This goes against the narrative that fans of clubs like Liverpool, United, and to a lesser extent Arsenal, like to project.
An owner comes in who is prepared to invest heavily into the club he has acquired, in order to elevate that club into the upper echelons of their league.
Every single big club has done this. They all have history of doing this.
It is exactly the same at City. Heavy spend initially that is financed by the owner, then an intent to become self-sufficient. It’s happened at Chelsea. And it’s happened at City.
But that fact won’t change the narrative of the fans of the aforementioned clubs, because it no longer affords them the excuse of why they clubs like Chelsea and City have caught up and kept up with them.
They will vehemently deny this of course. And they will also, at the same time, deny the history of their own club and what occurred with their own club that bought them a seat at the top table.
What a load of tosh.
Chelsea are over £600m in the red since Abramovich took over.
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 hours ago
What a load of tosh.
Chelsea are over £600m in the red since Abramovich took over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you see these figures. Your making it up as you go along. They owe nothing, in the form of loans.
Bought success, success = money as is the case for most things in life. Doesnt go against the narrative at all.
comment by vavarising (U21731)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 hours ago
What a load of tosh.
Chelsea are over £600m in the red since Abramovich took over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you see these figures. Your making it up as you go along. They owe nothing, in the form of loans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They converted the loans to shareholder equity. Doesn't change the fact he dumped (laundered?) it into the club.
City arent self sufficient though they still struggle to bring fans in and the books are balanced by dodgy sponsorship deals from sheikhs cousins for astronomical amounts and wage bills trimmed down by lumping them on a sister company or whatever it is they do to get around it.
Chelsea didnt have to deal with ffp initially so it was easier. City taken it to new levels.
Just one of many notable articles
https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/chelsea-debt/
Fair play if they're self sufficient now. But the OP and Ripleys comment are misleading.
Not that im having a go, it strengthens the prem and if city with their billion pound academy investments or whatever it was start producing top talent like chelsea seem to be doing now crack on. Theres positives to it all, but lets not pretend we dont know how they got to where they are.
And city have tbf sancho n foden top talents. Also when city win no one really cares if their team cant they usually all want city to win it cause its a bit empty in meaning like emptihad
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Listen to these Liverpool c’nts ffs
Awfully opinionated on how other clubs have been helped by their owners given their club would probably no longer exist if not for the current owners deciding to swoop in and use their beloved club purely as an investment.
Owner’s plaything eh?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 hours, 59 minutes ago
This goes against the narrative that fans of clubs like Liverpool, United, and to a lesser extent Arsenal, like to project.
An owner comes in who is prepared to invest heavily into the club he has acquired, in order to elevate that club into the upper echelons of their league.
Every single big club has done this. They all have history of doing this.
It is exactly the same at City. Heavy spend initially that is financed by the owner, then an intent to become self-sufficient. It’s happened at Chelsea. And it’s happened at City.
But that fact won’t change the narrative of the fans of the aforementioned clubs, because it no longer affords them the excuse of why they clubs like Chelsea and City have caught up and kept up with them.
They will vehemently deny this of course. And they will also, at the same time, deny the history of their own club and what occurred with their own club that bought them a seat at the top table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've noticed it's always fans of clubs with the American owners that use them as a side project that get all upset about owners actually having ambition to help their club succeed.
They've been brainwashed into thinking process' and never ending rebuilds are the way forward and conditioned to accept CB's from Preston or managers who aren't good enough because they were legends as players.
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 7 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Kaiser Havertz (U5245)
posted 2 minutes ago
Listen to these Liverpool c’nts ffs
Awfully opinionated on how other clubs have been helped by their owners given their club would probably no longer exist if not for the current owners deciding to swoop in and use their beloved club purely as an investment.
Owner’s plaything eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if you genuinely think the business models are comparable I'm embarrassed for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly not comparable at all Abramovich puts his money where his mouth is, pools archangels of doom put their mouths where their money should be.
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 8 hours, 45 minutes ago
So after 15 odd years and billions spent including countless interest free "loans" the owner, Chelsea are self sufficient?
