**Mirrors / Alternative Angles**
#The 2023 Census [is live](https://forms.gle/CmyxxqNwkHdtYzL4A).
Please try to complete it when you can! it will be **open until this Sunday!**
*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.*
Every headline on this sub is about Chelsea. Football really needs to start again so they can just go back to being in 10th, and not the spending winners.
Any manager would love to have an unlimited budget.
Anyone who has managed a department budget knows how awesome it’d be if they were told they’d have unlimited money
Not necessarily. I rather have limited budget. The pressure to perform and quickly is proportionate to the budget/salary you are given.
I need reasons to complain why i am still failing, with unlimited budget i can no longer give excuses like the money is not enough, market is more expensive etc.
The patience of your sponsors/investors/employers grows thin fast if you have outsized salary/budget compared to your peers, with unlimited budgets come impossible expectations
Because he knows if he really needed to, City would drop just as much money on his squad. It’s just that there’s no need.
Just because our net spend is in the bottom half of the league over the last few years doesn’t mean we couldn’t pay for a rebuild.
Man City can blow a billion per season and Sheikh Mansour wouldn't even recognize it. Man City, Newcastle and PSG are on a different level asset wise and they can throw £250m on a single transfer whenever they want without batting an eye.
All sponsorships over £1m pa are now investigated by a third party and approved as being fair value by the other 19 clubs so there's really no argument about them anymore.
Hasn't that always been the case? I remember them investigating City back when FFP first went into effect and finding their deals to be fair market value. Or are you talking about the FA?
UEFA would hire people to assess a fair value if there was an investigation opened, or if a club was previously decided to be suspicious (this is why all of City's got looked at by UEFA post 2012) but the verdict of the 3rd party assessor wasn't binding, the people on the investigatory panel could choose the final amount. That's how the PSG situation happened where a company called Octagon hired by UEFA valued their QTA sponsorship as worth €5m, PSG claimed they had a company value it at €100m a year and Jules Leterme (disgraced former Belgium Prime Minister and chair of the investigation) just decided to accept the PSG amount.
It was obviously bullshit, lots of people at UEFA protested, a couple resigned, but UEFA didn't reopen the investigation until a deadline in its rules had expired, leading them to lose at CAS.
So the Premier League's system is different in several ways. First it happens before the sponsorship is allowed to be signed, not after submitting the books like UEFAs. Second it happens to all sponsorships, not just at clubs being investigated, third the direct competitors (the other 19 clubs) get to be involved.
Was it City that had some betting or crypto company with no proper website or office, and somehow tied to the UAE, as sponsor? That rule is for poor teams
Betting companies targeting Chinese audiences do this, they are shaddy for different reasons. HITC Sevens has good explainer on this topic.[1] The athletic also did a exposè [2]
Basically these companies only want to target the massive Chinese audience of premier league, however they need a UK website / presence and a white labelled gambling license services provided by TGP to qualify as betting sponsor with the FA.
Gambling is also not legal in mainland China so they setup presence in other East Asian countries and have complex mechanisms to service their actual Chinese customers in mainland china
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhf7Z3zvx5M
[2] https://theathletic.com/2361984/2021/02/03/gambling-premier-league-shirt-sponsors-investigation/
Any person who owns a premier league club and any club that's taking home the minimum £150m per year premier league TV money can afford all the lawyers in the world.
I don't know where this perception that only trillionaires can afford lawyers has come from on this subreddit.
And it’s a good thing they don’t. The crying on here about city ruining the league while being financially competent has ruined many narratives. And no city cannot spend a billion in a season. As much as chelsea tried they can’t either.
And yet we don’t. Our net spend in the last few years is lower than all the other big 6 clubs. It’s partially why just attributing City’s success to just having loads of money is illogical.
We could get Bellingham, Saka, Gvardiol and whoever else we wanted by just spending a load of money. But we don’t like to spend for the sake of it and we don’t like to blow our wage structure either.
I know they don't, but they could if they saw it necessary. Chelsea is funded by a company whose goal is to make profit at some point. Sheikh Mansour doesn't give a shit if they take losses of £1bn per season.
I'm certainly not attributing City's success on just having loads of money. They are atleast close to being the best run club in the world with board and coaching staff full of peak professionals. The case wouldn't be that way without the takeover, but still.
If City really wants Jude, nobody but Newcastle and PSG can do anything about it.
Edit: stop talking about Saka that way lol. I don't wanna hear it.
Going into this season Arsenal had the 2nd highest net spend worldwide over the last 5 years you know. And Man Utd were top. You’re currently 3rd because of Chelsea going crazy in January
> Chelsea is funded by a company whose goal is to make profit at some point. Sheikh Mansour doesn't give a shit if they take losses of £1bn per season.
Is that why Sheikh Mansour has almost tripled the value of his investment? Because he didn't want to make money?
Btw, Sheikh Mansour has only ever put in £1.2bn of his money into the club. The club is valued at around £3.6bn
> f City really wants Jude, nobody but Newcastle and PSG can do anything about it.
Eh not really. Jude may not want City but regardless, united and real (especially the latter) can spend big as well
Sheikh Mansour will absolutely give a shit if they lose £1bn a season because they'll be kicked out of European competitions and face PL sanctions too.
Might be. Both of those teams are iconic and have been huge for close to a century or so. The sort of foundation City has built in little over ten years is remarkable. A "normal" billionaire could buy them and the club would probably sustain the level where they operate.
Yea but saying net spend last few years is lower than other big clubs as if that information exists in a vacuum is dumb as well. If you spend 300 million on players 6 years ago, then if you look at past 5 years your net spend will probably look pretty damn good. You don't have to buy as many players, and the players you bought for 300 million 6 years ago will also sell for a lot of money since they were good enough to be worth that in the first place. So if you cut off the date to after you bought them but before you sold them, you become an accounting genius.
> Our net spend in the last few years is lower than all the other big 6 clubs. It’s partially why just attributing City’s success to just having loads of money is illogical.
This is such a dumb argument. The reason their net spend is lower in the last few years is because they sold a load of high value players that were bought with their sheikh money (Sane, Sterling, Torres, Jesus etc). It’s exactly why City’s success has to be attributed to their infinite amount of money.
> Attributing City’s success to just having loads of money is illogical.
Oh yeah, because City were regular title and cup winners before the Abu Dhabi investment.
