I've never seen it to be embarrassed by it, although I have heard it's a bag s**te that bears no relation to fact.
Look no further than NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL to see that EPL can go from strength to strength. It's all about global appeal and most countries outside of the UK gravitate toward teams in the EPL and the passion of the fans that support it. My greater fear is debt. EPL teams need to find a way to start balancing the books and stop borrowing money to exist or compete. If not for greedy Glaziers and their loan against club asset, I think United would have become unbeatable with array of talents. Even with 150m spent, they are only playing catchup in transfer expenses if you look at the past 10 years.
Surely the embarrassing thing is that your national dress was invented by an Englishman in the 1720s. I'd be damn embarrassed if loads of Englishmen were wandering around in skirts designed by a Scot...
Little known fact but the kilt was invented because Scottish men will literally shag anything in a skirt.
Plus its easier to slip over a goat to make it look more attractive. Add a touch of lipstick and some Eau d'sheepdip and you have the complete Scotsman's fantasy
PPV ruined football not any club. The TV money and all the endorsements and sponsorship deals that came with it. People would still play football for 10k a week. f**ing right they would who wouldn't. Only when the money went ridiculous because of PPV would players now only wipe their arses with 10k wages English football was brilliant long before wages went through the roof. PPV ruined boxing totally and utterly. Icehockey in the US the same, they closed their doors year before last over the wages bulls**t. it is the parasites attached to football that have done this, not clubs. Clubs only take advancage of the game being played these days, they have no choice, spend or die
It pains me to come to the defence of united but they are a club built on real on field success. They are a great club with an amazing history and some of that history is tragic as well as it is successful. Chelsea and City are the equivalent of athletes on drugs. No notable history of winning anything until they were doped up to their eyeballs with money. The rest is history.
So you're comparing an investor/fan pumping money into a club (which has always happened) to actual drug cheating? You are a clown. But given Chelsea have now overtaken you as London's biggest club, no surprise really.
This The chavs and City have done the financial equivalent of drug doping. Wenger was right 100% when he accused these clubs of financial doping. United and Arsenal have spent what they have got and earned without resorting to owners pumping money in (In fact with the GGs we have had money taken out!!). At last we are trying to redress the balance.
Tbf this is down right nonsense. Chelsea and City have done it on a large scale but people have been investing in football clubs for years. Don't see you moaning about Blackburn or Newcastle...but then they aren't a threat are they? What about Leeds, Portsmouth, Liverpool in the 80's, Monaco, PSG etc. Real selling their training ground to the government for vastly inflated price to pay for debts, Barca and their tax avoiding shenanigans etc. The reference to drug doping is pretty embarrassing actually.
The owners of Chelsea, City, PSG, Monaco are not investing for returns. They are just ego trips which they are prepared to fund at huge costs (because for them it is petty cash). These clubs have done this too but they did not have unlimited funds to ignore huge losses. Any club that goes beyond their "natural" means to purchase players who would otherwise not go ether would be guilty of that. The prime example is Monaco: relatively small club with small support. Then started acquiring expensive top players at huge prices. Money no object. If they are 2nd and 3rd in january, they go out an buy a few more top players and they start challenging for the French title. How can that be fair? A billionaire coming in and start distorting the league with their money. Financial doping is an appropriate term to describe this.
To an extent I agree it's not fair but it's within the rules (or was pre FFP) so it's not even remotely in the same category as drug cheats. The flip side is what neutral wants to see United win the title every year.? The Blackburn's, Chelsea's and City's have at least injected some excitement to the league race, Chelsea particularly have massively helped England's coefficient in Europe and the money clubs have brought some brilliant players to the premier league in the last 10 years that we all benefit from as watchers of the game. You can't tell me the premier league is less exciting than it was 10-15 years ago. Without Chelsea and now City, the premier league would be another Scottish prem, La Liga or Bundersliga where only 1 or 2 clubs can realistically compete for the title each year.