Score.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
can you read, after 10 years and almost ½billion pouns spent on players they have sold for almost 5 million more...they havent included loan fees either
comment by vavarising (U21731)
posted 4 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 7 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Kaiser Havertz (U5245)
posted 2 minutes ago
Listen to these Liverpool c’nts ffs
Awfully opinionated on how other clubs have been helped by their owners given their club would probably no longer exist if not for the current owners deciding to swoop in and use their beloved club purely as an investment.
Owner’s plaything eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if you genuinely think the business models are comparable I'm embarrassed for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly not comparable at all Abramovich puts his money where his mouth is, pools archangels of doom put their mouths where their money should be.
-----------------------------------------------
Tbf marrying Liverpool's approach of prudent scouting & statistic analysation with Abramovich's ambition is the ultimate business model.
That's how you wind up with a quality team, but one that doesn't resort to filling a chasm sided hole with a Preston CB
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Or, that's how you become, European, World and Prem champions with a net spend of 20 odd million a year over over last 5 years.
--------------------------------------------------
I mean if you wanna play those games we're by far the best PL team since Abramovich took over in terms of net spend per trophy. We even lead that total since City's takeover I believe.
But... going back to my original comment, if we had a structure in place like you have, people like Michael Edwards behind the scenes, it could've been so much more. Likewise put Abramovich at the top of Liverpool, with his uninhibited ambition to help his club with his money, and you'd be in an even better place.
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 day, 16 hours ago
Bought success, success = money as is the case for most things in life. Doesnt go against the narrative at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does - Liverpool have done it in the past, they were like a Preying Mantis on us 'little' clubs in the 70s and 80s!
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
interesting article
Page 1 of 1
posted on 26/2/21
This goes against the narrative that fans of clubs like Liverpool, United, and to a lesser extent Arsenal, like to project.
An owner comes in who is prepared to invest heavily into the club he has acquired, in order to elevate that club into the upper echelons of their league.
Every single big club has done this. They all have history of doing this.
It is exactly the same at City. Heavy spend initially that is financed by the owner, then an intent to become self-sufficient. It’s happened at Chelsea. And it’s happened at City.
But that fact won’t change the narrative of the fans of the aforementioned clubs, because it no longer affords them the excuse of why they clubs like Chelsea and City have caught up and kept up with them.
They will vehemently deny this of course. And they will also, at the same time, deny the history of their own club and what occurred with their own club that bought them a seat at the top table.
posted on 26/2/21
What a load of tosh.
Chelsea are over £600m in the red since Abramovich took over.
posted on 26/2/21
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 hours ago
What a load of tosh.
Chelsea are over £600m in the red since Abramovich took over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you see these figures. Your making it up as you go along. They owe nothing, in the form of loans.
posted on 26/2/21
Bought success, success = money as is the case for most things in life. Doesnt go against the narrative at all.
posted on 26/2/21
comment by vavarising (U21731)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 2 hours ago
What a load of tosh.
Chelsea are over £600m in the red since Abramovich took over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
where do you see these figures. Your making it up as you go along. They owe nothing, in the form of loans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They converted the loans to shareholder equity. Doesn't change the fact he dumped (laundered?) it into the club.
posted on 26/2/21
City arent self sufficient though they still struggle to bring fans in and the books are balanced by dodgy sponsorship deals from sheikhs cousins for astronomical amounts and wage bills trimmed down by lumping them on a sister company or whatever it is they do to get around it.
Chelsea didnt have to deal with ffp initially so it was easier. City taken it to new levels.
posted on 26/2/21
Just one of many notable articles
https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/chelsea-debt/
Fair play if they're self sufficient now. But the OP and Ripleys comment are misleading.
posted on 27/2/21
Not that im having a go, it strengthens the prem and if city with their billion pound academy investments or whatever it was start producing top talent like chelsea seem to be doing now crack on. Theres positives to it all, but lets not pretend we dont know how they got to where they are.