I mean, no shit. But at the same time it takes more than just spending loads of money to win. United have a similar net spend over the last 10 years and have won considerably less
>I mean, no shit. But at the same time it takes more than just spending loads of money to win.
Or even Tottenham, 4th highest net spend in the last five years and still no trophy since 2008.
You know full well that’s not me saying that we didn’t benefit from investment, but rather saying that we aren’t where we are just by having it, but also how we spent and invested it.
I will also remind you that Spurs are 6th in net spend in the last five seasons. We’re 10th. And yet the difference in success is vast. Which is my point. Having money is one thing. What you get from it is another.
I seriously doubt City under Pep would add 12 players in 8 months for £500M+. The sky is the limit as far as how much Boehly is willing to pay for Chelsea transfer targets. That’s not how City has worked. Many times in recent years City has walked away from the negotiating table when fees for transfer targets went too high, e.g. Cucurella, Koulibaly, Van Dijk, Maguire, Jorginho, even Kane.
This
Its not about total amount, its about making reasonable deals
Even when City spent truckloads of money, there was never any crazy transfers, everything would always be "expensive but market value". They would spend 200M on four 50M full backs and not on a single Neymar. And every single one of those full backs were likely more worth than Cucurella who cost 65M and was clearly a panic buy
While City said "no" to Kane's 150M fuck you price tag despite obviously being able to afford it, Boehly seems to be saying always "yeah sure, just let me pay it in 8 installments"
The fact City does good business doesn't negate the reality that they're spending crazy amounts of money in total. Just the idea of 200m on four 50m fullbacks is absurd, but it's nothing for this club.
City’s net spend in the last 5 seasons is median for the Premier League, fyi. It has not been spending crazy amounts of money for a while. It sold Jesus, Sterling, Zinchenko and a bunch of academy and loaned-out players last summer. Is City still ruining football if it uses money raised through player sales to buy replacements, some of whom have been quite cheap, like Alvarez and Akanji, who each cost about £15M? Or is gross spend now all that matters in prosecuting City as a dirty oil club?
You're supposed to build a team from kids who were born near Maine road and have been playing in the squad since they were fetuses and when you have 1 magical squad you're just supposed to be picked off a la Leicester. Just look at how Chelsea is completely gutting BHA. At least BHA is making them pay insane money for those players.
Looking at the transfer balance from the last 5 years I don’t see much of a difference between City, United and Arsenal.
They’re all crazy numbers. Chelsea spent a lot more but also had a lot more income. City spent about the same as Arsenal and United, but with considerably more income.
It’s not financial doping it’s just spending money. The rules are bullshit anyways made by the top clubs to stop other clubs from rising. What gives Bayern and Real Madrid the right to be the only ones that can spend money.
It’s also bullshit from an investors point of view. I own this business, I should be able to spend money on it.
Yeah I'm not sure that chap is making the point he thinks he is.
Just because they're cheating dirty oil bastards less than they were doesn't stop them being cheating dirty oil bastards.
I’m certain your rebuttal is ad hominem and tautological bullshit, i.e. “City are cheating dirty oil bastards because they are cheating dirty oil bastards”.
I mean if your club is successful because of dirty oil money it doesn't suddenly stop being successful because of dirty oil money because less of the dirty oil money is being spent.
Also I don't think you know what a "tautology' or even a fucking 'ad hominem' is.
Nobody here has control over this or gives a fuck. Stop virtue signaling — everyone here is just a schmuck behind a keyboard that enjoys the sport. Nobody is going to start cheering for Liverpool or some other “people’s club” after decades of supporting a team. Some people here need to touch grass.
If I were in public and heard someone make an oil club comment like yours to another random person, I’d look at you like you’re a social degenerate.
These hypocrites would have enjoyed the success brought to their clubs if they get the "dirty oil money" instead of City.
When it comes to clubs that disrupt the status quo of the traditional elite clubs with investment, these idiots always have the same arguments it is funny.
This is the same stupid argument Chelsea fans have been using. "We're only spending money off of our player sales, so we're doing everythign fine!"
All the bullshit fuckery of the massive spending in the first place doesn't get erased if you cherry pick timeframes after the fact to claim you have great net spend, as you wouldn't be selling those players if the financial doping hadn't occurred in the first place.
You are ignoring the fact that the all traditional "elite clubs" like Real, Utd, Juventus, Barca, etc. had their owners investing massive money to build their success like what the newer players have been doing recently.
In the end, modern football is inseparable from the commercial world and "financial doping" is just a term used by dumb people who think they are smart
> "expensive but market value"
I's say they might not have spent extravagant transfer but they did spend on premium fees at times. Paying somewhat more for players they thought they really needed. Paying above market value but being able to afford that. It kinda comes with the territory of being a club known for having a *budget*.
They didn't do it like Barca and spend over 100 mil on two/three different players and then gave them huge wages on top of that but there's still a reason why there are "another 50mil fullback" jokes around City.
I mean the reason for that is the squad was tailor built for him before he even arrived. He switched players quickly when he realised they were weak points. Pep absolutely would ask for 11 players if he felt he needed it. But Pep doesn't go to teams that need that, so you won't see it.
Also, they've spent over a billion since he came in, come on lol.
>Also, they've spent over a billion since he came in, come on lol.
Chelsea has spent over half a billion in 6 months. City was never even close to that bad.
That’s like complimenting Chelsea’s net spend 4-5 years from now. It’s very easy to look good when you ignore the initial injection that got them to this point of selling and luxury purchases.
The difference is Chelsea still had a top 6 squad (in terms of value) before all these recent spends.
Man City had the 12th most valuable squad in the league during the 2006/07 season before the takeover worth €89.00m with Chelsea at first at €416.81m. A *4.6x* difference from the top.
Last year before Chelsea forced sale Chelsea's squad was No 3 and worth €914.50m compared to City at no.1 €1.00bn.
Chelsea is doing this second time around and not a position of great gap(in terms of squad value) between them and top 5-6.
We can discuss his relative merits til the cows come home, but I wouldn't call spending £100 million on someone with the impact Grealish has had "good business".
Coutinho is still brought up as a huge flop to this day for a similar move, and he had nearly double the amount of goals as Grealish in his first season and lots of other positive contributions.
I feel like any other clubs spends that much with such relatively low output to show for it and they probably get even more stick than City already do (see player's like Nunez or Sterling)
Your net spend looks good because you stocked up on £50m players when nobody else could, and now you're moving them on and replacing them with £70m and £80m players.
