Other races in the universe are expanding their territories. Before it's too late, we must secure a lot of celestial bodies and build defenses. We need to train everyone in the world to be scientists.
10:20 Crazy how a "journalist" is so ill-informed, there was no match fixing in Calciopoli, it was about talking to referee designators and many teams were doing it, including Milan, Lazio and Inter, the latter hid the evidence until it was too late to prosecute them due to the statute of limitations and got a cardboard league title for coming 3rd out of it. Juventus are not trying to reclaim the title, they're trying to get it taken off Inter who stole it unfairly. Use better, more knowledgeable journalists next time please.
@Davie Bananas Corruption obviously, but match fixing is a specific thing, generally understood to mean bribing an official to help you, which I don't believe happened. It was more about wielding influence in shady backrooms, and the fact all 3 of the top teams at the time, Inter, Milan & Juve were at it, makes it particularly murky. Certainly a bad comparison to today, were it's clearly about only one team cooking their books. Also, the title was hurriedly assigned to Inter because UEFA were putting pressure because they had to assign CL allocations, which isn't the case here.
@Alex ab Yeah, the later evidence actually implicated Inter more than Juve, but the fact that Moggi was dealing with refs via burner phones is clear evidence of corruption by Juve officials too. Even if it WAS just inter who were influencing refs, it’s still match fixing.
@Davie Bananas In 2011, FICG Chief investigator Stefano Palazzi alleged in his report that Inter & Milan were committing more serious article 6 violations, which is actual match fixing (ie telling refs what kind of calls to make). The statute of limitations had passed so they weren't punished. All Calciopoli refs were acquitted except De Santis, who had nothing to do with Juve but had received calls by Inter former player and then-executive Facchetti)
@Davie Bananas @Davie Bananas Also, I know Inter and their allies ran the company that recorded and leaked the phone taps, ran the newspaper that published them and was used as evidence in the trial (Gazzetta), ran the commission investigating Calciopoli: Guido Rossi (FIGC comissioner and “real Interista who avoids coffee at the juventus bar" according to Gazetta), Marco Tronchetti Provera (Telecom Italia president and 2nd biggest Inter shareholder who released the Juve tapes and hid the Inter recordings then resigned the next year from Telecom), Carlo Buora (former Inter vice president, Gazzetta owner and Telecom managing director).
This is a very good type of football talk show. Getting foorball journalists and football l personalities and experts together in person to discuss. Just come across it and subscribed. Love it.
Neville is spot on ffp only benefits the top 6 as they make more and can spend more then a club like wolves for example who have a rich owner their owner can’t go and spend what they want so the top 6 always stays the top 6
@insomnia1914 reading is hard I know, but if you try again and see it says winning another title 10 years after his final game it might make sense for you. Never once did it mention the last game was the Sunderland game when city won the league
@Palash Rawat I mean, anyone in their right mind would have said the same. They literally got dominated everything or game of the knockouts bro 😂 he was wrong, but it was a logical and rational wrong
@S khan Have a laugh at the delusional Liverpool fans who believed Liverpool were going to win the quadruple last season. Embarrassing so they are! 😂😂😂
@Jarrad Burgon You can't do all tu3 selective choices of stats you like. United have had three or four games where they conceded far too many but take those games out & their defence has been far better than the likes of Liverpool's etc., United in all comps have the most cleansheets in the league.
Am glad Gary has mentioned the price factors for positions in football...it's hard to make sense. Football agents, press and clubs need to be put to check
Players and agents now run the market of transfers. All the power is in the hands of the players, and clubs will work with likes of Mendea and Kia Jorabarichshsgan to smooth those costs. Ruben Neves doesn’t end up at Wolves, and Tevez/Mascherano never play for West Ham
As with anything, it’s not what you know - but who you know. £30-40M worth of player like Ruben Neves move to Wolves in Championship - when every top club in Europe would have taken him for right price.
