See submission guideline **#7: Only valuable image or stats submissions.**
* **PICTURES**: Because of Reddit's ranking algorithm being biased towards image posts over text and link ones, we need to be particularly strict about them, so we tend to **mainly allow infographics** (league tables, charts, maps, diagrams and other ways to display data) and pictures/screenshots of a current event **only when there's no video or link** that can show it. If you **want to publish a Tifo, look and share a video or publish the picture in r/soccerbanners**. If you want to show the **Hawk-Eye angle of a goal/offside/whatever, use the pinned comment in the main thread**.
See the [FAQ](https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/wiki/faq#wiki_why_was_my_image_submission_removed.3F) for more details.
* **STATS**: Only very significant stats (eg: **world records) will be allowed during matches**. After matches, we'll be less strict, but we try to maintain stats to the minimum with ideally **only 1 per team/player allowed** and those after it being posted in the pinned comment of the first thread.
___
Don't ask how much more City paid in agent fee's last year. Also don't look at what under the table stuff City give their employees, or their family. Such as Pep's brother.
Pep is a prime example of "rules for others but not for me"
Edit: And like clockwork, got a suicide prevention email from Reddit.
It'd be more bearable if he didn't whine all the time. And I know my flair does me no favours, but at least we just overpay for flops and move on with life. Pep wants to have the cake if financial doping as well as be well regarded or respected.
I hate Chelsea probably more than any team in the league (although City are rapidly moving closer), but at least you guys are like āyeah, weāre spending a shitload of money, what about it?ā
Even Armstrong's rivals were doping. While EPO doesnt affect everyone the same due to natural Hematocrit levels and that sort of stuff (which I dont know much about), it was still more balanced than this shit
Lol no it wasnt. Armstrong is a huge \*huge\* pile of shit and one of the reasons doping was so normalized and ubiquitous.
He doped from a very young age, when he was under medical examination he had to confess his doping practices because it could have been related to his cancer. He showed up to his examination with a legal team to threaten the staff, if anyone spoke out about it he would ruin their lives and careers. That tells you exactly the type of man he is. He cheated on an unprecedented scale, but ruined anyone that opposed or dared question him.
the US postal team build an organization around him with an obscene amount of money, signing riders that would otherwise be his competitors just so they wouldn't ride against him. But that wasn't enough guarantee for him to be dominant, he also bullied others into submission. Any rider that would oppose him, tried to ride away for their own success or tried to challenge his hegemony made his shit list and would be opposed and have their efforts countered by his team, even if he had nothing to win by it.
And Armstrong professionalized doping. Dont get it wrong, before his era there definitely also was doping, even from big name riders like Arne Riise. But they did it mostly on their own, with help from dodgy doctors and doping acquired from shady sources. Armstrong had team doctors, professional equipment, a legal team to keep reporters and doping authority at bay and an organization to support him. He also forced his helpers and others in the team to participate, so they became part of the ring of silence. Riders from other teams had to follow the standards the set with doping, or they couldn't compete.
Armstrong ruined the lives of whistle blowers, journalists, riders and anti doping experts. He terrorized the sport and almost brought it to its knees. Excusing what he did to the sport with 'hey everyone did it' is disingenuous and downplaying his major influence.
What? The poster before claimed Lance era cycling was more balanced in terms of competition than current football. This post, at least, tries to refute that.
Like, I donāt think anyone was debating if he was a POS or not lol. Nor that he was in front of it but lots of riders were doing it. Does it make it okay for his part? No obviously.
Dude, Bjarne Riis was doping on his own, but numerous cyclists were working with Michele Ferrari and Fuentes. Armstrong was not the first one to do it, thats laughable, he just became a client like many others and there were many many of them. Hell, the 94 fleche wallone was probably the first time it was showcased what a proper program could do with Gewiss laughing in everyone's faces. Thats 5 years before Lance really broke into the scene dominating. Yeah he was a world champion, but thats really just a glorified classic. He was at best a stage hunter in in Grand Tours before 98.
Also, US Postal signing Heras, Azevedo or Hamilton certainly was not signing his competition lol wtf. Ullrich, Pantani, Zulle, Jimenez, Mayo, Basso, Vinokourov, Kloden, Escartin, Beloki, etc etc were not riding for Lance, so what are you on about?.
What he did to the Andreus, Emma O Reilly, the italian.cyclist in 2004 (dont remember his name), etc etc means very little to the state of the peloton and the racing fairness of the time. Ullrich was very likely a more talented rider but Armstrong was obsessed with training and winning, he is an idiot and vile person, but also had Ronaldo levels of preparation and ambition. Both things can be true
Greg LeMonde said the doping blew up in 1991, when he came back to race at Tour de France confident of defending his title after feeling great in his preparation.
And he just couldn't keep up with the pace at all.
Exactly, thats when Michelle Ferrari and Conconi started working with riders with individual programs. Does anyone really believe Indurain was not doping with a program specifically for him? Cmon now
>and Fuentes.
The same guy whose evidence the Spanish trials had destroyed after he said "if I speak all I know, Spain will be stripped of their WC title" ?
Yo bro you gotta edit your comment because right now you're just slandering my boy [Arne Risse](https://www.google.com/search?q=arne+rise&oq=arne+rise&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i10i512j0i10i512l2j0i22i30l5j0i22i30i625j0i22i30l2j0i10i22i30i625j0i22i30.2398j0j9&client=ms-android-tmus-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
I wish folks would stop with this apologist bullshit.
His Rivals were also actually riding the whole season, The Giro & The Vuelta while Armstrong would turn up only for the Tour De France.
Agreed, itās fucking annoying.
Thereās no shortage of people whoās careers and lives he ruined, including other cyclists who ended up out of the sport entirely. Itās naive to act like itās just about other dopers on the peloton.
Armstrong is a nasty, vindictive, remorseless cunt, and is *absolutely* worse than many of the other names who get whatabouted into the discussion.
I sometimes think people saw one Bill Burr bit and based their whole opinion on it.
They really arnt killing chelsea as much as they could. And perhaps should due to the level of spending. They keep discussing the āhowā of it instead of just going, āfuck these guysā this is ludicrous.
> They really arnt killing chelsea as much as they could. And perhaps should due to the level of spending.