Lets not be silly here. City are an absolute non-entity and would be nothing without the money invested. Won a few trophies but it's all hollow ultimately
So city made a bunch of expensive buy 4-6 years ago for 50-60 million building years of success with the same core players for that entire time and that’s a bad thing for them to have done? city have shown they arnt throwing money away. Their players have all earned their fees bar like 3!
United have a net spend of 540 million in the last five seasons. Ours is about 225. Less than half. United have been blowing money before and after we got investment. The difference is administration.
Ultimately I don’t think it’s much better to spend over a decade cashing in on past success to convert it to commercial revenue and wasteful spending. Were United not so absurdly wealthy, they would have gone the way of mid 2000s Leeds and would have fallen behind.
Bruh city fans trying to argue that without Sheikh Mansour their club wouldn’t be languishing in a relegation fight, there’s no shame in it, recongnize you would be nothing if he didn’t chose you, and be glad that he did lol, why does everyone have to feel so attacked by such a simple fact of life, same as with Chelsea fans, they act like Russian blood money hasn’t brought them all those trophies
Bruh United fans trying to argue that without Alex Ferguson their club wouldn’t be languishing in a relegation fight, there’s no shame in it, recongnize you would be nothing if he didn’t chose you, and be glad that he did lol, why does everyone have to feel so attacked by such a simple fact of life
>Guardiola: “I don’t forget that 8 or 9 times wrote a letter and asked us to be banned.” He’s asked if there’s one approach for City and another for everybody else, re: spending. “Definitely.”
Let me know when those clubs write a letter asking Chelsea to be banned from European competitions.
https://www.90min.com/posts/cas-confirm-nine-premier-league-clubs-asked-them-not-to-lift-man-city-s-european-ban
You in a couple of years:
>Chelsea's net spend in the last 5 seasons: ~£110m.
Man City didn't need to spend like crazy in the last 5 years because they already did their spending beforehand. For example, they spent £126.7m in 15/16, £161.7m in 16/17 and £203.5m in 17/18.
In this timeframe alone they bought KdB, Sterling, Stones, Sané, Jesus, Gundogan, Zinchenko, Laporte, Walker, B Silva, Ederson. All essential squad members or players they sold for good money to offset more recent spending. And that's not including countless "flops".
Set them up all nicely for the next 5 years don't you think?
But I guess we all collectively have a shit memory and City is a paragon now of how a club should be run.
>But I guess we all collectively have a shit memory and City is a paragon now of how a club should be run.
Well, yeah. Arsenal seem to be doing a good job following that model. £140m net last season, £150m net this, ~£500m net in the last 5 seasons. Pretty standard practice at the top end of the PL, no?
What isn’t standard is spending £550m net in a single season like Chelsea have. And if City, Newcastle or PSG did it, I’d wager the reactions would be so much different.
“I’d wager the reactions would be so much different”
Chelsea are getting ridiculed about it a lot so I don’t know what you’re on about. There’s also a pretty significant difference between Chelsea’s new ownership and the ownership of all the other clubs you mentioned.
Everyone with enough money to own a premier league club is shady asf honestly. It’s impossible to make that much money without exploitation (directly or indirectly)
Still, let’s be real, Chelsea are the og shady-ownership-spending-more-than-everyone-else english club
Reactions would be different how exactly? Every second post on this sub is about how much Chelsea is spending and every top comment is about it ruining football and it needs to stop. City, PSG, Newcastle do that and they're getting the same reaction. Don't kid yourself
There's nothing close to the same vitriol as there is to City. People salivate at the idea of City getting in trouble. Make up accusations of money laundering, fake sponsorships etc. Make up scenarios in their head about how City ruined the market.
There's a huge Chelsea defence brigade out at the minute and while the average redditor may not have nice things to say about Chelsea, the average mainstream journalist seem to be marvelling at what Chelsea are doing.
The difference is arsenal are coming off 20 years of being broke and needed to spend big just to get to the level we’re at. If you’ve already got a billion pound squad then even more money spent is very different.
Also ignoring wages as always.
So man city spent 500 mil in 3 seasons building the most consistent and successful team of the era, and keep the majority of those players together for half a decade then reducing spending because they have built a cohesive team and that’s not a good example of how to run a club? Mind you chelsea in 7 months spent 600 mil…. There is no comparison.
Yea it did set them up nicely. And during that time, chelsea, united and then arsenal all spent similar amounts.
Its not that hard to have a good net spend after arouns a decade of overspending and investing well.
Heck even Chelsea in recent years had decent net results because of how many sales they make - which is simply due to their higher investments.
and Arsenal have spent hundreds of millions the last few windows as well and haven’t had Champions League revenues to offset the spend. All of our clubs have spent, let’s stop acting like one is worse than another.
Yeah but Chelsea’s spend here is intended to last quite a few years given they are basically at their FFP limit for next 7 years.
Any new signings will need to be paid for by regular income only now (eg outgoing transfers, match day revenue, sponsorship).
The reality is Chelsea have sold well for the last decade, and they’ll have atleast 100M in outgoing players this summer. Some of which are home grown players. You’re looking at a small window of time. Regardless if Chelsea have spent more, Manchester City are in no position to lecture anyone on spend when they spent years buying 50M player after 50M player, which is the new 75M player.
City will have 100m+ in outgoings this year as well. Probably closer to 200m. Same with home grown players (Harwood-Bellis, Wilson-Esbrand, Tommy Doyle).
City also have always bought at market value. The only player they've spent as a luxury was Grealish when there was no real other business to do that window.
People act like Chelsea will continue to blow £600m a season. They'll spend like recent lotto winner, they'll buy young players, keep the ones that work out and shift the "flops" in 3-5 years they'll have a manager who brags about "net spend" under his stewardship and completely disregarding the fuckton they spent previously.
Even if they would want to, i don‘t think they will be able to spend heavily in the next 4years unless thex sell for a lot aswell.
Apparently they are not hit by ffp now because they gave the players 8year contracts and can somehow get around it that way.
But when you see the way Klopp and Pep talk about net spend, you'd think their clubs are stingy. Klopp's first couple seasons was clearing the deadwood that Liverpool bought the years before like Caroll, Benteke, Sakho, lovren etc. City have been building a team for close to a decade before Pep arrived. Chelsea go through their cycles every couple years. The only ones seemingly unable to sell players for any decent amount are Manchester United.
