the PL would have been fraudulent and so the fact that they were approved would be completely irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were independently audited first and the PL approved that audit
The PL are not actively investigating City, they say they have ‘a complaint on file’ - They also have several other complaints ‘on file’ levelled against other clubs.
You need to find another straw to clutch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they not investigating them? They appear to gave been as recently as a fortnight ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jul/20/court-ruling-shows-premier-league-still-investigating-manchester-city-over-ffp
posted on 6/8/21
In any sport that people actually want to watch cash is king. Most Olympic sports cost quite a bit and the athletes are mostly pampered rich kids.
posted on 7/8/21
https://mobile.twitter.com/UnfilteredAfc/status/1423740599266594819
Even Arsenal fans are starting to open their eyes.
posted on 7/8/21
The issue should be the financially dopey clubs that just waste the money they are given and win nothing, season after season.
posted on 7/8/21
I don't know about todays 'amateur' athletes but Jessica Ennis used to receive about £90k a year in 'funding' during the years preceding the 2012 Olympics.
posted on 7/8/21
Not even got the highest net spend this summer. Dont see all the butthurt towards Utd and Arsenal who have spent more.