I think you mean Matthew Harding, but yeah, for the price of a ice cream cornet and half a flake, you could've bought chelsea.
Nothing that anyone who has seen us play didn't know. Tbh I am glad he is saying it rather than picking on one particular player. We have as OK first team but nothing below that. Would rather see our under 23s play than see the likes of Dele, Ndombele, Sanchez Lo Celso, or Doherty play for us any more. I figure the short term pain is worth it leads to these lot along with fringe players like Rodon, Clarke and Sessegnon being got rid of. If the club do not back Conte then he will walk and the fans will seriously kick off...hopefully Levy and Co understand this dimple premise and stuff starts to change in January.
not uncommon. Plus, it was really hard I my who changed the club with his investment/development and bringing in star players. Makes me think what City were sold for, with what level of debt?
I think Levy has spelt it out to Conte already, he's being expected to develop your youth, improve the coaching and fitness. Levy obvs thinks the players that he's shelled out on are good enough for Conte to work with.
Net spend has to be the measure though, clubs overvaluing the assets they choose to sell requires another club to pay the fee otherwise it’s meaningless. Virtually every club who’ve been part of the PL can’t claim complete innocence on this issue, yours included before you went down. Piskie is also choosing to ignore the fact that his own club had the largest wage bill in the league for a number of years under Wenger. Fans tend to use this subject as either an excuse for their own clubs failures or to try and devalue the success of others.
Ah cuddly Ken and his management fees no doubt. Of course offiicially he probably never took a penny out of the club, same as at Leeds.
I think Mansour paid around £210m for City, but I don't think they had any debt. Given the enormous wealth of the Arabs, they went on to invest over £b into that squad to buy their way to the top. Chelsea's debt was wiped out when RA bought them, but their operating losses amounted to something like £140m just a season later after the huge amount of spending he did. It was as a direct result of this type of financial doping that Financial fair play was brought in.
We had a large wage bill, but we've always kept that manageable within our operating profits. The same as we have with our transfer budgets. The reason I highlight Chelsea, is because they were spending vast sums, way beyond their actual turnover capacity. They were financially doped, no two ways about it.
It was why FFP was brought in but not for the reasons you allude to and there's nothing fair about them. 'Financial doping' is a nonsense term coined by Wenger to try and excuse him failing to compete. It's called investment and Chelsea have been self sustaining for donkeys.
They were financially doped. They had operating losses of £140m the season after RA took over. Most clubs would have gone to the wall with that kind of debt. The fact that they have been self sustaining since doesn't negate that.
Jack Walker would be the original PL financial doper. You could blame him, then maybe Whealan in the lower leagues. or any chairman in an old school club from start of the game pre FFP who funded transfers without regard to turnover or debt.
Why does it matter if the owner can cover it? Can you name another industry where you'd frown upon an owner for investing into their business to increase it's revenue and profile?
We’ve towed £250m in 2 seasons and we’re still ****ing ****. He’s invested over £1BN but his asset is worth more than he’s spent and they’ve currently got the CL trophy in their cabinet. I get why you’re bitter about it, but your argument is skewed.
Football isn't like other industries though. There's supposed to be a level playing field of 'sporting chance' where you get to where you are on merit and achievement. Or at least there used to be....I know those days are long gone now
Leeds tried to do the something similar, but with borrowed money the dumb ****s. Seem to remember looking at some of the financials at the time and thinking...even if we win the CL we'll still lose money. It was all about smashing through the glass ceiling and becoming a regular top four club for 10 consecutive seasons. Wealthy owners can just keep on pumping in the cash.
United are currently over £500M in debt yet we still manage to pay top money for players. The Glazers are definitely not "financially doping" us though, if anything it's the other way around
