Chelsea don’t have debt or accumulated losses. It was the norm for clubs to post accumulated losses in England until FFP was introduced and it was only when it was introduced and penalties and sanctions were handed out for infractions of them that clubs began posting profits again. Liverpool were £350m in debt when they were taken over, their Wall Street owners have wrote off a sizable amount of that debt with their own resources, not with revenue generated by the club. That is financial doping by your standards.
You don’t appear to be able to differentiate between debt and losses. You’re like a lad trying to play on after being checkmated. Very strange carry on.
I think you’re trying to deflect again. Liverpool are guilty of everything you chastise other clubs for. They posted huge accumulated losses when Chelsea were posting them so much so that they were £350m in debt in 2010 and had the Bank of Scotland ready to put the club into administration.
Yet you accuse Chelsea of financial doping in these years, you are displaying gigantic levels of ignorance and stupidity on this.
You really don’t have a breeze.
You’ve created a nice audit trail for me. You have fudged figures, contradicted yourself, misunderstood basic financial concepts and failed to substantiate anything with gentle probing. Your ignorance is off the charts.
You bring up how Liverpool nearly went in to administration and then mention financial doping. Financial doping would mean that administration would never happen as a sugar daddy would keep covering the losses. Your lack of knowledge is staggering.
the situation in which a sports franchise borrows heavily in order to contract and pay high-performing players, jeopardizingtheir long-term financial future
So they borrowed money that they could not repay until a point they were on the verge on administration. And what happened next?
Well I think they were taken over by a group of Wall Street billionaires and it was their Wall Street billionaire owners who wrote off a sizable portion of their debts.
And that is financial doping and that is check, mate.
1 Like
This is an interesting debate, I feel as if a winner is only a few dozen posts away, keep it up fellas
3 Likes
Wow, You can’t differentiate between doping and investing. Let me try and keep it simple for you. FSG invest in sports teams in the hope they can generate a return. They have done this. They paid off 200m debt that Liverpool owed and now they have made profits of 140m in two years. They are beginning to realise a return on the investment. Abromovich has spent over 2bn and accumulated losses of God knows how much since he took over in 2003. I don’t know what Chelsea are worth but it’s highly unlikely he’ll get see any return on that money.
That makes zero logical sense.
Both teams are owned by billionaires who pump money into their clubs. Clubs can’t make substantial losses anymore or they will face the wrath of FFP.
Before FFP, Liverpool were also guilty of financial doping. Since FFP came in Liverpool have been subject to an investigation. You have skewed figures in order to make arguments. Your whole basis is deeply flawed and relies on doctored figures and revisionism.
1 Like
Who gives a flying fuck. It’s all monopoly money
The choices we made as small boys are serious business, I’ll be honest, I didn’t even realise that spurs were a Jewish club with a few racist supporters when I was 5 years old, how embarrassing that is now 
2 Likes
2 Likes
Bournemouth spending more than Liverpool since Jurgen arrived. Staggering stewardship from Jurgen. Some achievement if paupers like Liverpool and Spurs finish top 4.
Spurs are building a £1bn vanity project.
Liverpool recently broke world transfer records for a goalkeeper and a defender.
Both have won nothing in years, their desperate fans fans now seem to be cradling imaginary balance sheet trophies.
The poor mouth is gas.
They are petrified of failing, petrified. The expectation now will kill them, the propaganda team will then come out and they will be lauding balance sheets and failure as a means of justification. They are too entrenched in their cult to see the wood for the trees.