This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
And that would be why I could less about the EPL. When it's a big deal to finish fourth, something is wrong. You know how many teams have won the EPL? 4. You go back to 1980 for titles, it's 8. 1970? 10. 40 years, 10 teams, and one of them has gone bankrupt and went down to the third level just trying to keep up.
As a fan of a team that has new ownership I can tell you thats no guarantee of spending.
That sounds like a terrible rule. Spending more than you make in order to improve is called investment. Capping spending on current revenue just means you freeze the Haves and Have Nots forever. Imagine a future that is nothing but Yankees-Red Sox, Dems-Republicans, and UNC-Duke. Bleech!
I'm a have not.Communist!
It's very simple. They had to more or less balance the books. City and Chelski don't remotely. Can't make it any simpler than that to explain. But, I know you know the point I'm making, you just don't like it.
I don't believe those rules have kicked in yet. I believe they do sometime in the next couple years.
It's easy to buy well when you have hundreds of millions of pounds to buy whoever you want, see who works out well and who doesn't, and then you can afford to just write off 25 million pounds spent on Adebayor, 17.5 million pounds for Santa Cruz.
To which the response will be that those were Hughes signings. Certainly Mancini has bought better than Hughes did, but yoru bottom line point is still legit, that Mancini has had an endless pot of money to buy who he wants at whatever price it takes. Mancini is due some credit for doing better than Hughes, but he's had resources that virtually no one else can dream of.
Granted, but the club has enough money to allow Mancini to write them off rather than, for instance, have the higher-ups tell him "hey, I know Dzeko is great, but Adebayor is almost as good and not even too much older, and we just dropped a lot of cash on him two years ago, so how about you try to make it work with him instead?"
More specifically: that Mancini has been successful in his signings in no way disproves that he has oodles of money at his disposal to just throw around. Without that money, he can't sign the right guys, ergo the teams success is bought and paid for.
Arsenal having a modest amount of debt on the books relates to City and Chelski's wild spending in recent seasons exactly how? It's really funny that you'd try to argue Arsenal are in any way similar to City or Chelski. Of all the big English clubs, Arsenal are run the most fiscally conservatively. They over time make a profit in the transfer market, with their modest debt being related to things like redevelopment of Highbury and the new Emirates Stadium, both of which will easily pay back the modest debt in relatively short order. Your arguments have no financial legs to stand on.