I can't believe they're trying to justify it.
The fact they're picking apart teams like Man Utd, Real Madrid and Barcelona.... is incredible. We have rich histories without spending big amounts of money to get there. They're trying to rush there without playing by the rules.
They should be thankful that a billionaire owner has pumped millions/billions in their club, but they're trying to attack other clubs for playing by the rules. There is a reason why a lot of people hate City, Chelsea and PSG. They all have egos, and they think they're doing this all legit. There is a reason why teams like PSG and City want the FFP gone.
If we were owned by a billionaire owner and spent beyond our means in regards to the FFP, you wouldn't see me attacking other clubs.
I'm not the only one justifying it.
Look i just happened to read a thread on reddit soccer and a guy started to make the same argument that oil money club are bad, nanani nanana, but at least Chelsea get a pass for being relevant before the takeover (while Chelsea didn't win necessarily more than PSG or City in their long history). See the points being made by people fans from several countries :
?
7d
Won't include Chelsea because they were relevant even before the takeover.
What those 2 are doing is absolute madness that's being accepted by the same crowd who'd go crazy when ESL is mentioned.
Without Chelsea, those two clubs wouldn't exist. Not in the way they do now. Chelsea started it. City and PSG just took it to its logical conclusion. Chelsea is just as, if not more guilty of creating cash injected super clubs.
71
User avatar
level 4
geo0rgi
?
7d
The whole thing started way before that. The Italian clubs were the original sugerdaddy clubs in the late 90's with all their owners measuring their dicks with outrageous transfers.
In my view Berlusconi started the whole thing in the late 80's and PSG and Man City/Chelsea are just the natural continuation of the trend.
49
User avatar
level 4
Bitches_BBitches
?
7d
Fucking lol.
Italian teams were getting mob money. And milan was getting taxpayers money funneled by Italy's PM.
Back in the 60s/70s nation backed teams existed. Red Star Belgrade, Steaua Bucaresti, CSKA Moscow exists lmao.
12
User avatar
level 4
gamermacska
?
7d
I'd say the culprit is madrid with their original galactico squad in the 50s, but the italian clubs with Ac milan leading were even worse, until milan's sugar daddy stopped caring. Chelsea is just the first club people made a big deal out of.
-2
User avatar
level 5
TheoRaan
?
7d
I concede your point about the Italian teams but Madrid is fan owned, not the same
7
User avatar
level 6
gamermacska
?
7d
I meant it more like using money to buy a bunch of good footballers, and back then madrid was heavily state sponsored.
8
User avatar
level 7
con-man69
?
6d
Was never state sponsored but Perez was friends with Prime Minister and somehow lobbied to change rules to sell our training ground as an area where infrastructure can be built. Built 4 complexes, 2 for City council and 2 for Madrid and got 200m from it to fund out debt and buy Figo
Give a source for this statefunded claim would you?
-4
User avatar
level 8
gamermacska
?
6d
Who the hell was talking about perez and that era you brick head.
4
User avatar
level 9
con-man69
?
6d
Give evidence instead of pulling it outta your ass maybe?
-1
User avatar
level 7
TheoRaan
?
7d
back then madrid was heavily state sponsored.
Also a good point.
0
User avatar
level 3
MacaqueAphrodisiaque
?
7d
? edited 7d
Won't include Chelsea because they were relevant even before the takeover.
PSG were more relevant than Chelsea before the takeover.
110
User avatar
level 3
FrankTheWerewolf
?
7d
Won't include Chelsea because they were relevant even before the takeover.
Ahhh, yes, the relevant team that had 1 league title before Abramovich, while City had 2 league titles before Mansour.
