It was technically legal when Chelsea did it, although they more than Man City or PSG (or collapsing clubs like Leeds or Portsmouth) are the reasons behind the FFP rules.
I think its pretty obvious who is old enough to remember the first few years under Abramovich compared to Man City currently by the level of fury towards Man City cheating.
Chelsea spent double or even triple what their nearest rivals did in 2005 or so. Man City outspend their rivals sure, but not by an insane amount.
The real issue is that a team like City “shouldn’t be allowed to spend as much as Man U or Arsenal” which is odd IMO, I think there should be a hard salary/transfer cap to level the playing field, not a “well you were massive before we changed the rules, so you can spend X, but you weren’t as big so can only spend Y”
People can disagree with that if they like, but the fact that Chelsea themselves managed to spend way more “non football income” than Man City, become one of the “big clubs” just before the rules changed, so now are “allowed” to spend more than City, because now their “football income” is huge is just mad to me.
We don’t know how much City spent. They’re accused of lying about it.
are “allowed” to spend more than City, because now their “football income” is huge is just mad to me.
tbh the rules aren’t really about fairness. FFP isn’t the real name anyway. It’s about stopping the problem of sugar daddies getting bored and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces.
I think there should be a hard salary/transfer cap to level the playing field
While this would ‘level the playing field’, it would just take money from the players and give it to the owners so I don’t think this is obviously a good thing.
If you limit how much can be spent on players, that just means more money going into the owners’ pockets. It’s not like teams are going to lower prices because player salaries are lower.
It was technically legal when Chelsea did it, although they more than Man City or PSG (or collapsing clubs like Leeds or Portsmouth) are the reasons behind the FFP rules.
I think its pretty obvious who is old enough to remember the first few years under Abramovich compared to Man City currently by the level of fury towards Man City cheating.
Chelsea spent double or even triple what their nearest rivals did in 2005 or so. Man City outspend their rivals sure, but not by an insane amount.
The real issue is that a team like City “shouldn’t be allowed to spend as much as Man U or Arsenal” which is odd IMO, I think there should be a hard salary/transfer cap to level the playing field, not a “well you were massive before we changed the rules, so you can spend X, but you weren’t as big so can only spend Y”
People can disagree with that if they like, but the fact that Chelsea themselves managed to spend way more “non football income” than Man City, become one of the “big clubs” just before the rules changed, so now are “allowed” to spend more than City, because now their “football income” is huge is just mad to me.
We don’t know how much City spent. They’re accused of lying about it.
tbh the rules aren’t really about fairness. FFP isn’t the real name anyway. It’s about stopping the problem of sugar daddies getting bored and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces.
While this would ‘level the playing field’, it would just take money from the players and give it to the owners so I don’t think this is obviously a good thing.
If you limit how much can be spent on players, that just means more money going into the owners’ pockets. It’s not like teams are going to lower prices because player salaries are lower.