All went tits up when Everton just took Steve Walsh. It was the long game, him leaving ensured relegation last season. Everton bosses playing 3D chess.
He overspent FFP at Leicester and won the league, he did it at Everton and almost got you relegated, not sure that's a winning 3d chess move tbh
and? Football has been corrupt for years throughout the world, England was never ever any exception, I bet many a dodgy deal was done behind closed doors with brown envelopes. FIFA, UEFA, Premier League, all corrupt. 1992 SKY, created a heaven for Man United with broadcasting deals, while little clubs were getting slammed against the wall and no one gave a toss...but City or something, all because it took the trophies off the big boys, that's how life works, karma. I'm sure City's day will come, but until then it makes good bantz for winding up top six teams. I'll look forward to seeing City in L1/L2 in the future, until then people like Sucky and Pinkie can suck it up.
The points I've been making have very little to do with my own club - can hardly complain about being one of the top 4 most successful clubs in England during the last decade, can I? ... it's been brilliant... If we've broken rules fair enough - we pay the price - changes nothing in the preceding paragraph at all ... However, what I'm fundamentally opposed to is a structure (FFP) that purports to be the custodian of footballing fair-play, health and welfare but, in reality, serves mainly to hamstring genuine sustained challenge to the status quo of the elite clubs that normally occupy the Champions League places come the end of each season... and Spurs.
No one's stopping others from challenging the status quo, the problem is too many want to be doing so in such a small space of time and to essentially overspend beyond their means to do it that it often results in things massively backfiring and then said clubs look to blame others for their own failings.
Dunno mate. I just remember the chavs were a nothing club and then out of nowhere they were breaking all sorts of fees for transfers and wages and buying up just about every top talent in Europe to stop their rivals from getting them. Then having to loan out 3/4 of their squad when they realised they couldn’t keep 79 players happy every week
The EFL brought in financial rules before the PL , though you were reputedly one of the 3 clubs who voted against them , and that had nowt to do with the "elite clubs".
Utd were successful on the pitch though. They built their brand through their tangible worldwide appeal. Far be it for me to come out in defence of them as an Arsenal fan, but as far as I can see it, whilst they benefited from lucrative TV deals etc, they did things without having to break the rules. City and the Chavs though were just nothing yo yo clubs. They were doing nothing of note on the pitch. Both were suddenly and artificially propelled to the top with an obscene amount of outside money that skewed the whole playing field. You already know this though. I get it that it’s bantz material. But thems the facts mate
In fairness Chelsea were much better than City at the time of each takeover. Were in the CL and had won a few pots in recent seasons. Compared to City getting slapped 8-1 by Boro lol. If Liverpool had beaten Chelsea on the final day in 2003 Roman might never have rocked up.
Chelsea didnt break the rules either. There were no FFP rules when Roman bought Chelsea. It looks like they might have broken some rules since...but thats another matter.
They are doing their best... What is an acceptable timeframe for investment to be converted to higher chance of success? The current landscape has this as a far horizon. It's happened before, but there could easily, very easily be ways and means to have bonds to support the clubs that are able to invest heavily should circumstances change. Why shouldn't they be able to spend big on a path to ultimately, become more self sufficient if not profitable. An eternal loss making machine should not allowed but the problem is that the level of investment needed to catch up is challenged at every turn.
They had quite a few trophies near the turn of the century I think so weren't a million miles away in comparison to City.
Neither Citeh, Forest, Everton, Villa, Newcastle or Leicester City have spent beyond their actual 'means' ... measuring their 'means' by reference to some arbitrary financial parameters dreamt up by some random spreadsheet jockey at the football authority is not a real test or accurate measure of that - the asset value of the owners is ... however, it is a convenient means of constraining spend needed to mount a proper challenge to the Sky faves... Give me one example of overspending massively backfiring on any Prem team being charged under the FFP rules? ... Everton my be in flux right now - but somebody very wealthy is going to buy Everton in due course ...
Fully agree with them being the starting point for FFP... They backed it up on the pitch though and the 4 became 5... Then the 5 became 6 and anything else is being strongly resisted.