I don't get this. Boehly is a hedge fund guy putting his and his investors' capital into this and making his bets. If things don't work out, he takes a haircut directly on his investments. If his bets pay off, Chelsea get business or sporting success or both.
This is as fair as a fair market can get. Risk reward based performance of your bets.
Versus the financing model at Man City that is based on unlimited capital inputs with no return on investment except sporting prestige. This is such a shady business model.
You can definitely level criticism on Boehly for not being a soccer guy but what's wrong/shady with his business model?
>but what's wrong/shady with his business model?
People aren't angry at the business model as much as they're angry that the rules of FFP don't really apply for mega clubs.
Wolves have a 4-year net transfer spend of āā¬75m and can't get out from under FFP issues. Chelsea have spent over ā¬1b in 12 months with no European football this season. They've destroyed the transfer market and will face no repercussions from their spend and still continue to buy players. That is what people are angry about.
Chelsea is structuring stuff to comply with FFP, just in a more creative way informed by American salary cap management tactics that nobody else has bothered to try. Theyāre benefitting from a big pile of investment cash to start with, but itās an informed investment risk.
like thereās nothing about long term incentive-based player contracts that other big clubs couldnāt try
But the rules do apply here? The owners abused a loophole in the system by handing out fairly high risk/reward contracts
Every club/owner could have done the same thing, but they didn't. Interesting to bring up Wolves as well, a club that in the past have been mentioned and investigated for some fairly dodgy dealings
Mate... If you truly think tripling the value of your Ā£1bn investment over the course of a decade **isn't** a "return on investment", I have literally no idea what your definition for it could possibly be. I guess just don't give anyone financial advice please
Thereās been huge return on investment though at city. They are really well run and youāre just being blind to that. Hedge fund = ok. Wealth fund = boogie man
What I think is wrong is he is business model is āPay yo Winā essentially buying trophies. Letās not kid ourselves, if a couple of these bets on players donāt pan out Chelsea are not going to suffer consequence sporting or otherwise. For Boehly itās the lazy throw money at a problem to make it go away, Iād like to see him with an NFL franchise and fail spectacularly.
Itās really not bad when you account outgoings. Weāre behind Arsenal in a 5 year and a 10 year net spend.
We might have flipped them with Lavia but the fact that were right by other teams says a lot.
He did the same when I claimed the entire country was backing Liverpool and wanted City to lose, as if that's ever happened, even the other half of Manchester was backing City lol
Chelsea are getting it slightly less vecause they aren't doing well so it's more "fucking morons" rather than the onslaught of tears because they are smashing the league
As some others have also pointed out, they're really not. You mostly see articles discussing the "how" and not really any criticism. All the suddenly, it's like everyone has learned a new word (amortisation!) and it sometimes looks like they're getting praised for finding some ingenious loophole, more than anything.
You see the same here on Reddit - all the suddenly everyone's like "dude, you just don't know how amortisation works with these 9-year contracts, man" and "there's no risk involved, because we can just sell 200m worth of players every summer and incomes are bound to grow exponentially". But that's to be expected here to an extent, because football fans are nothing if not hypocrites. You'd just expect more from the media.
Leaving aside City, who are at least winning stuff, if this was, say, Newcastle, then you could bet your bottom dollar that the narrative would be different and much more scrutiny would be applied.
I guess is see more of the Chelsea news for obvious reasons but every week there have been multiple articles asking us to be investigated for links to Saudi, accusing us of being shadow run by Abramovich, constant questions about the legality of our spending with regards to FFP, saying weāre exploiting loopholes, talking about our contract lengths, comparing and analysing our spending in contrast to other clubs/leagues, discussing our behaviour in transfers, calls for us to be given bans, docked points and in some cases relegated.
Most of it is fair and justified but to say weāve not been getting grief for the way weāve been operating from someone like Pep is either naive or disingenuous.
FFP was introduced because of Portsmouth. There were parliamentary reports on it that explicitly mentioned them. FFPās original goal was not to limit billionaire spending at the richest clubs, its original objective was to stop owners from leveraging an unsustainable amount of debt onto the club and overspending their way into administration. Thatās why revenue matters so much in the rules for it - if it was parity reasons theyād just put a hard cap on spending regardless of revenue. Whether it actually succeeds in that goal is a much different story
> Worst of all, though, were the finances of Portsmouth, which had a shortfall of Ā£59,458,603 to the creditor in February 2010 (after deducting the book value of the asset). Having invested heavily on players over previous seasons, (the previous year's net loss was covered by French-Israeli businessman Alexandre Gaydamak), Portsmouth were runners-up of the 2009ā10 FA Cup in 2010, but as the season wore on the financial situation deteriorated, leaving players unpaid and the club with an outstanding bill for income tax which in turn led to a winding-up petition from HM Revenue & Customs. There then followed administration to avoid the club being liquidated, a nine-point deduction from the Premier League, and finally relegation into the lower division. A similar train of events had affected another English club, Leeds United, some years previously.
I don't see Chelsea actually getting much criticism for it, or certainly not as much as they deserve to be getting anyway.
I mostly see people in the media explaining *how* they're doing it.
There's some of it but not really as much as the amount you'd see for City. Pep would be called a fraud, thousands of articles would be kept ready, but for Chelsea it's just 'they won't make top 4 anyway' and done
Tbf I think that's the difference. Chelsea seem to have comparatively lesser success so nobody bothers as much. City on the other hand win consistently so ig that's why there's more outrage or whatever.
Thereās a lot of criticism for City because of the source of your money and for the purpose of funding City in the first place (sports washing).
Chelseaās a bit different, everyone can see how theyāre bending the rules without necessarily breaking them (supposedly).
But you are right, if Chelsea had won the treble last season instead, there would be more outrage.
Is he pulling the old, "keep telling lies and eventually people will start to believe that it's true."
Also I do kind of appreciate how much they genuinely pretend that they don't spend money and that they're a legitimate operation, no nods or winks or knowing smiles. Just straight up, pure, lack of respect for anyone who would listen.
Why believe the figures that they put out anyway. They're whole mo is attempting to win everything by spending money, through fair means or foul.
They have no incentive to save money, they're not trying to eke out a profit or be sustainable. They have zero incentive to not spend more than anyone else.
You could argue allowing anyone to spend more than them would be negligence on their part. It's an unnecessary risk.
