comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 7 minutes ago
Regardless of what they've spent I never take teams with a ground capacity of less than 45k seriously.
__________________________________________
What a dope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White Hart Lane - 36k for donkeys years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
donkey like you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Empty head and the wit of Alan Partridge as well!!
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 36 minutes ago
Has FFP offically been phased out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 32 minutes ago
Has FFP offically been phased out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell us, you top the spending charts and spend vast sums on corporate lawyers to get you off FFP sanctions!
Don't think you really thought that comment through, did you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did think it through, that's why I asked the question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you didn't!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that? You've just spent £250m more than us in a single window.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 36 minutes ago
Has FFP offically been phased out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 32 minutes ago
Has FFP offically been phased out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell us, you top the spending charts and spend vast sums on corporate lawyers to get you off FFP sanctions!
Don't think you really thought that comment through, did you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did think it through, that's why I asked the question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you didn't!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that? You've just spent £250m more than us in a single window.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much?
I think:-
1. You need to go back and do your maths!
2. You need to research how FFP works!
That said, I don't believe your owners should need to justify how much of their own money, they spend.
FFP is a flawed tool that just looks after the interests of the so called super elite!
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was all funded by player sales though.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was all funded by player sales though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have done it once in their existence and now singing about it. FFP is done over multiple years.
City have the highest net spend along with utd over the last 10 years.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was all funded by player sales though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll take that as an admission that you don't understand how FFP works then (which was my point 2).
Do yourself a favour and spend some time on Google and educate yourself and also find out how Chelsea comply with FFP!
Team Spend (€m) Sales (€m) Net spend (€m)
Man Utd 1545 470 1075
Man City 1699 715 984
PSG 1445 504 941
Barcelona1630 980 650
Arsenal 1029 446 583
Juventus 1542 981 561
Milan 884 452 432
Everton 911 482 429
Aston Villa701 277 424
Chelsea 1614 1201 413
Well done for city this year, some good business. although apparently some huge agent fees were attached to the haaland deal. Not sure how that isn't declared.
But I don't think city fans are really in a place to talk about FFP
City's dodgy sponsonship deals also seem to be propping them up:
https://offthepitch.com/a/exclusive-another-manchester-city-sponsor-seemingly-no-staff-no-active-products-and-being-run-out
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 minutes ago
Well done for city this year, some good business. although apparently some huge agent fees were attached to the haaland deal. Not sure how that isn't declared.
But I don't think city fans are really in a place to talk about FFP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially when they don't understand it!
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was all funded by player sales though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, who is arguing. Two money laundering clubs who sold million players between them arguing about who spent most
No arguing here. Although chelsea have done really well for 10 years or so now will being self sustainable i'm under no illusions that we didn't spend big with Roman's money.
Not sure what point Boris is on here trying to prove tbh
I do understand it, what I don't understand is why it's only applied to certain clubs.
City 'overspent' 11 years ago mainly because some of the rules were inacted retrospectively after the clubs accounts had been submitted.
The punishment was served and no further action will be taken despite the best efforts of Arsenal and their fellow conspirators.
comment by TBW (U6489)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
Fack off Bats must be at least 40 by now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 seconds ago
I do understand it, what I don't understand is why it's only applied to certain clubs.
City 'overspent' 11 years ago mainly because some of the rules were inacted retrospectively after the clubs accounts had been submitted.
The punishment was served and no further action will be taken despite the best efforts of Arsenal and their fellow conspirators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't or you wouldn't be questioning Chelsea's spending!
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
afternoon maf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Nick
Spent 255m and have come out with a squad little if any better and that's a good thing
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 5 minutes ago
Spent 255m and have come out with a squad little if any better and that's a good thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's to be seen surely - unless you're name's Russell Grant that is!
All that money spent and still behind Brighton.
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 7 minutes ago
Regardless of what they've spent I never take teams with a ground capacity of less than 45k seriously.
__________________________________________
What a dope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White Hart Lane - 36k for donkeys years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also 70,000 plus for many years Brummie. And it was filled.
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 7 minutes ago
Regardless of what they've spent I never take teams with a ground capacity of less than 45k seriously.
__________________________________________
What a dope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White Hart Lane - 36k for donkeys years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also 70,000 plus for many years Brummie. And it was filled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats not the point though. Brummie wasn't the one who said a stadium capacity determined whether a team is taken seriously.
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 5 hours, 10 minutes ago
Regardless of what they've spent I never take teams with a ground capacity of less than 45k seriously.
As a side issue boasting about how financially doped you are isn't a great look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
45k fans who get to watch their side win trophies
Not winning anything isn't a great look either
Sign in if you want to comment
£255m Spurs fans
Page 2 of 4
posted on 2/9/22
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 7 minutes ago
Regardless of what they've spent I never take teams with a ground capacity of less than 45k seriously.
__________________________________________
What a dope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White Hart Lane - 36k for donkeys years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
donkey like you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Empty head and the wit of Alan Partridge as well!!
posted on 2/9/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 36 minutes ago
Has FFP offically been phased out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 32 minutes ago
Has FFP offically been phased out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell us, you top the spending charts and spend vast sums on corporate lawyers to get you off FFP sanctions!
