Getting their hands on capital might not be, but they are still owned by a private investment firm. They will not able to operate like this moving forward.
UEFA already had a rule in place for 5 years, but with exceptions so wide you could drive a bus through them. They are now tightening those up. It wont prevent longer contracts, but it will place a cap on how many years you can amortize a payment over to 5.
It is odd that no-one appears to have done so beforeā¦
They have. Just generally with extensions of players already at a club so that it didnt affect how transfer fees were booked. I think one of Messiās contract at Barca was for 9 years.
The very obvious risk for it handcuffing future spending is what has likely stopped other clubs using it as a strategy before in a way that UEFA reasonably felt they didnt need to regulate against,
Perhaps youāre right; I guess I am just a bit skeptical that their long-term spending will truly be inhibited.
Most of me looks at it and has to believe it is unsustainable and therefore part of the upfront cost he committed to spending to get the project back on its feet. But it is so much bigger and more expansive (much more money spend on longer term prospects) than I could have ever imagined that I have to acknowledge that maybe he is doing something very very different than anyone predicted.
We asked whatās wrong with Chelsea type spending? A club spending 500m already on players within 6 months of new ownership when it has not been profitable for years, and there are people here who think itās nothing wrong?
Not to mention the prevailing global economic issuesā¦
This is not unique to football by the way. Very common in business.
I was about to say that too, in companies or even say any government bodies, if we ever realized they did that, we will be pressuring for an inquiry, public listed companies will be probed, but because its a football club, its ok?
ADD: And even if common in business, it does not make it right. In the world of startups nowadays especially the tech ones, where its common to spend and scale on top line without caring for the bottom line, I still make it a point to say that any revenue made must be sustainable revenue that the company can last for a long time. So why is a football club beyond the same principles of sustainable revenue generation?
Quite a bizarre post in many ways.
Does not make it right? Really? Thereās an awful lot you donāt understand. Not sure thereās much point going further. As unwelcome this post might be.
I donāt think thatās true for Roman, He just wanted to win. And did. A lot, Canāt see or hear any of their fans complaining now either.
Plastic doesnāt talk
Sure.
Iād rather be competing for the Championship than doing what Chelsea are doing now. So fake and plastic and empty
@system should be banned from opening (Part 3).
If you won the lottery and put the 100m on a 1000-1 bet, would you buy the club? I would. By your logic that then makes us plastic fake and empty?
If youāve already won the lottery, why on Earth would you gamble the winnings away?
Youād have to be some special kind of idiot.
You missed the word hypothetical and unless you did, a mega lottery win is still nowhere near enough to buy (and invest in) the club.
The best way of losing money easy bar from gambling is buying a football club. Only have to look at that Scottish couple, fan bought a controlling stake I believe in the club but couldnāt turn a profit and itās just spiralled into a bit of a sorry story.
FSG will make a profit once they sell but thatās because the club was pretty cheap to be fair, same goes for Chelsea in a way.
Anything below the PL and pretty much goes for most of Europe outside of the European places runs at a loss.
NEW: James Milner is out of contract in the summer and expected to leave Liverpool, but just as the club did last summer, a last-minute extension canāt be ruled out. #lfc [neil jones - goal]