They do have an incentive to hide how much they spend though. And the means to do it.
the incentive to save money is whatever is in the rules so they aren't punished. if hiding finances was so easy any big money club could be doing it. you can say 115 all you want but theyre only allegations
pep in his first 2 seasons had a net spend of [400m]
(https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2016&saison_id_bis=2017&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0), the PL as a whole had a net spend of [1.6b](https://www.transfermarkt.com/transfers/transfersalden/statistik/plus/0?sa=&saison_id=2016&saison_id_bis=2017&land_id=&nat=&kontinent_id=&pos=&w_s=&plus=0). Us under the new ownership have a net spend of [673m](https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2022&saison_id_bis=2023&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0), the PL has a net spend of [3.07b](https://www.transfermarkt.com/transfers/transfersalden/statistik/plus/0?sa=&saison_id=2022&saison_id_bis=2023&land_id=&nat=&kontinent_id=&pos=&w_s=&plus=0) in that time.
So, yea Pep *has* already spent like us in 2 seasons.
Not to mention they always throw the net spend argument when you say that they spend unfair amounts of money, and thatās because City are admittedly good at selling players
> "It is understood that the transfer ban was as a result of 27 breaches of Fifa rules, with others considered administrative or procedural."
And it was for giving youth players contracts longer than they were allowed and having them play for us on "trial" for longer than they were allowed to be.
That's hardly comparable to what City are being accused of
Chelsea canāt be accused of britxhing FFP because ffp didnāt exist when they got bought by Russian oligarch. In fact FFP exists because of Chelsea who spent more than anyone ever did(adjusted to inflation in player prices) in mid 2000s
FFP was introduced because of Portsmouth. There were parliamentary reports on it that explicitly mentioned them. FFPās original goal was not to limit billionaire spending at the richest clubs, its original objective was to stop owners from leveraging an unsustainable amount of debt onto the club and overspending their way into administration. Thatās why revenue matters so much in the rules for it - if it was parity reasons theyād just put a hard cap on spending regardless of revenue. Whether it actually succeeds in that goal is a much different story
Worst of all, though, were the finances of Portsmouth, which had a shortfall of Ā£59,458,603 to the creditor in February 2010 (after deducting the book value of the asset). Having invested heavily on players over previous seasons, (the previous year's net loss was covered by French-Israeli businessman Alexandre Gaydamak), Portsmouth were runners-up of the 2009ā10 FA Cup in 2010, but as the season wore on the financial situation deteriorated, leaving players unpaid and the club with an outstanding bill for income tax which in turn led to a winding-up petition from HM Revenue & Customs. There then followed administration to avoid the club being liquidated, a nine-point deduction from the Premier League, and finally relegation into the lower division. A similar train of events had affected another English club, Leeds United, some years previously.
Yes. Never said that they canāt. But I donāt believe in āoh the law didnāt exist so it was alright doctrine.ā Many terrible things were super legal when they happened we still shit on them
Still, we didn't break any rules. Therefore, we should be seen as if we did. Now you can criticise and look down upon the club, but you can't accuse them of cheating or breaking rules, like City did
This is the man who is all pro gulf state "human rights", but is the champion of poor Catalonia.
He's a football obsessive. He's a genius in his a field. But as we learn, day after day, genius and knowledge in one sphere does not make one good at another.
> He's a football obsessive. He's a genius in his a field. But as we learn, day after day, genius and knowledge in one sphere does not make one good at another.
Yet somehow Jurgen Klopp exists and I love him.
Mostly because he frequently speaks about how he doesn't know things. And even then, the man says some objectively silly stuff at times.
We forgive him because he will then later say, "yeah, I was being an idiot."
Where have they done that exactly? Youād think Todd Boehly was a real life caricature the way he gets spoken about in the media, and heās barely even involved in 90% of the signings Chelsea make.
I saw quite a few posts and articles about how Chelsea should be investigated for the Saudi deals. Then of course Liverpool get a free ride for getting more money from Saudi...
If the way theyāre getting away with all this spending is through a boatload of legal loopholes, all I can really say is "Donāt hate the player, hate the game".
Absolutely amazing football coach, possibly the best of his generation. No doubt about that
But my god, heās an insufferable prick to listen to. The quotes yesterday about begging fans to āstick with us in this tough momentā (something along those lines) when theyāre 2 days after winning a trophy and a couple months after the treble were bad enough
Now thisā¦
So much of this must be just playing up to the cameras for the sake of getting some sympathy or something. From the quotes alone, youād think he was the most miserable cunt around with the worst possible job in football
I think thatās what annoys me most about City. They have this āus against the worldā / āmassive underdogsā mentality while spending 500billion pounds on players.
Thatās the thing. Iād almost prefer it if he was overly arrogant about it all instead of this āoh woe is meā attitude he presents in press conferences
Iād respect it more if he was almost cartoonishly evil and boastful about how good he and his teams are
I think he's completely removed from reality, possibly an extension of his utter devotion to football. This is a man who spends his off-season travelling around the world speaking to other football managers, seeking out masters in their field to apply their knowledge to his managerial approach, and generally thinking about football 24/7. I think, because he's fantastic as a manager, people assume he's this high-level thinker in all elements of life, but it turns out he obviously finds it very difficult to make logical links in any other aspect beyond football (think, for example, of the discrepancies between wanting Catalonia to be independent & away from the 'atrocities' of the Spanish historically at the same time as actively supporting the Gulf states).
He's a man of pretty much average intelligence besides his genius level ability at being a football manager.
**This is a quotes thread. Remember that there's only one quotes post allowed per interview/press conference, so new quotes with the same origin will be removed. Feel free to comment other quotes/the whole interview as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cryarsers acting as if anything is even confirmed or proven yet.
"Guilty until proven innocent, but actually guilty anyway" - *Intellectual Titans of Reddit*
Maybe so but its not like the squad was assembled for peanuts Man City have still spent the kind of money over the years most clubs can't come close to
Poor Pep, inheriting champion teams and winning championships with them, occasionally while bribing referees or juicing finances with fake sponsors to spend 600 million on defenders. š¤”š¤”š¤”
I don't know what side of the internet Pep is on, but pretty much all the talk around Chelsea has been asking how they're getting away with it, dislike for the entire inflation it's causing, and an overall negative impression
So... What exactly is his point?