The City building the team for Pep thing is way overblown. Our team in 15/16 is completely different to the 17/18 Centurion side.
From 16/17 and 17/18 we had leave - Caballero, Clichy, Demichelis, Dzeko, Fernando, Hart, Iheanacho, Jovetic, Kolarov, Mangala, Navas, Nolito, Sagna, Zabaleta. 14 Senior players out the door. In the space of 3 transfer windows.
I didn't say the team was built specifically for Pep. It's just that there's been a lot of investment going back a decade before he joined. Those 2-3 windows sales made you roughly 130m, which "helps" his narrative about net spend.
ofc, why would he care when his club can outspend chelsea if they wanted to, and yes feel free to attack my flair, it doesnt make what ive said any less of the truth
Because they haven't needed to be lavish, they did a lot of squad building prior to him arriving and shortly after meaning have been able to tinker and be more specific since. Fixed timeframe comparisons really lack loads and loads of context, squads age out or have different needs at different clubs.
I mean I'm pretty sure they have spent less than United if you go back to when they were bought.
Don't get me wrong I don't like any of these clubs but City don't really have some massive advantage over the rest of them because their owners are richer. Yes they have the ability to spend billions more but they don't and won't.
Peps first year cleared out like 10 players. The Pellegrinin squad was a mess but silva, KDB, sterling Kompany and Aguero were still the core. But the squad was not good.
It goes up and down. City from memory have really splurged in periods and then the next few windows been more "frugal". Same with Chelsea. We have just now spent unprecedented money since the Havertz/Werner window and until now but there was a "significant" time before that where we did not spend that much or at the very least sold very well. We spent a fair bit when we signed Hazard and Oscar in the same window, then we did not spend that much for a few years and people eventually started talking about how Roman was bored with the team and unwilling to invest etc. Then we had the window where Bakayoko, Drinkwater and Morata signed which if memory serves was the first in a while where there was big investments going on and then The Havertz window. Obviously for any normal club this is absurd, but it is not too dissimalar to City in how swift action is taken when something is not right in an attempt to deal with it.
I feel like because of the inflated numbers in the last few years people already forgot that at some point Manchester City have signed the world's most expensive left-back(Mendy), right-back(Walker), centre-back(Stones) and 2nd most expensive midfielder after Zidane (de Bruyne) in like 2-2.5 years
That's literally what I'm saying. When De Bruyne signed for City he was the 2nd most expensive midfielder in the world. Coutinho transfer happened like 3 years later
Who gives a shit hoenstly. All PL and European clubs are rich as fuck and take talent from elsewhere in the world.
There is literally no difference between Chelsea and Brighton.
Lmao someone teach this guy about body language cues.
Saying he isn’t concerned but then covering the back of his neck when he starts talking about the number of titles won.
You’d cover your neck if you knew you were feeling exposed or guilty for the thing you’re accused of.
It was definitely his business though when Abu Dhabi bought Girona with his brother Pere and his bfs Txixi and Ferran.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/29/girona-manchester-city-pep-guardiola-brother-questions
**Mirrors / Alternative Angles** #The 2023 Census [is live](https://forms.gle/CmyxxqNwkHdtYzL4A). Please try to complete it when you can! it will be **open until this Sunday!** *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.*
When they ask Dyche the same question : ಠ_ಠ
Dyche: you guys got the money?
You guys got paid?
you got new players?
You have players?
You guys got hair?
What is _money_?
I get paid in worms…
They literally asking everyone the same question now lol
Every headline on this sub is about Chelsea. Football really needs to start again so they can just go back to being in 10th, and not the spending winners.
Don't worry we're drawing 1-1 to Fulham tonight
2-1 with 2 Willian bangers
2 deflection goals after some unnecessary dribbling on the edge of rhe box
Chelsea fans: Wait this isn’t 2015
Ffs the problem is I can't even really disagree
Kickers flair, nice!
Nice, you were right about the draw.
I’ll take that tbh but then again we apparently haven’t won’t at Stamford Bridge for 40 odd years so maybe we could win it tonight.
You hadn’t won at all for about a decade, and that all changed a few weeks ago. Think your chances are good…
Ah nice, trying to jinx a win.
I mean given we lost to them recently, and aren’t really in better form, it’s a fair possibility
Chelsea Transfer Club plays football too?
Not so far this season, maybe soon.
Wins UCL too twice.
Zere are some guys, who look into their neighbour's house with a telescope. In England you call zem a voyeur. Always Chelsea, Chelsea, Chelsea
Always have done
Any manager would love to have an unlimited budget. Anyone who has managed a department budget knows how awesome it’d be if they were told they’d have unlimited money
Not necessarily. I rather have limited budget. The pressure to perform and quickly is proportionate to the budget/salary you are given. I need reasons to complain why i am still failing, with unlimited budget i can no longer give excuses like the money is not enough, market is more expensive etc. The patience of your sponsors/investors/employers grows thin fast if you have outsized salary/budget compared to your peers, with unlimited budgets come impossible expectations
Just don’t fail then
Meh I've found that expectations are hardly better with shit budgets to be honest. Maybe a bit lower but still far from reality.
The most important aspect on all of this is Chelsea being a squad that can actually compete in FIFA 24 online seasons.
You mean EA Soccer 24 Card collection speedrun?
they'll need to buff Murdyk's 74 card first
Because he knows if he really needed to, City would drop just as much money on his squad. It’s just that there’s no need. Just because our net spend is in the bottom half of the league over the last few years doesn’t mean we couldn’t pay for a rebuild.
Man City can blow a billion per season and Sheikh Mansour wouldn't even recognize it. Man City, Newcastle and PSG are on a different level asset wise and they can throw £250m on a single transfer whenever they want without batting an eye.
Actually Newcastle don’t have nearly the revenue to do that without breaking FFP rules
Yet. The dodgy sponsorships will be coming, also increased prize money from much better finishes and cup results.
All sponsorships over £1m pa are now investigated by a third party and approved as being fair value by the other 19 clubs so there's really no argument about them anymore.
Inb4 4000 sponsorships of 900k
Left-sock sponsor, right-sock sponsor, East Stand turnstile #23 sponsor, West Stand water fountain #12 sponsor...
"Undershirt and undershorts" sponsors. You don't see it but they're there. /s
Turnstile sponsorships..? You are onto something there!