@parky_1712 Uh...ok. Sir Parky...the chosen one. Lord of all debates. Judge of what maketh sense from what doesn't 🤣🤣🤣. You really make me laugh man. I'll start a petition, see if we can get any of those titles officially recognized. That way, whenever you claim someone isn't making "sense" or you're not getting any "sense"...it'll actually stick. Pffft. Sir Alex Ferguson once made a comment "never in my lifetime" guess nobody was taking him seriously
@parky_1712 maybe ffp might have discouraged them from even considering it 🤔. I dunno but Gary's words were he has sympathy for City because as far as he understands, he doesn't see how City could have challenged as wealthy a club as Utd etc in a short space of time without the massive investment and dream. Its not my words...it's Gary Neville's. Maybe you should stop debating with me and see if you can get in touch with him directly 🙄
The decision by Chelsea to go down the long-term contract route is all about risk vs reward. Boehly strongly believes football is going to continue experiencing strong growth, particularly on the broadcasting side. For Chelsea to stay aboard the gravy train, they need consistent Champions League football at a bare minimum. With Newcastle back on the rise, we are well on-track to having a big 7. There are only 4 guaranteed Champions League places, and the revenue, exposure, and pulling power of one is crucial to the long-term success of these clubs. Boehly is taking this risk because the alternative is languishing mid-table whilst trying to rebuild over the next 5 or 10 years. Without CL football, and with the revenue gaps between clubs ever-increasing, that rebuild becomes a far more difficult process.
Great content this, Gaz & Carra knocking it outta the park……and to think we had to tolerate Keys & Gray for so long, can you imagine the set they’d have built, a boys club with dolly birds serving them gin & tonics, babbling on about black boots and foreign players diets!!!
There's a huge misconception here that before Boehly, every club would pay the full amount for a player in the same window. It has always been split over years. Chelsea just stretched it out over 7/8 years instead of 3/4 on the books
@Ore Baikie Good god. No, Chelsea are NOT paying any transfer fee over 4-5 years. They are paying the fees in the same way they pay most transfer fees, over 3 years.
@Ore Baikie Yes, for accounting purposes it helps reduce the annual amortisation cost but in real terms, in real life so to speak, Chelsea will still have to cough up the cash & pay the selling club in the same amount of time regardless of how long the player's contract might be. So if Chelsea have agreed to pay the transfer fee in three annual installments then that's what they have to do whether the player's contract is 3 years long or 10 years long,
@D. O Yes, I agree with your explanation regarding the transfer fee & wages. The fee & the wages would indeed be divided by 8 if that's how long the contract is. This would be correct for year one of the 8 year contract. Year two would be the transfer fee & wages divided by 7 as there would now be only 7 years remaining on the contract. Year three would be the transfer fee & wages divided by 6, and so on and so on. This is why a player's annual amortisation cost increases year on year. And it's why a player's annual amortisation cost is reduced whenever that player signs a new contract or extends his current contract. But yes, you're right, the agreement the two clubs come to regarding how & when the transfer fee will be paid has nothing whatsoever to do with amortisation. Whether the whole transfer fee is paid in one lump or whether it's paid in ten installments of many years, the fact is this aspect of the transfer has no bearing on a club's annual amortisation budget.
@Ore Baikie That's correct. You are one of only a few people on here I've come across who seems to understand the basic principles of how clubs do their accounting. So many people have confused what you've explained with instead thinking these contracts mean Chelsea are paying the transfer fees over that amount of time, over those number of years. The players contract is a completely separate thing to the agreement the two clubs have regarding the paying of the transfer fee in instalments.
It’s brilliant to watch Jamie, Gary and the rest of the panel dodge how much they want to celebrate that this is happening to city after yearssss of slating their financial actions. They’ve got to be waiting for the day it (potentially) comes out to actually celebrate
@3 blade ninja Hargreaves is only on a couple of the BT europa/CL games and even then it's not like he has astute analysis. Neville is a better pundit than him easily
Boelhy's contract model is based on the American sports contract models.... where you have massively long contracts but they have no issues with paying players severance fee's to cut them from the squad if they dont work. I see more and more players being cut than sold on if it doesn't work for them there, alternatively they always seem to have the ability to loan players out
@Danni Wilder 83% of Man City’s revenue is from intercompany transfers and not commercial revenue. If Abramovich was owed no money then why was he paid back £2Bn not plus as part of the sale. Either way Chelsea was making losses which was covered by a holding company owned by Abramovich. We all know Chelsea’s price was over inflated. You have only quoted last 2 seasons but go back 10 years and Spurs, Arsenal and United would have been producing profits year after year.