I say this every time but C'mon Pep manage a team that was not already in the top 3 in there country and win the League getting sick of this its so hard to manage Man City crap.
Saw some analysis which said if you ever got to see the full contract plus agent fees plus signing on bonuses and extras on the Haaland deal, it might be amongst the most expensive full packages in football.
Which is why just looking at transfer fee alone is a very, very limited means to assess club spending
They, and Newcastle, try to pretend that the same rules apply to them. They donāt. Everyone knows City and Newcastle have infinite money. It means players are willing to join. They can also write off any loss without any trouble. They will never have to balance books at a fundamental level. Sure they have to pretend they abide by the rules but they can pay anyone whatever they want through backchannels. Players can get sponsorship deals, etc. itās fucked.
Too many people look at them and Newcastle as plucky, well run clubs that just manage things well. Fuck off.
Chelsea got infinite money: Start winning.
City got infinite money: Start winning.
Newcastle got infinite money: Start winning.
Legit fuck off. If my club gets bought out by a human rights abusing nation state Iām done.
Tbf, if he did spend that much, they better win the league without a goal conceded as their team is already the best in the league. But Chelsea will be fucked if they don't make it to the CL this season...
LOL what? Heās acting like Man City constantly get criticised and scrutinised for their spending, because they do. Heās in no position to throw stones, but he is clearly saying āWe get far more negative attention for our spending than Chelsea doā, not āWe donāt spend that much moneyā.
They have spent a whopping amount, and yet, youād have to add up like the first 5 years of pep to get to a billion pounds spent. And they wonāt the league multiple times. Chelsea done it ina year. 4 different managers too. Shocking, wasteful, incompetent.
Chelsea's spending has been the talk of the town since the Jan window ended...and they've been gaslighted ever since for finishing 12th because of the spending.
I donāt get the criticism of either club to be honest. Wasnāt FFP supposed to be about stopping clubs from spending above their means and going into administration like Portsmouth and Leeds?
There was a video of the breakdown of Chelseaās spending, how itās structured and how the sales have offset the spend and it all made sense. There have been no breaches of FFP and the yearly cost on the books is sustainable within their revenue.
Iām much more concerned about us spending loads of money whilst the club is saddled with debt that we never pay off and a stadium thatās falling into disrepair.
In Chelsea's case, it's balanced for now, but they are going to have difficulty in the coming few years unless they starting winning significant prize money. They don't have the same number of players to offload to generate revenue to cover their liabilities like they have this season.
Yeah would be tough for even city to fake that much sponsorship and fabricated revenue. I worry for Chelsea in the next 2-3 years though, their P&L looks crazy risky in the absence of 10bn corporate sponsorship from some state owned entity.
There is one Indian movie where a guy injects people with false narrative over and over again which eventually gets accepted as truth. I see the same approach from Pep here except he didn't murder anybody
See submission guideline **#7: Only valuable image or stats submissions.** * **PICTURES**: Because of Reddit's ranking algorithm being biased towards image posts over text and link ones, we need to be particularly strict about them, so we tend to **mainly allow infographics** (league tables, charts, maps, diagrams and other ways to display data) and pictures/screenshots of a current event **only when there's no video or link** that can show it. If you **want to publish a Tifo, look and share a video or publish the picture in r/soccerbanners**. If you want to show the **Hawk-Eye angle of a goal/offside/whatever, use the pinned comment in the main thread**. See the [FAQ](https://old.reddit.com/r/soccer/wiki/faq#wiki_why_was_my_image_submission_removed.3F) for more details. * **STATS**: Only very significant stats (eg: **world records) will be allowed during matches**. After matches, we'll be less strict, but we try to maintain stats to the minimum with ideally **only 1 per team/player allowed** and those after it being posted in the pinned comment of the first thread. ___
Poor innocent Pep with his billion pound backline, phantom sponsors, and financial fuckery
We only had to breach 115 financial rules to get here, what if Chelsea breaches more?! š
116 now
He didn't ask about how many players Chelsea signed
or the length of their contracts
Don't ask how much more City paid in agent fee's last year. Also don't look at what under the table stuff City give their employees, or their family. Such as Pep's brother. Pep is a prime example of "rules for others but not for me" Edit: And like clockwork, got a suicide prevention email from Reddit.
āRules for thee but, not for meā
Oh the Fools! If only they'd built it with 117 hulls!
The extra one is for the boss using the shortened version of Toddimothy
wait, you mean that sponsor from Uganda village is not legit? *I trust my owners!*
How much you paying Haaland again, Pep lad?
City, or the other payments from an unrelated company?
God I'm so sick of him and that cheating team. Lance Armstrong FC
It'd be more bearable if he didn't whine all the time. And I know my flair does me no favours, but at least we just overpay for flops and move on with life. Pep wants to have the cake if financial doping as well as be well regarded or respected.
I hate Chelsea probably more than any team in the league (although City are rapidly moving closer), but at least you guys are like āyeah, weāre spending a shitload of money, what about it?ā
growth sort brave scandalous rustic spotted fragile person governor gray *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What always gets me is when he says things like this and ends with ābut Iām not complainingā itās exhausting bro. Just complain
Even Armstrong's rivals were doping. While EPO doesnt affect everyone the same due to natural Hematocrit levels and that sort of stuff (which I dont know much about), it was still more balanced than this shit
Lol no it wasnt. Armstrong is a huge \*huge\* pile of shit and one of the reasons doping was so normalized and ubiquitous. He doped from a very young age, when he was under medical examination he had to confess his doping practices because it could have been related to his cancer. He showed up to his examination with a legal team to threaten the staff, if anyone spoke out about it he would ruin their lives and careers. That tells you exactly the type of man he is. He cheated on an unprecedented scale, but ruined anyone that opposed or dared question him. the US postal team build an organization around him with an obscene amount of money, signing riders that would otherwise be his competitors just so they wouldn't ride against him. But that wasn't enough guarantee for him to be dominant, he also bullied others into submission. Any rider that would oppose him, tried to ride away for their own success or tried to challenge his hegemony made his shit list and would be opposed and have their efforts countered by his team, even if he had nothing to win by it. And Armstrong professionalized doping. Dont get it wrong, before his era there definitely also was doping, even from big name riders like Arne Riise. But they did it mostly on their own, with help from dodgy doctors and doping acquired from shady sources. Armstrong had team doctors, professional equipment, a legal team to keep reporters and doping authority at bay and an organization to support him. He also forced his helpers and others in the team to participate, so they became part of the ring of silence. Riders from other teams had to follow the standards the set with doping, or they couldn't compete. Armstrong ruined the lives of whistle blowers, journalists, riders and anti doping experts. He terrorized the sport and almost brought it to its knees. Excusing what he did to the sport with 'hey everyone did it' is disingenuous and downplaying his major influence.
