- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Thats exactly how washing money works. He will have lost some but has cleaned through legit money now. It also opens up loads of opportunities with legitimate business with the west.
Don’t worry he will get his money. Even if he doesn’t the intent to sportswash was still there.
No Chelsea are the most recent trailblazers who’ve been overtaken by the poster boys
The poster boys are City, PSG and Newcastle
Let’s be realistic, where would all that money Chelsea spent on players go if they didn’t spend it? To the fans? To the community? No. It would still be in the bank account of a billionaire. If they want to splash £100m on a single player from a club deemed smaller, then I don’t see the issue. A club like Brighton can easily spend that £100m on a decent replacement and then some. Also doesn’t guarantee Chelsea trophies and doesn’t wreck a club like Brighton. Brighton also seem to spend that £100m on obscure but high potential players from much smaller clubs abroad, which helps those clubs.
*Man City
This post was tagged by the OP as a “long read” link. Please avoid low-effort jokes and read the material before commenting. You’ll be able to reply to the post after 5 minutes.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I’m just amazed how they always pick the perfect Boehly photo for any topic.
In the case of Chelsea, both ways of understanding the statement are correct.
Hilarious, their fans are toxic
You don’t even need 5 years. They’re salary cap is now set at £270M while they are currently spending £400M with the smallest squad in the league
Do people just randomly forget that some clubs used to be owned by banks and that’s how they are where they are today?
I’m not going to be an hypocrite and say Chelsea doesn’t have a role to play in the current state of football but if it wasn’t Chelsea it was going to be another club.
Current state of football was inevitable. It was going to happen regardless.
I think people are nitpicking this article a bit. Saying Chelsea are poster boys for whats wrong with football today is a reasonable take. Sure, they could have said Newcastle or PSG or Man City, but the person is expressing an opinion and it’s not a bad one, certainly not as bad as people in this comment section are making it out to be.
People don’t read articles here, or anywhere on reddit tbh. One of my professors has his tests just be like from the first 3 pages of each textbook chapter, and people still don’t read it. It’s like 5 minutes of work lol.
Cleaned through billions of money in Chelsea.
Did he? He lost money all throughout his ownership and last I heard still didn’t have access to the sale proceeds. Plus rumor is he wasn’t even allowed within the country for the last few years.
I don’t think Roman “sportswashed” because I don’t think he was trying to clean up his public persona, but instead wanted to have assets outside of Putin’s control in case things went bad. And at least to date that plan backfired.
Bayer Leverkusen were founded by Bayer, the pharmaceutical company that produced chemical weapons for the Nazis during WWII. Bayern Munich used the swastika as their badge. PSG and Manchester City are oil clubs that actively cheat their books to be able to spend more. I don’t get what we’re doing here trying to paint Chelsea’s spending as some new wave ruining football.
These people who say “football is gone” frankly do not know what they’re talking about. Inflation (both within and outside the sport) has changed the landscape but there has always been stupid money and bad people within the sport.
The complainers are just nostalgic for the times before they knew and understood how bad it is. Picking any one club to vilify is foolish. It’s an arms race.
Are you really using Nazi Germany for an example as to why Chelsea aren’t “the only ones ruining football”?
No, he’s using Nazi Germany as an example of how football has been corrupted by less than benevolent interests for a very long time.
I mean yeah I get it, but that’s leaving out a relevant historical context as to why those things happened.
I agree that Chelsea should not be seen as “where things gone wrong”, but pointing out to Nazi Germany to say things have always been wrong just seems whataboutism with a really low bar
Just feel like he’s going to a more extreme level
So you think the UK should have had rules that prevented anyone from owning a club if they had any connections to someone who “wasn’t a good person”?
It’s not even rational to discriminate against someone that was in the KGB, because that just means they were public servants working to protect their country.
and the funny thing is that a major portion of redditors are actually american
I don’t get what we’re doing here trying to paint Chelsea’s spending as some new wave ruining football.
Exactly!
This isn’t even the first time Chelsea’s spending ruined football!
Brits invent football and have been whining about it ever since.
This is the definitive slogan of /r/soccer
Brits invent football and have been whining about it ever since.
This is the definitive slogan of /r/soccer
There’s like a million football teams in England that don’t make any money and play purely for pleasure man. If you say that “football” has gone wrong because one club is making money, then it says something mostly about what you see as football, not the actual whole football lol.
paying ridiculous amounts with money loaned from banks.
That’s how most of these transfers are paid though. It’s particularly obvious with release clauses.
Clubs offer better value for transfer with a significant amount upfront. The buying club hasn’t got that money but the interest they pay will be lower than the premium the selling club wants for more installments. Take out a loan and it’s ok. Clubs are fairly low risk in terms of lending. Even a club massively in debt will almost always pay their loans eventually.
This is true. What my point was no loan has ever been taken to pay wages. As far as I am aware. I would be open to stand corrected with valid sources though.
Neither me or the person I responded to mentioned loans to pay wages. Did you mean to respond to someone else?
Ohh yeah, sorry. I am at work and saw wages pop up in some comments, and replied as per that. But I do agree, loans are taken to pay for transfer fees. It’s standard for every major transfer irrespective of the club.
No worries
People don’t read articles here, or anywhere on reddit tbh. One of my professors has his tests just be like from the first 3 pages of each textbook chapter, and people still don’t read it. It’s like 5 minutes of work lol.
Neither me or the person I responded to mentioned loans to pay wages. Did you mean to respond to someone else?
Ohh yeah, sorry. I am at work and saw wages pop up in some comments, and replied as per that. But I do agree, loans are taken to pay for transfer fees. It’s standard for every major transfer irrespective of the club.
No worries
This shit is just lazy journalism at this point. There are many things wrong with football. Spending idiotically for no trophies doesn’t even make the top ten