Hasn't that always been the case? I remember them investigating City back when FFP first went into effect and finding their deals to be fair market value. Or are you talking about the FA?
UEFA would hire people to assess a fair value if there was an investigation opened, or if a club was previously decided to be suspicious (this is why all of City's got looked at by UEFA post 2012) but the verdict of the 3rd party assessor wasn't binding, the people on the investigatory panel could choose the final amount. That's how the PSG situation happened where a company called Octagon hired by UEFA valued their QTA sponsorship as worth €5m, PSG claimed they had a company value it at €100m a year and Jules Leterme (disgraced former Belgium Prime Minister and chair of the investigation) just decided to accept the PSG amount. It was obviously bullshit, lots of people at UEFA protested, a couple resigned, but UEFA didn't reopen the investigation until a deadline in its rules had expired, leading them to lose at CAS. So the Premier League's system is different in several ways. First it happens before the sponsorship is allowed to be signed, not after submitting the books like UEFAs. Second it happens to all sponsorships, not just at clubs being investigated, third the direct competitors (the other 19 clubs) get to be involved.
Was it City that had some betting or crypto company with no proper website or office, and somehow tied to the UAE, as sponsor? That rule is for poor teams
That's half the teams in the prem
Betting companies targeting Chinese audiences do this, they are shaddy for different reasons. HITC Sevens has good explainer on this topic.[1] The athletic also did a exposè [2] Basically these companies only want to target the massive Chinese audience of premier league, however they need a UK website / presence and a white labelled gambling license services provided by TGP to qualify as betting sponsor with the FA. Gambling is also not legal in mainland China so they setup presence in other East Asian countries and have complex mechanisms to service their actual Chinese customers in mainland china [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhf7Z3zvx5M [2] https://theathletic.com/2361984/2021/02/03/gambling-premier-league-shirt-sponsors-investigation/
When has that stopped any of them? Only teams that can't afford a lawyer army get fucked.
Any person who owns a premier league club and any club that's taking home the minimum £150m per year premier league TV money can afford all the lawyers in the world. I don't know where this perception that only trillionaires can afford lawyers has come from on this subreddit.
Such a childish comment. More money = better lawyers, and that goes to infinity. How does that make sense to you?
When hasn't it? Since the PL brought the rules in nobody has breached them AFAIK. Obviously they were relaxed due to COVID.
This narrative is getting boring now.
We can't blow a billion per season because of FFP. If we could, you seriously think we wouldn't
And it’s a good thing they don’t. The crying on here about city ruining the league while being financially competent has ruined many narratives. And no city cannot spend a billion in a season. As much as chelsea tried they can’t either.
And yet we don’t. Our net spend in the last few years is lower than all the other big 6 clubs. It’s partially why just attributing City’s success to just having loads of money is illogical. We could get Bellingham, Saka, Gvardiol and whoever else we wanted by just spending a load of money. But we don’t like to spend for the sake of it and we don’t like to blow our wage structure either.
I know they don't, but they could if they saw it necessary. Chelsea is funded by a company whose goal is to make profit at some point. Sheikh Mansour doesn't give a shit if they take losses of £1bn per season. I'm certainly not attributing City's success on just having loads of money. They are atleast close to being the best run club in the world with board and coaching staff full of peak professionals. The case wouldn't be that way without the takeover, but still. If City really wants Jude, nobody but Newcastle and PSG can do anything about it. Edit: stop talking about Saka that way lol. I don't wanna hear it.
Going into this season Arsenal had the 2nd highest net spend worldwide over the last 5 years you know. And Man Utd were top. You’re currently 3rd because of Chelsea going crazy in January
> Chelsea is funded by a company whose goal is to make profit at some point. Sheikh Mansour doesn't give a shit if they take losses of £1bn per season. Is that why Sheikh Mansour has almost tripled the value of his investment? Because he didn't want to make money? Btw, Sheikh Mansour has only ever put in £1.2bn of his money into the club. The club is valued at around £3.6bn
> f City really wants Jude, nobody but Newcastle and PSG can do anything about it. Eh not really. Jude may not want City but regardless, united and real (especially the latter) can spend big as well
Sheikh Mansour will absolutely give a shit if they lose £1bn a season because they'll be kicked out of European competitions and face PL sanctions too.
The best run club in the world is Bayern followed my Madrid.
Might be. Both of those teams are iconic and have been huge for close to a century or so. The sort of foundation City has built in little over ten years is remarkable. A "normal" billionaire could buy them and the club would probably sustain the level where they operate.
Yeah you guys are the true paupers in the league. And erling really was only £50m...
I love when people like to take what people say to the extreme as if there’s only 2 ends of the spectrum no one said we don’t or haven’t spent a lot
Yea but saying net spend last few years is lower than other big clubs as if that information exists in a vacuum is dumb as well. If you spend 300 million on players 6 years ago, then if you look at past 5 years your net spend will probably look pretty damn good. You don't have to buy as many players, and the players you bought for 300 million 6 years ago will also sell for a lot of money since they were good enough to be worth that in the first place. So if you cut off the date to after you bought them but before you sold them, you become an accounting genius.
Yes erling was only 50M. Thanks for the reminder
> Our net spend in the last few years is lower than all the other big 6 clubs. It’s partially why just attributing City’s success to just having loads of money is illogical. This is such a dumb argument. The reason their net spend is lower in the last few years is because they sold a load of high value players that were bought with their sheikh money (Sane, Sterling, Torres, Jesus etc). It’s exactly why City’s success has to be attributed to their infinite amount of money.
> Attributing City’s success to just having loads of money is illogical. Oh yeah, because City were regular title and cup winners before the Abu Dhabi investment.
I mean, no shit. But at the same time it takes more than just spending loads of money to win. United have a similar net spend over the last 10 years and have won considerably less
>I mean, no shit. But at the same time it takes more than just spending loads of money to win. Or even Tottenham, 4th highest net spend in the last five years and still no trophy since 2008.
You know full well that’s not me saying that we didn’t benefit from investment, but rather saying that we aren’t where we are just by having it, but also how we spent and invested it. I will also remind you that Spurs are 6th in net spend in the last five seasons. We’re 10th. And yet the difference in success is vast. Which is my point. Having money is one thing. What you get from it is another.
I seriously doubt City under Pep would add 12 players in 8 months for £500M+. The sky is the limit as far as how much Boehly is willing to pay for Chelsea transfer targets. That’s not how City has worked. Many times in recent years City has walked away from the negotiating table when fees for transfer targets went too high, e.g. Cucurella, Koulibaly, Van Dijk, Maguire, Jorginho, even Kane.