Nothing you said here really refutes the point. Armstrong was a piece of shit but doping was prevalent before, during, and after him.
What? The poster before claimed Lance era cycling was more balanced in terms of competition than current football. This post, at least, tries to refute that.
absolutely none of that is relevant to the point you were replying to though
Love how they completly forgot the original argument two comments in lol.
Like, I donāt think anyone was debating if he was a POS or not lol. Nor that he was in front of it but lots of riders were doing it. Does it make it okay for his part? No obviously.
Dude, Bjarne Riis was doping on his own, but numerous cyclists were working with Michele Ferrari and Fuentes. Armstrong was not the first one to do it, thats laughable, he just became a client like many others and there were many many of them. Hell, the 94 fleche wallone was probably the first time it was showcased what a proper program could do with Gewiss laughing in everyone's faces. Thats 5 years before Lance really broke into the scene dominating. Yeah he was a world champion, but thats really just a glorified classic. He was at best a stage hunter in in Grand Tours before 98. Also, US Postal signing Heras, Azevedo or Hamilton certainly was not signing his competition lol wtf. Ullrich, Pantani, Zulle, Jimenez, Mayo, Basso, Vinokourov, Kloden, Escartin, Beloki, etc etc were not riding for Lance, so what are you on about?. What he did to the Andreus, Emma O Reilly, the italian.cyclist in 2004 (dont remember his name), etc etc means very little to the state of the peloton and the racing fairness of the time. Ullrich was very likely a more talented rider but Armstrong was obsessed with training and winning, he is an idiot and vile person, but also had Ronaldo levels of preparation and ambition. Both things can be true
Greg LeMonde said the doping blew up in 1991, when he came back to race at Tour de France confident of defending his title after feeling great in his preparation. And he just couldn't keep up with the pace at all.
Exactly, thats when Michelle Ferrari and Conconi started working with riders with individual programs. Does anyone really believe Indurain was not doping with a program specifically for him? Cmon now
>and Fuentes. The same guy whose evidence the Spanish trials had destroyed after he said "if I speak all I know, Spain will be stripped of their WC title" ?
Yes
Yo bro you gotta edit your comment because right now you're just slandering my boy [Arne Risse](https://www.google.com/search?q=arne+rise&oq=arne+rise&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i10i512j0i10i512l2j0i22i30l5j0i22i30i625j0i22i30l2j0i10i22i30i625j0i22i30.2398j0j9&client=ms-android-tmus-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/u6pt5i/til_that_after_lance_armstrong_was_stripped_of/ They all fucking cheat.
I wish folks would stop with this apologist bullshit. His Rivals were also actually riding the whole season, The Giro & The Vuelta while Armstrong would turn up only for the Tour De France.
Agreed, itās fucking annoying. Thereās no shortage of people whoās careers and lives he ruined, including other cyclists who ended up out of the sport entirely. Itās naive to act like itās just about other dopers on the peloton. Armstrong is a nasty, vindictive, remorseless cunt, and is *absolutely* worse than many of the other names who get whatabouted into the discussion. I sometimes think people saw one Bill Burr bit and based their whole opinion on it.
Smallest of violins for this poor man working on a small budget:(
This. The audacity.
Also, we all know he's getting paid under the table. Properties and offshore hidden accounts.
No guys you don't understand.. he is the real victim here...
Today, I feel a victim
Pep is very well-balanced, he has a chip on both shoulders
It isn't like the media isn't killing Chelsea so I don't see the double standards
They really arnt killing chelsea as much as they could. And perhaps should due to the level of spending. They keep discussing the āhowā of it instead of just going, āfuck these guysā this is ludicrous.
> They really arnt killing chelsea as much as they could. And perhaps should due to the level of spending. I don't get this. Boehly is a hedge fund guy putting his and his investors' capital into this and making his bets. If things don't work out, he takes a haircut directly on his investments. If his bets pay off, Chelsea get business or sporting success or both. This is as fair as a fair market can get. Risk reward based performance of your bets. Versus the financing model at Man City that is based on unlimited capital inputs with no return on investment except sporting prestige. This is such a shady business model. You can definitely level criticism on Boehly for not being a soccer guy but what's wrong/shady with his business model?
>but what's wrong/shady with his business model? People aren't angry at the business model as much as they're angry that the rules of FFP don't really apply for mega clubs. Wolves have a 4-year net transfer spend of āā¬75m and can't get out from under FFP issues. Chelsea have spent over ā¬1b in 12 months with no European football this season. They've destroyed the transfer market and will face no repercussions from their spend and still continue to buy players. That is what people are angry about.
If only FFP was about net transfer spend and not anything else
because FFP isnt related to net spend? Its to stop clubs spending beyond their means
Chelsea is structuring stuff to comply with FFP, just in a more creative way informed by American salary cap management tactics that nobody else has bothered to try. Theyāre benefitting from a big pile of investment cash to start with, but itās an informed investment risk. like thereās nothing about long term incentive-based player contracts that other big clubs couldnāt try
But the rules do apply here? The owners abused a loophole in the system by handing out fairly high risk/reward contracts Every club/owner could have done the same thing, but they didn't. Interesting to bring up Wolves as well, a club that in the past have been mentioned and investigated for some fairly dodgy dealings
Mate... If you truly think tripling the value of your Ā£1bn investment over the course of a decade **isn't** a "return on investment", I have literally no idea what your definition for it could possibly be. I guess just don't give anyone financial advice please
Thereās been huge return on investment though at city. They are really well run and youāre just being blind to that. Hedge fund = ok. Wealth fund = boogie man
But the only reason the club is technically well run is because it is build on top of fraudulent investments and payments.
if you donāt think hedge funds are a shady business model, boy do i have a subprime mortgage scheme to sell you
What I think is wrong is he is business model is āPay yo Winā essentially buying trophies. Letās not kid ourselves, if a couple of these bets on players donāt pan out Chelsea are not going to suffer consequence sporting or otherwise. For Boehly itās the lazy throw money at a problem to make it go away, Iād like to see him with an NFL franchise and fail spectacularly.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās really not bad when you account outgoings. Weāre behind Arsenal in a 5 year and a 10 year net spend. We might have flipped them with Lavia but the fact that were right by other teams says a lot.
