Well youâve accused them of cheating. Borrowing is neither cheating nor illegal. Non repayment obviously has consequences. Can you confirm Spurs have defaulted on their repayments?
Becoming the must in debt club in Europe in order to build a vanity project is what they have done.
Being highly leveraged is not the most sustainable business model. Ask Liverpool who had ask some Wall Street billionaires to bail them out of administration.
So if HRH loaned the money to City then FFP would go away?
HRH?
thatâs ok mate. As long as they arenât camel jockeys or Russian oligarchs itâs all gravy
You are now revising to unsutsainable? Are you withdrawing the cheating allegation?
Since both were taken over by their current owners have either club turned a cumulative profit or is their a cumulative loss?
I couldnât give a flying fuck mate.
Both have won the premier league. You are very fixated on other peoples wealth. Itâs all monopoly money
Well either they are all cheating or none of them are.
How are Spurs cheating?
how are PSG, Man City or Chelsea cheating?
Noun. financial doping (uncountable) The situation in which the owner of a sports club or franchise invests his or her own personal wealth into securing highly talented players to better their chances of success, rather than relying on the revenue the franchise is able to generate for itself.
The court of arbitration for sport has deemed that PSG donât have a case to answer. Iâd imagine City and Chelsea will be cleared on appeal too, if the investigations find irregularities.
The idea of UEFA touting FFP is absolutely ridiculous. Footballâs governing bodies are proven corrupt.
I canât answer for Chelsea but City have been FFP compliant in their books since it came into place.
PSG spend 300m on two players within the same transfer window. The record annual profit for a football club afaik is just over 100m (and it wasnât PSG). The article you linked does not give a reason why the appeal failed. The numbers donât lie. What PSG and City are doing is financial doping. Chelsea not so much anymore, not because of FFP rules but because Abromovich has lost interest is in his play-thing.
how did liverpool go from being in debt and on the brink of administration to being able to buy players?
1 Like
UEFAâs regulatory body didnât know their own parameters.
Very convenient. Can you explain how PSG were able to afford to spend 300m on players even though their profits were nowhere near close enough to cover this?
they have very wealthy owners, the same as Liverpool.
You see this is the difference. Liverpoolâs owners are getting wealthy from investing in Liverpool. City and PSGâs owners are losing money but are able to cover it from other sources. Youâre really struggling to get the concept of FFP here.
Liverpoolâs owners are not that wealthy - certainly when compared to the Arab money ⌠They did however pay off some of the debt Liverpool had - 70/80m - they were able to lump the rest onto the out going company.
Theyâve put a decent self sufficient model in place since tho.
Youâre right in a way that itâs monopoly money - and that all the top clubs are at it ⌠but at the same time, what City, Chelsea and PSG have done in recent times has taken it to extremes and UEFA / FIFA need to step in - and once and for all introduce measures to cull the corrupt spending ⌠the game is fucked, man.