• qu1x0t1cZ@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m sure I read somewhere that relative to transfer fees at the time Chelsea were bankrolled more than City.

    • XxAbsurdumxX@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Adjusted for inflation, the amount Chelsea spent under Abromovich is insane even compared to City.

      • sewious@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought the issue is that when Chelsea got taken over, what they did wasn’t “against the rules”

    • OnlyOneSnoopy@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Our funds came openly and directly via the owner, there were no FFP issues to try and skirt around at the time. City are funded by fake sponsors in an attempt to bypass FFP.