• theGOURT@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t even need 5 years. They’re salary cap is now set at £270M while they are currently spending £400M with the smallest squad in the league

  • ogqozo@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s like a million football teams in England that don’t make any money and play purely for pleasure man. If you say that “football” has gone wrong because one club is making money, then it says something mostly about what you see as football, not the actual whole football lol.

  • IntellegentIdiot@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Newcastle were before Chelsea. I’d say the reason for their recent takeover was the previous sugar daddy period

  • fungibletokens@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a lot more okay because it indicates his intentions are more likely to boost his local team of which he was presumable a lifelong fan.

    It’s a far cry from Abramovich using Chelsea to shore up his political and personal security, or the UAE using Man City as a sportswashing vessel to for PR gain for their theocratic police state.

    I’m not pissed about teams with rich backers spending more money. I’m pissed about what interests are being furthered by football clubs being used as cynical political tools.

  • smithdanvers@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No Chelsea are the most recent trailblazers who’ve been overtaken by the poster boys

    The poster boys are City, PSG and Newcastle

  • RuySan@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, Chelsea is the proof of football going right. Thinking they could buy quick success and end up in failures.

    City are the true poster boys for where football has gone wrong.

  • AutoModerator@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This post was tagged by the OP as a “long read” link. Please avoid low-effort jokes and read the material before commenting. You’ll be able to reply to the post after 5 minutes.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

  • Fuzzy-Topic-2684@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s be realistic, where would all that money Chelsea spent on players go if they didn’t spend it? To the fans? To the community? No. It would still be in the bank account of a billionaire. If they want to splash £100m on a single player from a club deemed smaller, then I don’t see the issue. A club like Brighton can easily spend that £100m on a decent replacement and then some. Also doesn’t guarantee Chelsea trophies and doesn’t wreck a club like Brighton. Brighton also seem to spend that £100m on obscure but high potential players from much smaller clubs abroad, which helps those clubs.

  • Petit_Hughie@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do people just randomly forget that some clubs used to be owned by banks and that’s how they are where they are today?

    I’m not going to be an hypocrite and say Chelsea doesn’t have a role to play in the current state of football but if it wasn’t Chelsea it was going to be another club.

    Current state of football was inevitable. It was going to happen regardless.

    • CBCWSCFC@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bayer Leverkusen were founded by Bayer, the pharmaceutical company that produced chemical weapons for the Nazis during WWII. Bayern Munich used the swastika as their badge. PSG and Manchester City are oil clubs that actively cheat their books to be able to spend more. I don’t get what we’re doing here trying to paint Chelsea’s spending as some new wave ruining football.

      These people who say “football is gone” frankly do not know what they’re talking about. Inflation (both within and outside the sport) has changed the landscape but there has always been stupid money and bad people within the sport.

      The complainers are just nostalgic for the times before they knew and understood how bad it is. Picking any one club to vilify is foolish. It’s an arms race.

        • mossmaal@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you think the UK should have had rules that prevented anyone from owning a club if they had any connections to someone who “wasn’t a good person”?

          It’s not even rational to discriminate against someone that was in the KGB, because that just means they were public servants working to protect their country.

        • Weary-Good-1607@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, he’s using Nazi Germany as an example of how football has been corrupted by less than benevolent interests for a very long time.

          • lettersputtogether@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean yeah I get it, but that’s leaving out a relevant historical context as to why those things happened.

            I agree that Chelsea should not be seen as “where things gone wrong”, but pointing out to Nazi Germany to say things have always been wrong just seems whataboutism with a really low bar