Those history clubs don't like to admit that, back in their history, they had exactly the same outside investment.
You’d have loved Usmanov to take control of Arsenal a decade or so back and have done the same thing though.
Liverpool and Man Utd will always be at the top table. City, Chelsea and now possibly Newcastle have come in and scattered the rest. Unless the other teams get bought out by a country that is pretty much the end of them, now. Everybody else is a mid-table plodder.
It's all within the rules of a free market and owners have invested in their clubs before. But most of those owners had some affiliation with the clubs or the area and were largely seen as custodians of the club. Never before was it done on quite the scale that happened at Chelsea and in such an arbitrary way. Literally overnight a mid table club was selected by a rich foreign billionaire as his plaything. Abramovich was considering sinking his money into Spurs at one point, he had no affiliation with Chelsea or their fans, he just wanted the prestige of owning a London club. What followed was obscene imo. Pumping hundreds of millions in the squad, buying up all of the top players, to the point where they would just buy players to stop rivals from buying them. The whole transfer market and wages were skewed out of all proportion and Chelsea eventually started winning things after Roman pumped even more money into them. It was financial doping and both Chelsea and City's trophies have been bought on the back it.
Well, we don't know that now, do we? It's impossible to tell. I've moaned about all three of those clubs too, if it helps!
So outside investment is sound if the owner has an affiliation or is local, what? Chelsea weren't a midtable club really either. They'd just finished in a CL spot and had won 3/4 trophies in the previous decade. All the money in football is obscene. Its obscene that Saints are paying a keeper who's not first choice 80 bags a week. You're just upset as Arsenal were the biggest losers from it. Financial doping is just a nonsensical term coined by Wenger that virtually every club in the land is guilty of at some point or another.
Just the way it was done and the scale on how it was done. It skewed football finances out of all proportion.
Arsenal's days competing for major trophies are over now, bro. You'll have to make do with a decent season once in a blue moon where you finish 5th or 6th and perhaps pick up a league cup. More than likely you'll be a team finishing 7th to 12th every season unless you get your own owner willing to come in and spend major money on transfer fees and wages.
That's the tragedy of it all really isn't it. Gone are the days where Managers like Wenger could build a title winning squad on a shoestring. You now have to have a billionaire to pump his wealth into the squad to have a chance.
I think it'd have happened anyway. If it wasn't Chelsea it'd have been someone else. The formation of the PL was the starting point of clubs being greedy and the money becoming mental.
Initially I didn't. I thought Kronke would steer the club in the right direction. When Usmanov teamed up with David Dein I thought that could be a good combo, but they were frozen out.
Liverpool’s owners are the luckiest in World football, they’ve invested **** all, but made one fantastic decision - Klopp. Their chickens will come home to roost shortly if they don’t sell.
They also benefited from some decent sales on the back of Coutinho and Suarez. Money which you have to say they invested well. Unlike Spurs with the Bale money