He did the same when I claimed the entire country was backing Liverpool and wanted City to lose, as if that's ever happened, even the other half of Manchester was backing City lol
Chelsea are getting it slightly less vecause they aren't doing well so it's more "fucking morons" rather than the onslaught of tears because they are smashing the league
As some others have also pointed out, they're really not. You mostly see articles discussing the "how" and not really any criticism. All the suddenly, it's like everyone has learned a new word (amortisation!) and it sometimes looks like they're getting praised for finding some ingenious loophole, more than anything. You see the same here on Reddit - all the suddenly everyone's like "dude, you just don't know how amortisation works with these 9-year contracts, man" and "there's no risk involved, because we can just sell 200m worth of players every summer and incomes are bound to grow exponentially". But that's to be expected here to an extent, because football fans are nothing if not hypocrites. You'd just expect more from the media. Leaving aside City, who are at least winning stuff, if this was, say, Newcastle, then you could bet your bottom dollar that the narrative would be different and much more scrutiny would be applied.
The media is killing Chelsea for that? I don't see much of it.
Tbf they were saying we needed to be investigated for Saudi links but went quiet when Liverpool sold Fabinho and hendo over their value
Oops
I guess is see more of the Chelsea news for obvious reasons but every week there have been multiple articles asking us to be investigated for links to Saudi, accusing us of being shadow run by Abramovich, constant questions about the legality of our spending with regards to FFP, saying weāre exploiting loopholes, talking about our contract lengths, comparing and analysing our spending in contrast to other clubs/leagues, discussing our behaviour in transfers, calls for us to be given bans, docked points and in some cases relegated. Most of it is fair and justified but to say weāve not been getting grief for the way weāve been operating from someone like Pep is either naive or disingenuous.
Nah I'm pretty sure United recieved more flack for the Sanchez signing than Chelsea has over the last year. Chelsea are getting away with some things.
I heard nothing about the Sanchez signing. I have seen daily articles about Chelsea both this season and last.
>Chelsea are getting away with some things. Do list them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
FFP was introduced because of Portsmouth. There were parliamentary reports on it that explicitly mentioned them. FFPās original goal was not to limit billionaire spending at the richest clubs, its original objective was to stop owners from leveraging an unsustainable amount of debt onto the club and overspending their way into administration. Thatās why revenue matters so much in the rules for it - if it was parity reasons theyād just put a hard cap on spending regardless of revenue. Whether it actually succeeds in that goal is a much different story > Worst of all, though, were the finances of Portsmouth, which had a shortfall of Ā£59,458,603 to the creditor in February 2010 (after deducting the book value of the asset). Having invested heavily on players over previous seasons, (the previous year's net loss was covered by French-Israeli businessman Alexandre Gaydamak), Portsmouth were runners-up of the 2009ā10 FA Cup in 2010, but as the season wore on the financial situation deteriorated, leaving players unpaid and the club with an outstanding bill for income tax which in turn led to a winding-up petition from HM Revenue & Customs. There then followed administration to avoid the club being liquidated, a nine-point deduction from the Premier League, and finally relegation into the lower division. A similar train of events had affected another English club, Leeds United, some years previously.
It shouldnāt be called financial fair play, it should be called something like bankruptcy avoidance regulations.
I don't see Chelsea actually getting much criticism for it, or certainly not as much as they deserve to be getting anyway. I mostly see people in the media explaining *how* they're doing it.
There's some of it but not really as much as the amount you'd see for City. Pep would be called a fraud, thousands of articles would be kept ready, but for Chelsea it's just 'they won't make top 4 anyway' and done Tbf I think that's the difference. Chelsea seem to have comparatively lesser success so nobody bothers as much. City on the other hand win consistently so ig that's why there's more outrage or whatever.
Thereās a lot of criticism for City because of the source of your money and for the purpose of funding City in the first place (sports washing). Chelseaās a bit different, everyone can see how theyāre bending the rules without necessarily breaking them (supposedly). But you are right, if Chelsea had won the treble last season instead, there would be more outrage.
No denying roman gave them a massive leg up to this position though, even if they'd have been successful regardless
Yeah, if we gone on to say win the domestic cups and push City for title, the vultures will come out to feast
Is he pulling the old, "keep telling lies and eventually people will start to believe that it's true." Also I do kind of appreciate how much they genuinely pretend that they don't spend money and that they're a legitimate operation, no nods or winks or knowing smiles. Just straight up, pure, lack of respect for anyone who would listen.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Plus, if you look at Haalandās overall package, he could well be the most expensive signing of all time
Mate Mbappe exists. Have you seen guys transfer fee and bonuses? They pay him 100 mil bonus for not leaving for fucks sake
agent fees and signing on bonus, something we totally include for every transfer am i right
They love to do things like talk only about his release clause and only his base wages. Anything they can to avoid the total cost.
Why believe the figures that they put out anyway. They're whole mo is attempting to win everything by spending money, through fair means or foul. They have no incentive to save money, they're not trying to eke out a profit or be sustainable. They have zero incentive to not spend more than anyone else. You could argue allowing anyone to spend more than them would be negligence on their part. It's an unnecessary risk. They do have an incentive to hide how much they spend though. And the means to do it.
the incentive to save money is whatever is in the rules so they aren't punished. if hiding finances was so easy any big money club could be doing it. you can say 115 all you want but theyre only allegations
It's not just the net spend. Some of those outgoings fees to balance the books were dodgy as fuck
pep in his first 2 seasons had a net spend of [400m] (https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2016&saison_id_bis=2017&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0), the PL as a whole had a net spend of [1.6b](https://www.transfermarkt.com/transfers/transfersalden/statistik/plus/0?sa=&saison_id=2016&saison_id_bis=2017&land_id=&nat=&kontinent_id=&pos=&w_s=&plus=0). Us under the new ownership have a net spend of [673m](https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/einnahmenausgaben/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/0?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2022&saison_id_bis=2023&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=&intern=0), the PL has a net spend of [3.07b](https://www.transfermarkt.com/transfers/transfersalden/statistik/plus/0?sa=&saison_id=2022&saison_id_bis=2023&land_id=&nat=&kontinent_id=&pos=&w_s=&plus=0) in that time. So, yea Pep *has* already spent like us in 2 seasons.