And city have tbf sancho n foden top talents. Also when city win no one really cares if their team cant they usually all want city to win it cause its a bit empty in meaning like emptihad
posted on 27/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/2/21
Listen to these Liverpool c’nts ffs
Awfully opinionated on how other clubs have been helped by their owners given their club would probably no longer exist if not for the current owners deciding to swoop in and use their beloved club purely as an investment.
Owner’s plaything eh?
posted on 27/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/2/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 hours, 59 minutes ago
This goes against the narrative that fans of clubs like Liverpool, United, and to a lesser extent Arsenal, like to project.
An owner comes in who is prepared to invest heavily into the club he has acquired, in order to elevate that club into the upper echelons of their league.
Every single big club has done this. They all have history of doing this.
It is exactly the same at City. Heavy spend initially that is financed by the owner, then an intent to become self-sufficient. It’s happened at Chelsea. And it’s happened at City.
But that fact won’t change the narrative of the fans of the aforementioned clubs, because it no longer affords them the excuse of why they clubs like Chelsea and City have caught up and kept up with them.
They will vehemently deny this of course. And they will also, at the same time, deny the history of their own club and what occurred with their own club that bought them a seat at the top table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've noticed it's always fans of clubs with the American owners that use them as a side project that get all upset about owners actually having ambition to help their club succeed.
They've been brainwashed into thinking process' and never ending rebuilds are the way forward and conditioned to accept CB's from Preston or managers who aren't good enough because they were legends as players.
posted on 27/2/21
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 7 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Kaiser Havertz (U5245)
posted 2 minutes ago
Listen to these Liverpool c’nts ffs
Awfully opinionated on how other clubs have been helped by their owners given their club would probably no longer exist if not for the current owners deciding to swoop in and use their beloved club purely as an investment.
Owner’s plaything eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if you genuinely think the business models are comparable I'm embarrassed for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly not comparable at all Abramovich puts his money where his mouth is, pools archangels of doom put their mouths where their money should be.
posted on 27/2/21
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 8 hours, 45 minutes ago
So after 15 odd years and billions spent including countless interest free "loans" the owner, Chelsea are self sufficient?
Score.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
can you read, after 10 years and almost ½billion pouns spent on players they have sold for almost 5 million more...they havent included loan fees either
posted on 27/2/21
comment by vavarising (U21731)
posted 4 hours, 40 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 7 hours, 47 minutes ago
comment by Kaiser Havertz (U5245)
posted 2 minutes ago
Listen to these Liverpool c’nts ffs
Awfully opinionated on how other clubs have been helped by their owners given their club would probably no longer exist if not for the current owners deciding to swoop in and use their beloved club purely as an investment.
Owner’s plaything eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
if you genuinely think the business models are comparable I'm embarrassed for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly not comparable at all Abramovich puts his money where his mouth is, pools archangels of doom put their mouths where their money should be.
-----------------------------------------------
Tbf marrying Liverpool's approach of prudent scouting & statistic analysation with Abramovich's ambition is the ultimate business model.
That's how you wind up with a quality team, but one that doesn't resort to filling a chasm sided hole with a Preston CB
posted on 27/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/2/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/2/21
Or, that's how you become, European, World and Prem champions with a net spend of 20 odd million a year over over last 5 years.
--------------------------------------------------
I mean if you wanna play those games we're by far the best PL team since Abramovich took over in terms of net spend per trophy. We even lead that total since City's takeover I believe.
But... going back to my original comment, if we had a structure in place like you have, people like Michael Edwards behind the scenes, it could've been so much more. Likewise put Abramovich at the top of Liverpool, with his uninhibited ambition to help his club with his money, and you'd be in an even better place.
posted on 28/2/21
comment by Inbefore (U20589)
posted 1 day, 16 hours ago
Bought success, success = money as is the case for most things in life. Doesnt go against the narrative at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it does - Liverpool have done it in the past, they were like a Preying Mantis on us 'little' clubs in the 70s and 80s!
Page 1 of 1