9 months, when the transfer window is actually open. Talk all you want now but Barca already couldn’t spend anything on transfer fees this last summer after selling future revenue to make ends meet
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.
Malaga
Racing de Santander
Deportivo La Coruña
*Man City
Chelsea poster boys
How is Barcelona being in debt “where football has gone wrong”, or how does it affect other clubs?
You seem to imply that cash injections from shady owners is better than the levers which are just the club selling it’s own assets
American finance men who are just oligarchs
So like many other PL clubs. Why are we being singled out under Todd?
and middle eastern billionaires
We aren’t owned by middle eastern billionaires
You’re singled out because you spent a billion pounds in a year how is the difficult for some chelsea fans to understand. And then to further the singling out after spending untold money you are remarkably bad.
No one who gets to the point where they can buy a club is a good person
There was massive public backlash when Roman took over.
No Chelsea are the most recent trailblazers who’ve been overtaken by the poster boys
The poster boys are City, PSG and Newcastle
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.
So what does their state now actually have to do with the roman era? They barely have players from that era, different manager different staff.
It’s more or less a different club. And the article was about him not caring about the club after the Todd era.
Blackburn’s benefactor was a guy born in Blackburn, who made his money with a business based 5 miles from Ewood Park.
There’s a huge difference between this and what Man City, PSG, et al are doing.
Chelsea aren’t the “poster boys for when football goes wrong” at all, that title sits squarely with Manchester City, Newcastle and PSG, I think.
Oh look, another kid who forgot Abramovich.
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.
Personally I think Man City, PSG, Newcastle and RB Leipzig/Salzburg are better examples but Chelsea are definitely up there
One is not like the others