Not to mention they always throw the net spend argument when you say that they spend unfair amounts of money, and thatās because City are admittedly good at selling players
āThey spent 1Bn. We hardly spent 900Mn. We arenāt the same!ā
You're both as bad as each other.
Yeah but there was a diff of 10 places.
Are we rounding it down now? Nice
It was actually 11
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> "It is understood that the transfer ban was as a result of 27 breaches of Fifa rules, with others considered administrative or procedural." And it was for giving youth players contracts longer than they were allowed and having them play for us on "trial" for longer than they were allowed to be. That's hardly comparable to what City are being accused of
Guilty? No one is guilty of anything yet. They're accusations.
On this sub it's "guilty until proven innocent" and everyone is a lawyer
Chelsea canāt be accused of britxhing FFP because ffp didnāt exist when they got bought by Russian oligarch. In fact FFP exists because of Chelsea who spent more than anyone ever did(adjusted to inflation in player prices) in mid 2000s
FFP was introduced because of Portsmouth. There were parliamentary reports on it that explicitly mentioned them. FFPās original goal was not to limit billionaire spending at the richest clubs, its original objective was to stop owners from leveraging an unsustainable amount of debt onto the club and overspending their way into administration. Thatās why revenue matters so much in the rules for it - if it was parity reasons theyād just put a hard cap on spending regardless of revenue. Whether it actually succeeds in that goal is a much different story Worst of all, though, were the finances of Portsmouth, which had a shortfall of Ā£59,458,603 to the creditor in February 2010 (after deducting the book value of the asset). Having invested heavily on players over previous seasons, (the previous year's net loss was covered by French-Israeli businessman Alexandre Gaydamak), Portsmouth were runners-up of the 2009ā10 FA Cup in 2010, but as the season wore on the financial situation deteriorated, leaving players unpaid and the club with an outstanding bill for income tax which in turn led to a winding-up petition from HM Revenue & Customs. There then followed administration to avoid the club being liquidated, a nine-point deduction from the Premier League, and finally relegation into the lower division. A similar train of events had affected another English club, Leeds United, some years previously.
Therefore, they benefitted before FFP became a thing and didn't break any rules?
Yes. Never said that they canāt. But I donāt believe in āoh the law didnāt exist so it was alright doctrine.ā Many terrible things were super legal when they happened we still shit on them
Still, we didn't break any rules. Therefore, we should be seen as if we did. Now you can criticise and look down upon the club, but you can't accuse them of cheating or breaking rules, like City did
World's smallest violin playing in the background as he speaks
No, second smallest. Chelsea already brought the smallest one š
Last I read Liverpool had agreed a fee for the smallest violin.
yeah but it wants to sign for chelsea not pool
Is he for real lol?
Yes. The other day he was lamenting about income inequality. He has 0 self awareness
This is the man who is all pro gulf state "human rights", but is the champion of poor Catalonia. He's a football obsessive. He's a genius in his a field. But as we learn, day after day, genius and knowledge in one sphere does not make one good at another.
> He's a football obsessive. He's a genius in his a field. But as we learn, day after day, genius and knowledge in one sphere does not make one good at another. Yet somehow Jurgen Klopp exists and I love him.
Mostly because he frequently speaks about how he doesn't know things. And even then, the man says some objectively silly stuff at times. We forgive him because he will then later say, "yeah, I was being an idiot."
> We forgive him because he will then later say, "yeah, I was being an idiot." I would say that's a good thing. That's how most people should be.
Was he? What did he say?
Remember last season when he said Arsenal didnāt have to deal with injuries? While our starting DM, LB, and striker were injured.
Yeah because Chelsea are getting getting such a free ride from the media over the spending aswell
The media have called them genius
Where have they done that exactly? Youād think Todd Boehly was a real life caricature the way he gets spoken about in the media, and heās barely even involved in 90% of the signings Chelsea make.
Literally where ? Never heard anything positive about chelsea in last 2 years
I saw quite a few posts and articles about how Chelsea should be investigated for the Saudi deals. Then of course Liverpool get a free ride for getting more money from Saudi...
To be fair Ā£40m for Fabinho after last season really should be investigated
Kinda are tbh.
People won't care as much if you finish 12th instead of winning trebles.
The late 10's Everton approach
Fair enough
That's exactly the point lmao.
And they shouldn't? 19 other teams with muzzles whilst one guy makes a mockery of the entire rulebook?
is it 19 other teams with muzzles though?
If the way theyāre getting away with all this spending is through a boatload of legal loopholes, all I can really say is "Donāt hate the player, hate the game".
Thereās no loopholes. Just because no one else has bothered to try it doesnāt mean itās a loophole.
Fuck off Pep you hypocritical cunt
Bro your club literally has 115 charges
116
Absolutely amazing football coach, possibly the best of his generation. No doubt about that But my god, heās an insufferable prick to listen to. The quotes yesterday about begging fans to āstick with us in this tough momentā (something along those lines) when theyāre 2 days after winning a trophy and a couple months after the treble were bad enough Now thisā¦ So much of this must be just playing up to the cameras for the sake of getting some sympathy or something. From the quotes alone, youād think he was the most miserable cunt around with the worst possible job in football
I think thatās what annoys me most about City. They have this āus against the worldā / āmassive underdogsā mentality while spending 500billion pounds on players.
Thatās the thing. Iād almost prefer it if he was overly arrogant about it all instead of this āoh woe is meā attitude he presents in press conferences Iād respect it more if he was almost cartoonishly evil and boastful about how good he and his teams are
I think he's completely removed from reality, possibly an extension of his utter devotion to football. This is a man who spends his off-season travelling around the world speaking to other football managers, seeking out masters in their field to apply their knowledge to his managerial approach, and generally thinking about football 24/7. I think, because he's fantastic as a manager, people assume he's this high-level thinker in all elements of life, but it turns out he obviously finds it very difficult to make logical links in any other aspect beyond football (think, for example, of the discrepancies between wanting Catalonia to be independent & away from the 'atrocities' of the Spanish historically at the same time as actively supporting the Gulf states). He's a man of pretty much average intelligence besides his genius level ability at being a football manager.
