Kept telling you guys the crescendo was just in regards to outgoings. We’ve seen plenty, no one ever mentioned a crescendo of incomings
I agree. It's less about individual players and clubs and more about trying to maintain the integrity of the game. I know people say 'what integrity?' and given the way those in charge of the game seem.to have sold out, it's a valid point but if you don't at least try to have some enforceable rules like FFP, then it's just making more of a mockery of what was once a fairly level playing field.
If 50 players can be accumulated by a club without going bankrupt (thry are paying far more wages out of far less revenue than some) then something is wrong. Maybe the accounting practices being allowed are totally misaligned (are chelsea being allowed to report half their club expenses in a different company to keep them hidden form ffp) Or maybe it's just pain unethical to allow a few clubs hoover up players form all over and stockpile. It's just unhealthy as if cheslea can "get away with it" then others will join thr party and a flood of it will start
I've a year left on my contract, let's enjoy it - Salah - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cp8n5nl5363o Doesn't sound great does it?
Chelsea can because of the way PSR works however sooner or later the Ponzi scheme will collapse as always either in terms of actual real financial losses or more likely PSR since their owners seem totally unconcerned about actual value as shown by the fact they paid so much for Chelsea with the added hit of being legally obliged to spend at least a billion on upgrading SB or building new stadium - though no one in authority seem,s bothered that they are showing no signs of doing any such thing .
Reads to me like he is leaving it open to see what he can get On the positive side he will be wanting to impress I would imagine
You could say the same about FSG though (or NESV, as they were). They got the club at what was generally agreed to be half of the book price, though it has to be understood that it was a distressed sale and absolutely nobody at the time was going to pay Hicks' demand of the $1bn estimation of Forbes (roughly £660m at the time). When taken to the high court by Hicks in a farcical attempt to overturn the sale, RBS, and Houghton in particular, defended the sale by saying that NESV had a contractual duty - and funds in place - to build a new stadium. I don't blame them for not doing so, but your reminder that the redevelopment of Anfield, costing @ £190m so far (please tell me that one day they can extend the Kop by redeveloping the area ) has all to be paid back by the club. Whatever happens with Chelsea, I'm prepared to bet the Boehy won't be charging them back the £1-2bn it will cost to rebuild Stamford Bridge.
Reads to me like he's off after this season. I'd guess that we aren't willing to give him as much money or a lengthy contract (rightly) but he isn't happy with what is being offered.
