UglyWanKanobi@alien.topB to Main@soccer.forumEnglish · 10 months agoChelsea FC face new questions over how Roman Abramovich funded success | Roman Abramovichwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square46fedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10cross-posted to: football@lemmy.world
arrow-up10arrow-down1external-linkChelsea FC face new questions over how Roman Abramovich funded success | Roman Abramovichwww.theguardian.comUglyWanKanobi@alien.topB to Main@soccer.forumEnglish · 10 months agomessage-square46fedilinkcross-posted to: football@lemmy.world
minus-squarequ1x0t1cZ@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·10 months agoI’m sure I read somewhere that relative to transfer fees at the time Chelsea were bankrolled more than City.
minus-squareXxAbsurdumxX@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·10 months agoYes. Adjusted for inflation, the amount Chelsea spent under Abromovich is insane even compared to City.
minus-squaresewious@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·10 months agoI thought the issue is that when Chelsea got taken over, what they did wasn’t “against the rules”
minus-squareOnlyOneSnoopy@alien.topBlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·10 months agoOur funds came openly and directly via the owner, there were no FFP issues to try and skirt around at the time. City are funded by fake sponsors in an attempt to bypass FFP.
I’m sure I read somewhere that relative to transfer fees at the time Chelsea were bankrolled more than City.
Yes. Adjusted for inflation, the amount Chelsea spent under Abromovich is insane even compared to City.
I thought the issue is that when Chelsea got taken over, what they did wasn’t “against the rules”
Our funds came openly and directly via the owner, there were no FFP issues to try and skirt around at the time. City are funded by fake sponsors in an attempt to bypass FFP.