Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
(Mahrez 7)
(Silva 17, 44 & 58)
(Foden 32)
The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.Yeah, I am sorta watching this in the background as I make dinner. Already 3-0 in the first 30 minutes and you cant see Lisboa making this interesting. Though I predict Salzburg to upset Bayern tomorrow.
Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.
There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.
RM
Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
(Mahrez 7)
(Silva 17, 44 & 58)
(Foden 32)
The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.
There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.
RM--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
On 2022-02-15 15:44, Real Mardin wrote:
Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
(Mahrez 7)
(Silva 17, 44 & 58)
(Foden 32)
Champions League results from this season:The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.
There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.I would not get quite so carried away just yet. Score was lop-sided but
the bounces went City's way in that game. And they are probably the
best side in the world right now.
In spite of that they lost two games in the group stage - to Leipzig and PSG. (though it is true they already had the group won when they played Leipzig and lost - but that fact was thanks to Bruges who took points
off PSG and Leipzig.)
You are always going to get the odd game with a lop sided score every
now and then (like some of Barca's losses in recent years).
RM
On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:44:36 p.m. UTC-5, Real Mardin wrote:
Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
{...}
The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the
Champions League has become. {...}
Yeah, I am sorta watching this in the background as I make dinner.
Already 3-0 in the first 30 minutes and you cant see Lisboa making
this interesting.
Though I predict Salzburg to upset Bayern tomorrow.
Like it or not, a Super league of some sort will happen in our
lifetime.
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 4:35:55 AM UTC, MH wrote:
On 2022-02-15 15:44, Real Mardin wrote:
Champions League Round of 16 First Leg result:
Sporting CP 0 - Manchester City 5
(Mahrez 7)
(Silva 17, 44 & 58)
(Foden 32)
The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
These two teams play in the same "Champions League" but in reality are in a different division in terms of quality.
There are far too many of these one sided results in the group stages and earlier knockout rounds of the Champions League. When I see a result like this I find myself wondering whether the vehement opposition to the European Super League was a missed opportunity to fix a problem that has gone on for too long. Teams like Manchester City need to be in a European tournament with teams of their own level and likewise Sporting need to be in a tournament where they can be competitive an not subjected to the kind of humiliating result they suffered tonight.I would not get quite so carried away just yet. Score was lop-sided but the bounces went City's way in that game. And they are probably the
best side in the world right now.
In spite of that they lost two games in the group stage - to Leipzig and PSG. (though it is true they already had the group won when they played Leipzig and lost - but that fact was thanks to Bruges who took points
off PSG and Leipzig.)
You are always going to get the odd game with a lop sided score every
now and then (like some of Barca's losses in recent years).
Champions League results from this season:RM
Manchester City 6 - RB Leipzig 3
PSG 4 - Club Brugge 1
Porto 1 - Liverpool 5
Borussia Dortmund 5 - Besiktas 0
Shakhtar Donetsk 0 - Real Madrid 5
Bayern Munich 5 - Benfica 2
Benfica 0 - Bayern Munich 4
Bayern Munich 5 - Dynamo Kyiv 0
Chelsea 4 - Malmo 0
It's not the odd result, it might be a reflection of the failings of the wider football World as much as the shortcomings of the Champions League itself but there is too much disparity in these results to be good for the game.There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting, shrewd
transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall within that
broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top level.
Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently) dependent on such funds.
.
There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting, shrewd
transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall within that
broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top level.That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
of achieving such a level as they have.
The divide is widening between the rich and the poor - clubs and leagues - , not between the 'legitimately' and 'illegimately' rich. The GlazersThe widening gap doesn't bother me so much as long as, again, it's through legitimate means. No club has a divine right to be a contender for the CL title, not even former giants like Benfica or Red Star Belgrade. That's too idealistic a view. There is no moral obligation towards sporting egalitarianism. All sports are defined by legends and greats and dynasties and haves and have nots.
are being criticized for taking money *out* of the system. Newcastle fans are celebrating their new Saudi overlords. No fanbase minds being rich -
as much as they might bemoan that 'the game's gone', the next moment they'll happily discuss exactly which players they need to buy for 50m+ to
improve at left-back, and what an idiot their sporting director is for not doing so immediately
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when you win the Champions League.
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
.
There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
level.
Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
of achieving such a level as they have.
I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently) dependent
on such funds.
Easy to say when just the league you play in gives you such an enormous headstart.The divide is widening between the rich and the poor - clubs and leagues - , not between the 'legitimately' and 'illegimately' rich. The Glazers
are being criticized for taking money *out* of the system. Newcastle fans are celebrating their new Saudi overlords. No fanbase minds being rich -
as much as they might bemoan that 'the game's gone', the next moment they'll happily discuss exactly which players they need to buy for 50m+ to
improve at left-back, and what an idiot their sporting director is for not doing so immediately
The widening gap doesn't bother me so much as long as, again, it's through legitimate means.
No club has a divine right to be a contender for the CL title, not even former giants like Benfica or Red Star Belgrade. That's too idealistic a view. There is no moral obligation towards sporting egalitarianism. AllAnd that's exactly what the Chelseas and PSGs of this world would argue.
sports are defined by legends and greats and dynasties and haves and have nots.
And there's a reason UEFA has always had multiple European competitions - so even the smaller clubs have a shot at a European title (but then again, you might have a Sheriff Tiraspol complain that they can neverThat's why they invented the Conference League, to share some of the breadcrumbs.
win the EL because they can't financially compete with a Sevilla).
The sort of result which highlights what a broken tournament the Champions League has become.
Sporting are not a second division side, they are champions of one of the more prominent footballing countries yet the scoreline made them look like a lower league side compared to Manchester City.