Don't think you really thought that comment through, did you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did think it through, that's why I asked the question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you didn't!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that? You've just spent £250m more than us in a single window.
posted on 2/9/22
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 36 minutes ago
Has FFP offically been phased out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 32 minutes ago
Has FFP offically been phased out?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell us, you top the spending charts and spend vast sums on corporate lawyers to get you off FFP sanctions!
Don't think you really thought that comment through, did you!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I did think it through, that's why I asked the question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No you didn't!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that? You've just spent £250m more than us in a single window.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How much?
I think:-
1. You need to go back and do your maths!
2. You need to research how FFP works!
That said, I don't believe your owners should need to justify how much of their own money, they spend.
FFP is a flawed tool that just looks after the interests of the so called super elite!
posted on 2/9/22
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
posted on 2/9/22
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
posted on 2/9/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was all funded by player sales though.
posted on 2/9/22
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was all funded by player sales though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City have done it once in their existence and now singing about it. FFP is done over multiple years.
City have the highest net spend along with utd over the last 10 years.
posted on 2/9/22
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was all funded by player sales though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll take that as an admission that you don't understand how FFP works then (which was my point 2).
Do yourself a favour and spend some time on Google and educate yourself and also find out how Chelsea comply with FFP!
posted on 2/9/22
Team Spend (€m) Sales (€m) Net spend (€m)
Man Utd 1545 470 1075
Man City 1699 715 984
PSG 1445 504 941
Barcelona1630 980 650
Arsenal 1029 446 583
Juventus 1542 981 561
Milan 884 452 432
Everton 911 482 429
Aston Villa701 277 424
Chelsea 1614 1201 413
posted on 2/9/22
Well done for city this year, some good business. although apparently some huge agent fees were attached to the haaland deal. Not sure how that isn't declared.
But I don't think city fans are really in a place to talk about FFP
posted on 2/9/22
City's dodgy sponsonship deals also seem to be propping them up:
https://offthepitch.com/a/exclusive-another-manchester-city-sponsor-seemingly-no-staff-no-active-products-and-being-run-out
posted on 2/9/22
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 4 minutes ago
Well done for city this year, some good business. although apparently some huge agent fees were attached to the haaland deal. Not sure how that isn't declared.
But I don't think city fans are really in a place to talk about FFP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially when they don't understand it!
posted on 2/9/22
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 3 minutes ago
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-chelsea/transfers/verein/631
https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/manchester-city/transfers/verein/281
Sorry, you spent £222.83 more than us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have 'SPENT' approximately half of what we've spent!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was all funded by player sales though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, who is arguing. Two money laundering clubs who sold million players between them arguing about who spent most
posted on 2/9/22
afternoon maf
posted on 2/9/22
No arguing here. Although chelsea have done really well for 10 years or so now will being self sustainable i'm under no illusions that we didn't spend big with Roman's money.
Not sure what point Boris is on here trying to prove tbh
posted on 2/9/22
I do understand it, what I don't understand is why it's only applied to certain clubs.
City 'overspent' 11 years ago mainly because some of the rules were inacted retrospectively after the clubs accounts had been submitted.
The punishment was served and no further action will be taken despite the best efforts of Arsenal and their fellow conspirators.
posted on 2/9/22
comment by TBW (U6489)
posted 2 hours, 42 minutes ago
Fack off Bats must be at least 40 by now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 2/9/22
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 20 seconds ago
I do understand it, what I don't understand is why it's only applied to certain clubs.
City 'overspent' 11 years ago mainly because some of the rules were inacted retrospectively after the clubs accounts had been submitted.
The punishment was served and no further action will be taken despite the best efforts of Arsenal and their fellow conspirators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You obviously don't or you wouldn't be questioning Chelsea's spending!
posted on 2/9/22
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 2 minutes ago
afternoon maf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon Nick
posted on 2/9/22
Spent 255m and have come out with a squad little if any better and that's a good thing
posted on 2/9/22
comment by HB Fash (U21935)
posted 5 minutes ago
Spent 255m and have come out with a squad little if any better and that's a good thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's to be seen surely - unless you're name's Russell Grant that is!
posted on 2/9/22
All that money spent and still behind Brighton.
posted on 2/9/22
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 7 minutes ago
Regardless of what they've spent I never take teams with a ground capacity of less than 45k seriously.
__________________________________________
What a dope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White Hart Lane - 36k for donkeys years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also 70,000 plus for many years Brummie. And it was filled.
posted on 2/9/22
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 51 minutes ago
comment by BrummieBlue! (U3487)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by montleeds (U18330)
posted 7 minutes ago
Regardless of what they've spent I never take teams with a ground capacity of less than 45k seriously.
__________________________________________
What a dope.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
White Hart Lane - 36k for donkeys years!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also 70,000 plus for many years Brummie. And it was filled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
thats not the point though. Brummie wasn't the one who said a stadium capacity determined whether a team is taken seriously.
posted on 2/9/22
comment by PawlBawron (U1055)
posted 5 hours, 10 minutes ago
Regardless of what they've spent I never take teams with a ground capacity of less than 45k seriously.
As a side issue boasting about how financially doped you are isn't a great look.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
45k fans who get to watch their side win trophies
Not winning anything isn't a great look either
Page 2 of 4