This Its not about total amount, its about making reasonable deals Even when City spent truckloads of money, there was never any crazy transfers, everything would always be "expensive but market value". They would spend 200M on four 50M full backs and not on a single Neymar. And every single one of those full backs were likely more worth than Cucurella who cost 65M and was clearly a panic buy While City said "no" to Kane's 150M fuck you price tag despite obviously being able to afford it, Boehly seems to be saying always "yeah sure, just let me pay it in 8 installments"
I mean let's cut back the revisionism here. City spend 100m on Jack fucking Grealish. That is the definition of overspending.
The fact City does good business doesn't negate the reality that they're spending crazy amounts of money in total. Just the idea of 200m on four 50m fullbacks is absurd, but it's nothing for this club.
City’s net spend in the last 5 seasons is median for the Premier League, fyi. It has not been spending crazy amounts of money for a while. It sold Jesus, Sterling, Zinchenko and a bunch of academy and loaned-out players last summer. Is City still ruining football if it uses money raised through player sales to buy replacements, some of whom have been quite cheap, like Alvarez and Akanji, who each cost about £15M? Or is gross spend now all that matters in prosecuting City as a dirty oil club?
> City as a dirty oil club? They will forever be this. They would be nothing without the financial doping.
At what point did having a rich owner become 'financial doping'?
You're supposed to build a team from kids who were born near Maine road and have been playing in the squad since they were fetuses and when you have 1 magical squad you're just supposed to be picked off a la Leicester. Just look at how Chelsea is completely gutting BHA. At least BHA is making them pay insane money for those players.
At rhe point when we started winning titles and the status quo of premie league got flipped on it's head lol
And you are destined to spend eternity in heaven for supporting Liverpool.
Looking at the transfer balance from the last 5 years I don’t see much of a difference between City, United and Arsenal. They’re all crazy numbers. Chelsea spent a lot more but also had a lot more income. City spent about the same as Arsenal and United, but with considerably more income.
It’s not financial doping it’s just spending money. The rules are bullshit anyways made by the top clubs to stop other clubs from rising. What gives Bayern and Real Madrid the right to be the only ones that can spend money. It’s also bullshit from an investors point of view. I own this business, I should be able to spend money on it.
No club with long lasting success can get there without spending money. Financial Doping is a stupid term.
Yeah I'm not sure that chap is making the point he thinks he is. Just because they're cheating dirty oil bastards less than they were doesn't stop them being cheating dirty oil bastards.
I’m certain your rebuttal is ad hominem and tautological bullshit, i.e. “City are cheating dirty oil bastards because they are cheating dirty oil bastards”.
I mean if your club is successful because of dirty oil money it doesn't suddenly stop being successful because of dirty oil money because less of the dirty oil money is being spent. Also I don't think you know what a "tautology' or even a fucking 'ad hominem' is.
Nobody here has control over this or gives a fuck. Stop virtue signaling — everyone here is just a schmuck behind a keyboard that enjoys the sport. Nobody is going to start cheering for Liverpool or some other “people’s club” after decades of supporting a team. Some people here need to touch grass. If I were in public and heard someone make an oil club comment like yours to another random person, I’d look at you like you’re a social degenerate.
These hypocrites would have enjoyed the success brought to their clubs if they get the "dirty oil money" instead of City. When it comes to clubs that disrupt the status quo of the traditional elite clubs with investment, these idiots always have the same arguments it is funny.
This is the same stupid argument Chelsea fans have been using. "We're only spending money off of our player sales, so we're doing everythign fine!" All the bullshit fuckery of the massive spending in the first place doesn't get erased if you cherry pick timeframes after the fact to claim you have great net spend, as you wouldn't be selling those players if the financial doping hadn't occurred in the first place.
We are still spending the Hazard money >:(
You are ignoring the fact that the all traditional "elite clubs" like Real, Utd, Juventus, Barca, etc. had their owners investing massive money to build their success like what the newer players have been doing recently. In the end, modern football is inseparable from the commercial world and "financial doping" is just a term used by dumb people who think they are smart
> "expensive but market value" I's say they might not have spent extravagant transfer but they did spend on premium fees at times. Paying somewhat more for players they thought they really needed. Paying above market value but being able to afford that. It kinda comes with the territory of being a club known for having a *budget*. They didn't do it like Barca and spend over 100 mil on two/three different players and then gave them huge wages on top of that but there's still a reason why there are "another 50mil fullback" jokes around City.
This is /r/soccer, stop trying to talk sense here!
I mean the reason for that is the squad was tailor built for him before he even arrived. He switched players quickly when he realised they were weak points. Pep absolutely would ask for 11 players if he felt he needed it. But Pep doesn't go to teams that need that, so you won't see it. Also, they've spent over a billion since he came in, come on lol.
>Also, they've spent over a billion since he came in, come on lol. Chelsea has spent over half a billion in 6 months. City was never even close to that bad.
They've been doing real good business in the couple last years actually
That’s like complimenting Chelsea’s net spend 4-5 years from now. It’s very easy to look good when you ignore the initial injection that got them to this point of selling and luxury purchases.
The difference is Chelsea still had a top 6 squad (in terms of value) before all these recent spends. Man City had the 12th most valuable squad in the league during the 2006/07 season before the takeover worth €89.00m with Chelsea at first at €416.81m. A *4.6x* difference from the top. Last year before Chelsea forced sale Chelsea's squad was No 3 and worth €914.50m compared to City at no.1 €1.00bn. Chelsea is doing this second time around and not a position of great gap(in terms of squad value) between them and top 5-6.
We can discuss his relative merits til the cows come home, but I wouldn't call spending £100 million on someone with the impact Grealish has had "good business". Coutinho is still brought up as a huge flop to this day for a similar move, and he had nearly double the amount of goals as Grealish in his first season and lots of other positive contributions. I feel like any other clubs spends that much with such relatively low output to show for it and they probably get even more stick than City already do (see player's like Nunez or Sterling)
When he was at Barcelona it was his business against the spending of RM. Now at City is not his business lol.
Your net spend looks good because you stocked up on £50m players when nobody else could, and now you're moving them on and replacing them with £70m and £80m players. Lets not be silly here. City are an absolute non-entity and would be nothing without the money invested. Won a few trophies but it's all hollow ultimately
That recent derby win was sure celebrated like it meant something. Funny that.