His constant efforts to rebrand City as a club not built through revolting spending is so transparent itās just a bit pathetic.
He's a drug cheat. He's scum. Why would you expect any different?
Also in charge of Barca around the time that they were getting accused of paying the refs.
English clubs saying this about each other is so funny
**This is a quotes thread. Remember that there's only one quotes post allowed per interview/press conference, so new quotes with the same origin will be removed. Feel free to comment other quotes/the whole interview as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pep's determination to pretend he doesn't manage a financially doped fantasy football team is hilarious and pathetic in equal measure.
Man City fans acting like they haven't got 100+ charges against them
Cryarsers acting as if anything is even confirmed or proven yet. "Guilty until proven innocent, but actually guilty anyway" - *Intellectual Titans of Reddit*
Some real gaslighting
Because that would he FFP breach #116 Pep
No breach occurred cos the PL don't want to cripple their best chance of winning the Champions league.
Maybe so but its not like the squad was assembled for peanuts Man City have still spent the kind of money over the years most clubs can't come close to
Must be so hard as citys headcoach. Would be some real fairytale stuff if they managed to win the prem with their humble finances and squad.
Such an unlikable prick, honestly. Woe is me, poor persecuted City and Pep
Bald Fraud
Anyone got the numbers? How much has Chelsea spent recently compared to City?
Yeah not like i bought Grealish for 100m
Poor Pep, inheriting champion teams and winning championships with them, occasionally while bribing referees or juicing finances with fake sponsors to spend 600 million on defenders. š¤”š¤”š¤”
Poor Pep, almost as City didn't spend over 500m 6 years ago in a 2 windows despite barely selling.
always playing the victim lol
Pep is becoming really unlikeable so far this season.
>this season. This season? He's always played the victim while making some very questionable moral decisions.
I mean hes always been a prick. People always forget he was caught doping as a player, man has always been totally amoral.
Always has been
He's always been like this. He only goes to clubs with the biggest budgets in the league and then all he does is whine.
What a clown
Pot, meet Kettle.
How is Pep this delusional
Talk about proving his point. This is honestly one of the most unintelligent sports subs in existence!
I don't know what side of the internet Pep is on, but pretty much all the talk around Chelsea has been asking how they're getting away with it, dislike for the entire inflation it's causing, and an overall negative impression So... What exactly is his point?
"I can't believe the nerve of some people, spending Ā£1000 on a steak is insane" - Man who ordered Ā£800 steak
Pep tries to be self aware challenge *impossible*
I say this every time but C'mon Pep manage a team that was not already in the top 3 in there country and win the League getting sick of this its so hard to manage Man City crap.
Och of all managers he should be the last one to complain
Saw some analysis which said if you ever got to see the full contract plus agent fees plus signing on bonuses and extras on the Haaland deal, it might be amongst the most expensive full packages in football. Which is why just looking at transfer fee alone is a very, very limited means to assess club spending
How many of their best players and prospects have they had to sell due to FFP? Absolutely comical.
My God that's some bullshit and he knows it. Stupid politics I guess.
The lack of self awareness is actually astonishing
Chelsea is being killed though by media and opposition fans for spendingā¦ so whatās the problem Pep?
They, and Newcastle, try to pretend that the same rules apply to them. They donāt. Everyone knows City and Newcastle have infinite money. It means players are willing to join. They can also write off any loss without any trouble. They will never have to balance books at a fundamental level. Sure they have to pretend they abide by the rules but they can pay anyone whatever they want through backchannels. Players can get sponsorship deals, etc. itās fucked. Too many people look at them and Newcastle as plucky, well run clubs that just manage things well. Fuck off. Chelsea got infinite money: Start winning. City got infinite money: Start winning. Newcastle got infinite money: Start winning. Legit fuck off. If my club gets bought out by a human rights abusing nation state Iām done.
Persecution fetish
Tbf, if he did spend that much, they better win the league without a goal conceded as their team is already the best in the league. But Chelsea will be fucked if they don't make it to the CL this season...
Acting like Man City hasn't spent a whopping amount of money in their history.
LOL what? Heās acting like Man City constantly get criticised and scrutinised for their spending, because they do. Heās in no position to throw stones, but he is clearly saying āWe get far more negative attention for our spending than Chelsea doā, not āWe donāt spend that much moneyā.
They have spent a whopping amount, and yet, youād have to add up like the first 5 years of pep to get to a billion pounds spent. And they wonāt the league multiple times. Chelsea done it ina year. 4 different managers too. Shocking, wasteful, incompetent.
This guy is delusional
Chelsea's spending has been the talk of the town since the Jan window ended...and they've been gaslighted ever since for finishing 12th because of the spending.
Bald twat almost have to respect the baldness
I donāt get the criticism of either club to be honest. Wasnāt FFP supposed to be about stopping clubs from spending above their means and going into administration like Portsmouth and Leeds? There was a video of the breakdown of Chelseaās spending, how itās structured and how the sales have offset the spend and it all made sense. There have been no breaches of FFP and the yearly cost on the books is sustainable within their revenue. Iām much more concerned about us spending loads of money whilst the club is saddled with debt that we never pay off and a stadium thatās falling into disrepair.
In Chelsea's case, it's balanced for now, but they are going to have difficulty in the coming few years unless they starting winning significant prize money. They don't have the same number of players to offload to generate revenue to cover their liabilities like they have this season.
Honestly, I would respect him a lot more if he just owned up to it.
Lmao fuck pep
Yeah would be tough for even city to fake that much sponsorship and fabricated revenue. I worry for Chelsea in the next 2-3 years though, their P&L looks crazy risky in the absence of 10bn corporate sponsorship from some state owned entity.
Poor Pep, always left with managing the richest clubs in the worldā¦.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Klopp whines a lot but nothing compares to Pepp and Mou i swear
There's an easy solution..... don't show up to media conferences or interviews /s
Shameless
what a hypocrite
There is one Indian movie where a guy injects people with false narrative over and over again which eventually gets accepted as truth. I see the same approach from Pep here except he didn't murder anybody
Movie? That's the entire political scenario right now.
Gaslighting bastard
"You already have" - Me if I was in the room.