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of their financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
.
There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
level.
Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
of achieving such a level as they have.
I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently) dependentNo Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when you win the Champions League.
on such funds.
I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea non-self-sufficient?
Were Abramovich to sell tomorrow, surely he'd recoup most of his money? Chelsea's revenue and market value have burgeoned in step with the investments.Well, they are a different kind of example, as we have been discussing.
The divide is widening between the rich and the poor - clubs and leagues - , not between the 'legitimately' and 'illegimately' rich. The Glazers
are being criticized for taking money *out* of the system. Newcastle fans are celebrating their new Saudi overlords. No fanbase minds being rich -
as much as they might bemoan that 'the game's gone', the next moment they'll happily discuss exactly which players they need to buy for 50m+ to
improve at left-back, and what an idiot their sporting director is for not doing so immediately
The widening gap doesn't bother me so much as long as, again, it's through legitimate means.Easy to say when just the league you play in gives you such an enormous headstart.
(BTW something I found funny: Rapid ultr|as wished Bayern good luck on Twitter against despicable Salzburg, from proper club
to proper club, garnished with hashtags like #ohneqatargehtsa (you don't need Qatar). Too bad they used a Bayern player
photo with the Qatar Airways logo quite prominently visible on the sleeve.)
No club has a divine right to be a contender for the CL title, not even former giants like Benfica or Red Star Belgrade. That's too idealistic a view. There is no moral obligation towards sporting egalitarianism. AllAnd that's exactly what the Chelseas and PSGs of this world would argue.
sports are defined by legends and greats and dynasties and haves and have nots.
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
.
There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
level.
Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
of achieving such a level as they have.
I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently)
dependent on such funds.
No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when you win the Champions League.
I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea non-self-sufficient?
I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of their financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG). Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending in
the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their
club to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone
like a FSG). Do you think they would be able to continue their
wanton spending in the transfer market and on wages, under this new
kind of ownership?
Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than
expected?
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
.
There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this case implies success through solid football operations (scouting,
shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall
within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U, Barcelona, and Juventus.
Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
level.
Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and
in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a non-football source to get the thing going and have been
vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
of achieving such a level as they have.
I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently)
dependent on such funds.
No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when you win the Champions League.
I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea non-self-sufficient?
I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of their financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG). Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending inWho knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?
the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of theirOn Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
.
There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or >>>>>> even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this >>>>>> case implies success through solid football operations (scouting, >>>>>> shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial >>>>>> revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your >>>>>> examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall >>>>>> within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U,
Barcelona, and Juventus.
Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and
oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football
sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
level.
Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been
at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything
you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and >>>>> in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a
non-football source to get the thing going and have been
vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are
doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
of achieving such a level as they have.
I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use
non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become
self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently)
dependent on such funds.
No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all
get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when
you win the Champions League.
I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into
their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea >>> non-self-sufficient?
financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club
to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG).
Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending in
the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?
Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?
Werner Pichler <wpichler@gmail.com> wrote:
Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?
Werner Pichler wrote:
Werner Pichler <wpic...@gmail.com> wrote:
Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/03/02/statement-from-roman-abramovich Great. We might just get an Arab consortium to take over who are even
richer than Roman Abramovich... won't that please everybody?!!!
Be careful what you wish for! ;-)
Werner Pichler <wpic...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:09:19 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:26:17 PM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:48:01 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't have access to their balance sheets, nor knowledge of theirOn Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:42:32 AM UTC-5, Werner Pichler wrote:
On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 5:18:50 PM UTC+1, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
.
There are no failings in the system when a club achieves success (or >>>>>> even dominance) through operating within their means, which in this >>>>>> case implies success through solid football operations (scouting, >>>>>> shrewd transfer dealings, coaching, etc.) or maximizing commercial >>>>>> revenues through the power of their brand and marketing. From your >>>>>> examples above, Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, and Dortmund all fall >>>>>> within that broad category, as well as other clubs like Man U,
Barcelona, and Juventus.
Where there's a legitimate gripe is against nation state and
oligarch funded clubs where funds are sourced from non-football >>>>>> sources. Only Man City, PSG, and Chelsea fit into that category, at least at the top
level.
Only one of those clubs has won the CL.
That distinction is becoming increasingly fickle. Chelsea have been >>>>> at it for a generation, is there really still much difference to the other
foreign EPL owners? Salzburg/Red Bull have been doing everything
you've enumerated (scouting, shrewd transfer dealings, coaching) and >>>>> in the process become a cash cow, but needed a strong monetary boost from a
non-football source to get the thing going and have been
vilified for it ever since the start. Although what Red Bull are
doing is pretty much the only way a club from a smaller country can even think
of achieving such a level as they have.
I personally don't have that much of an issue with clubs that use
non-football funding to get an initial foothold and then become
self-sufficient. My biggest gripe is with clubs permanently (or frequently)
dependent on such funds.
No Premier League team is really 'dependent' on such funds. They all
get participation money in excess of what you receive from UEFA when
you win the Champions League.
I struggle to think of the money Abramovich and others poured into
their clubs as being so very different. In what way, exactly, are Chelsea
non-self-sufficient?
financial intricacies, so let me frame this question another way.
Let's assume that tomorrow Roman, Abu Dhabi, or Qatar sells their club
to a more traditional sports investment firm (i.e. someone like a FSG). >> Do you think they would be able to continue their wanton spending in
the transfer market and on wages, under this new kind of ownership?
Who knows, we might get an answer to that question much sooner than expected?
https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2022/03/02/statement-from-roman-abramovich
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 125:07:45 |
| Calls: | 161 |
| Files: | 755 |
| Messages: | 90,744 |