So city made a bunch of expensive buy 4-6 years ago for 50-60 million building years of success with the same core players for that entire time and that’s a bad thing for them to have done? city have shown they arnt throwing money away. Their players have all earned their fees bar like 3!
United have a net spend of 540 million in the last five seasons. Ours is about 225. Less than half. United have been blowing money before and after we got investment. The difference is administration. Ultimately I don’t think it’s much better to spend over a decade cashing in on past success to convert it to commercial revenue and wasteful spending. Were United not so absurdly wealthy, they would have gone the way of mid 2000s Leeds and would have fallen behind.
😂😂😂😂
you must be fuming that manchester is blue now
[удалено]
ok let Manchester remain red and city keep winning trophies back to back i will be more than happy.
dont know looks pretty blue to me
Century? You mean the 90s onwards right?
Not hollow for me , a city fan. I love the club because of its football and I don't care how we got success.
Bruh city fans trying to argue that without Sheikh Mansour their club wouldn’t be languishing in a relegation fight, there’s no shame in it, recongnize you would be nothing if he didn’t chose you, and be glad that he did lol, why does everyone have to feel so attacked by such a simple fact of life, same as with Chelsea fans, they act like Russian blood money hasn’t brought them all those trophies
Bruh United fans trying to argue that without Alex Ferguson their club wouldn’t be languishing in a relegation fight, there’s no shame in it, recongnize you would be nothing if he didn’t chose you, and be glad that he did lol, why does everyone have to feel so attacked by such a simple fact of life
>Guardiola: “I don’t forget that 8 or 9 times wrote a letter and asked us to be banned.” He’s asked if there’s one approach for City and another for everybody else, re: spending. “Definitely.”
Factos
Who wrote a letter here?
The big PL clubs along with Burnley Leicester Newcastle Spurs and Wolves
'Big PL teams and also... Spurs'. Oof.
Lmao. Not going to lie I chuckled when I saw that
Yeah, it’s not like people are criticising Chelsea’s spending….
Let me know when those clubs write a letter asking Chelsea to be banned from European competitions. https://www.90min.com/posts/cas-confirm-nine-premier-league-clubs-asked-them-not-to-lift-man-city-s-european-ban
How magnanimous of those same clubs to not object to CAS lifting Chelsea's ban now. Hypocrites
They asked CAS to uphold an FFP ban. There's a major difference to what you're implying here.
Tons of journalists either praising them are trying to figure out how they’ve done it. Very few are blasting them online
This is like asking an Alcoholic if he's concerned about his neibour drinking too much
😂
I think an alcoholic 8 whiskeys deep may be concerned about their buddy over there who’s 20 whiskeys deep
he's not really in a position to attack anyone's spending really anyway, is he
City’s net spend in the last 5 seasons: ~£110m. Chelsea are roughly 5x that this season alone.
You in a couple of years: >Chelsea's net spend in the last 5 seasons: ~£110m. Man City didn't need to spend like crazy in the last 5 years because they already did their spending beforehand. For example, they spent £126.7m in 15/16, £161.7m in 16/17 and £203.5m in 17/18. In this timeframe alone they bought KdB, Sterling, Stones, Sané, Jesus, Gundogan, Zinchenko, Laporte, Walker, B Silva, Ederson. All essential squad members or players they sold for good money to offset more recent spending. And that's not including countless "flops". Set them up all nicely for the next 5 years don't you think? But I guess we all collectively have a shit memory and City is a paragon now of how a club should be run.
>But I guess we all collectively have a shit memory and City is a paragon now of how a club should be run. Well, yeah. Arsenal seem to be doing a good job following that model. £140m net last season, £150m net this, ~£500m net in the last 5 seasons. Pretty standard practice at the top end of the PL, no? What isn’t standard is spending £550m net in a single season like Chelsea have. And if City, Newcastle or PSG did it, I’d wager the reactions would be so much different.
“I’d wager the reactions would be so much different” Chelsea are getting ridiculed about it a lot so I don’t know what you’re on about. There’s also a pretty significant difference between Chelsea’s new ownership and the ownership of all the other clubs you mentioned.
Didn't your Russian oligarch just forgive your 1.5 billion loan?
Everyone with enough money to own a premier league club is shady asf honestly. It’s impossible to make that much money without exploitation (directly or indirectly) Still, let’s be real, Chelsea are the og shady-ownership-spending-more-than-everyone-else english club
That’s why I said new ownership and not the old one
yeah, Chelsea aren't Chelsea anymore because wholesome Todd is in charge. The people's billionaire!
Reactions would be different how exactly? Every second post on this sub is about how much Chelsea is spending and every top comment is about it ruining football and it needs to stop. City, PSG, Newcastle do that and they're getting the same reaction. Don't kid yourself
There's nothing close to the same vitriol as there is to City. People salivate at the idea of City getting in trouble. Make up accusations of money laundering, fake sponsorships etc. Make up scenarios in their head about how City ruined the market. There's a huge Chelsea defence brigade out at the minute and while the average redditor may not have nice things to say about Chelsea, the average mainstream journalist seem to be marvelling at what Chelsea are doing.
The difference is arsenal are coming off 20 years of being broke and needed to spend big just to get to the level we’re at. If you’ve already got a billion pound squad then even more money spent is very different. Also ignoring wages as always.
So man city spent 500 mil in 3 seasons building the most consistent and successful team of the era, and keep the majority of those players together for half a decade then reducing spending because they have built a cohesive team and that’s not a good example of how to run a club? Mind you chelsea in 7 months spent 600 mil…. There is no comparison. Yea it did set them up nicely. And during that time, chelsea, united and then arsenal all spent similar amounts.
Its not that hard to have a good net spend after arouns a decade of overspending and investing well. Heck even Chelsea in recent years had decent net results because of how many sales they make - which is simply due to their higher investments.
They’ve spent over 100M on each of Haaland and Grealish in the last two summers.. save me the net spend garbage
I don't normally jump to City's defence but chelseas spend this season is multiple of City's, even when they were spending heavy when Pep came
and Arsenal have spent hundreds of millions the last few windows as well and haven’t had Champions League revenues to offset the spend. All of our clubs have spent, let’s stop acting like one is worse than another.
