They have.
No, thatâs Man Utd - posted above
All relative to when the net spend league table runs from.
Wages are only high because Klopp made stars of players from lesser teams like Southampton and Roma. These lads came in on 80-100k and doubled their wages after proving themselves at the elite level.
Youâve contradicted yourself there. Even though the courts decided that FFP penalties were unlawful, that doesnât change what the objectives of FFP were.
Man City appear to earn more than they spend by labelling certain revenue as sponsorship revenue even though itâs just their sugar daddyâs cash. Financial doping.
No Liverpool.
This year Angelino, Nmecha, and Jack Harrison gone off the books for around 35m with no incoming. Aguero contract amortized freeing up massive salary space
Last year Sane and Otamendi for around 50/55m
The year before that around 60/65m
so 140m in 3 seasons recouped and contracts freed up with retirements too.
They have a net spend of nearly âŹ700 million in the last 5 years. Soon to be âŹ900 million. Who have they sold only Leroy Sane really? Jack Harrison for a Minimal enough fee and letting Sancho leave as a 17 year old because he wasnât going to get game.
Liverpool spend more than they earn because they are in debt.
1 Like
eh - that was two years ago - you need to move into the current climate â
Just read up about the crowd at 07 champions league final and itâll tell you all you need to know about Liverpool football club and their fans.
It all weights back to Guardiolaâs first two seasons in charge. In the past 3 seasons their net spend is about ÂŁ80m.
So Liverpool bought their success?
Does this debt break any FFP rules? Is the debt Covid related? They were making big profits pre pandemic.
Seems to rail against your stance. Gas to see that your moral outrage at financial doping is merely mental gymnastics.
Did Man City break any FFP rules?
ÂŁ190 million net spend over the last 3 years according to transfermarket.com. Thatâs not including the ÂŁ34 million theyâve recouped this summer as itâs soon to be blown out of the water by a ÂŁ250 million splurge to pilfer Spurs and Villa.
Liverpool were also found guilty of tapping up young players.
UEFA banned them from the Champions League so the answer is yes.
Manchester City and Chelsea are bankrolled by autocratic juntas, so conventional financial, business models in balancing the books donât apply. Both should really be banned from the sport under their current owners, a bit like South Africa was when it was under the apartheid regime.
Man U have very astute and savvy owners in the Glazers. Strange that they get so much flak from the fickle Man U fan base. Probably anti-semitic overtones from the notoriously racist Man U support.
1 Like