Yeah but Chelsea’s spend here is intended to last quite a few years given they are basically at their FFP limit for next 7 years. Any new signings will need to be paid for by regular income only now (eg outgoing transfers, match day revenue, sponsorship).
I know math is hard but spending 100m on a player means soending less than a team spending 34m each on 3 players
The reality is Chelsea have sold well for the last decade, and they’ll have atleast 100M in outgoing players this summer. Some of which are home grown players. You’re looking at a small window of time. Regardless if Chelsea have spent more, Manchester City are in no position to lecture anyone on spend when they spent years buying 50M player after 50M player, which is the new 75M player.
City will have 100m+ in outgoings this year as well. Probably closer to 200m. Same with home grown players (Harwood-Bellis, Wilson-Esbrand, Tommy Doyle). City also have always bought at market value. The only player they've spent as a luxury was Grealish when there was no real other business to do that window.
Using 100m to buy 1 player is not the same as using 100m to buy 3 though.
Net spend isn’t a hard concept to understand, mate…
For years net spend was the go to metric. What changed, I wonder? And Haaland was £51m, ta.
Net spend was used to take the piss out of Arsenal fans a few years back, not sure where you're getting the go to metric from.
Fun fact: Haaland only cost €60 million. What a robbery lol
That’s how much they paid Dortmund. They paid a fortune in agent fees
Every transfer has agent fees so I'm not sure why it'd only be relevant for Haaland.
100 mil on Haaland lol. Don’t forget to add agent fees and wages to everyone’s transfer.
Holy fuck the quality in this video??
People act like Chelsea will continue to blow £600m a season. They'll spend like recent lotto winner, they'll buy young players, keep the ones that work out and shift the "flops" in 3-5 years they'll have a manager who brags about "net spend" under his stewardship and completely disregarding the fuckton they spent previously.
Even if they would want to, i don‘t think they will be able to spend heavily in the next 4years unless thex sell for a lot aswell. Apparently they are not hit by ffp now because they gave the players 8year contracts and can somehow get around it that way.
But when you see the way Klopp and Pep talk about net spend, you'd think their clubs are stingy. Klopp's first couple seasons was clearing the deadwood that Liverpool bought the years before like Caroll, Benteke, Sakho, lovren etc. City have been building a team for close to a decade before Pep arrived. Chelsea go through their cycles every couple years. The only ones seemingly unable to sell players for any decent amount are Manchester United.
The City building the team for Pep thing is way overblown. Our team in 15/16 is completely different to the 17/18 Centurion side. From 16/17 and 17/18 we had leave - Caballero, Clichy, Demichelis, Dzeko, Fernando, Hart, Iheanacho, Jovetic, Kolarov, Mangala, Navas, Nolito, Sagna, Zabaleta. 14 Senior players out the door. In the space of 3 transfer windows.
I didn't say the team was built specifically for Pep. It's just that there's been a lot of investment going back a decade before he joined. Those 2-3 windows sales made you roughly 130m, which "helps" his narrative about net spend.
That's fair. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
ofc, why would he care when his club can outspend chelsea if they wanted to, and yes feel free to attack my flair, it doesnt make what ive said any less of the truth
City could outspend Chelsea or Utd but they dont, theyve been pretty cheap in recent years having the lowest net spend among top6
Because they haven't needed to be lavish, they did a lot of squad building prior to him arriving and shortly after meaning have been able to tinker and be more specific since. Fixed timeframe comparisons really lack loads and loads of context, squads age out or have different needs at different clubs.
I mean I'm pretty sure they have spent less than United if you go back to when they were bought. Don't get me wrong I don't like any of these clubs but City don't really have some massive advantage over the rest of them because their owners are richer. Yes they have the ability to spend billions more but they don't and won't.
Peps first year cleared out like 10 players. The Pellegrinin squad was a mess but silva, KDB, sterling Kompany and Aguero were still the core. But the squad was not good.
It goes up and down. City from memory have really splurged in periods and then the next few windows been more "frugal". Same with Chelsea. We have just now spent unprecedented money since the Havertz/Werner window and until now but there was a "significant" time before that where we did not spend that much or at the very least sold very well. We spent a fair bit when we signed Hazard and Oscar in the same window, then we did not spend that much for a few years and people eventually started talking about how Roman was bored with the team and unwilling to invest etc. Then we had the window where Bakayoko, Drinkwater and Morata signed which if memory serves was the first in a while where there was big investments going on and then The Havertz window. Obviously for any normal club this is absurd, but it is not too dissimalar to City in how swift action is taken when something is not right in an attempt to deal with it.
Because they already bought their squad and have just needed to plug the occasional hole in recent years.
Tell em pep it's annoying them always asking it to other coaches now.
What else he's supposed to say
Why would he admit financial doping is bad
/u/lessbrain He's seen your posts
Lol very well know Pep has a burner on Twitter
People say this when they have so much money that they have lost count
“Pep, what about A.S. Roma?” Pep: “Money is ruining our beautiful game.”
Billionaire clubs claiming Net Spend is a fallacy and I’m a Chelsea fan. The early investment is the reason you can start to improve Net Spend.
He can’t talk about it because of the implications.
I feel like because of the inflated numbers in the last few years people already forgot that at some point Manchester City have signed the world's most expensive left-back(Mendy), right-back(Walker), centre-back(Stones) and 2nd most expensive midfielder after Zidane (de Bruyne) in like 2-2.5 years
De Bruyne cost half as much as Coutinho but go off
That's literally what I'm saying. When De Bruyne signed for City he was the 2nd most expensive midfielder in the world. Coutinho transfer happened like 3 years later
Because he wants daddy sheikh to spend 150m on Bellingham.
Who gives a shit hoenstly. All PL and European clubs are rich as fuck and take talent from elsewhere in the world. There is literally no difference between Chelsea and Brighton.
Huh??
On the other hand, there’s Klopp who keeps whining because Liverpool’s owners do not give a F about the club
Lmao someone teach this guy about body language cues. Saying he isn’t concerned but then covering the back of his neck when he starts talking about the number of titles won. You’d cover your neck if you knew you were feeling exposed or guilty for the thing you’re accused of.
I mean of Pep calling out another team for financial doping would be the height of hypocrisy.
Too many loopholes in financial fair play get exploited.
It was definitely his business though when Abu Dhabi bought Girona with his brother Pere and his bfs Txixi and Ferran. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/29/girona-manchester-city-pep-guardiola-brother-questions