@deejay Peekay You have got several points wrong & I shall be only too happy to point them out to you. In the last financial year Arsenal FC made a loss, after tax, of £107.3m. The year before that they made a loss of £47.8m. Liverpool made a loss of £46m last year & £4m the year before that. However, these figures are pre-tax because I could find the after tax figures. Tottenham's losses were £80m & £64m for the last two years. I'm not claiming that these clubs don't ever make an annual profit, they do, sometimes. But making a loss is far more common. Don't worry about debt? I don't worry about it because my club doesn't have any. The problem with debt is it costs money. The millions of pounds that clubs are spending out every year on financing their debt could be spent elsewhere if they had no debt, like Chelsea have no debt. And although the most important thing is to be able to afford your debt, & these football clubs can, it still is a cost they'd rather not have. Chelsea are overspending? And you know this because....??? Are you privy to the internal finances of Chelsea FC in some way? Because if you aren't then how can you possibly make a statement like that? Contrary to the tabloid narrative Chelsea don't actually have a particularly large squad. They haven't even filled the maximum quota of 17 overseas players that clubs are permitted to register. Chelsea currently only have 15 of the 17 allowed. However, it's true that overall the squad is a little bloated at the moment. A couple of players were intended to go out on loan on the last transfer window but for various reasons this didn't materialise. It is common knowledge that there will be several first team players leaving the club this summer & then the squad will be trimmed to the size that the manager wants. This is no big deal. Chelsea have for 25 years now had either the biggest or one of the biggest wage bills in the league. Having a big wage bill is normal business for Chelsea. It's not like it's suddenly gotten any bigger than it usually is. None of the new signings are on the really big salaries. Jorginho who has just left was on a bigger wage than any of the new signings are on. And if Kante does leave in the summer then that would be the No.1 biggest wage earner off the books. We'll have to wait & see. I don't know what you were saying about club directors lending money to their club & having to pay it back & charging interest, etc, etc, because none of that is relevant to Abramovich & Chelsea. Abramovich was never a director of Chelsea FC & he also never lent money to Chelsea FC. Roman Abramovich was never owed any money by Chelsea FC. A parent company, Fordstam Ltd, was the company that owed Abramovich £1.5b. And there is no requirement whatsoever for interest to be charged on any monies loaned to this company. You don't think Boehly & Clearlake will cover any annual losses that Chelsea incur? I totally disagree. How do you expect Chelsea to cover any losses then, via their bank? Lol. This comment reminds me of how so many people were of the opinion that the new owners won't be spending money like Abramovich used to. How Chelsea fans were in for a huge culture shock & would now be shopping at TK Max & not Harrods. It's undeniable that having a single individual as the club owner was a special thing, it was fantastic having only Roman in complete charge of everything. But that is a very rare thing, for the vast majority of cases it is a group of people that own our football clubs. Lastly......no, Uefa definitely does not suspended FFP for two transfer windows when a club has new ownership. What happens is they relax certain aspects, & only certain aspects, of the FFP rules. Yes, these very specific restrictions are relaxed for two years (or is it two windows, I can't remember right now) when new owners buy a club. Newcastle more astute? LOL Is that what they call it? Or maybe it's just that Newcastle are on a different level to Chelsea in so many ways, & I mean on a much lower level, not higher. It's almost as if these two clubs operate in different worlds, different football worlds at least. I mean, if anyone doesn't agree with me on this or who is unable to see the difference clearly, there is one statistic that sums up why these two clubs are on different levels.......both clubs were recently put on the market & sold. One club was bought for £300 Million. The other club was bought for £4.25 Billion (or £4250 million). That means for the price of one Chelsea Football Club you could buy 14 Newcastle Football Clubs. For the amount of money Chelsea have spent in the transfer market this season they could have bought two Newcastle United Football Clubs. Annual revenue for NUFC is £179m. Annual revenue for CFC is £489m.
@Firas Massadeh Also....you say Chelsea football club are not a social benefit run business......as if I'm suggesting Chelsea should be forced to give 8 year contracts. I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying where Chelsea WANT to give an 8 year contract then they should be allowed to. And if a player wants an 8 year contract because it gives him, at the very minimum, 8 years of certainty & 8 years of guaranteed income, then he should be allowed to sign an 8 year contract.
@Firas Massadeh My point about employment rights & the right of any individual, in any walk of life, to be legally entitled to sign a contract of any length, was only a general point I was making & even then I was simply being curious. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what the employment law is. But I know that some years ago a Dutch footballer called Jean-Marc Bosman took Uefa to court over a similar sort of employment & contractual issue & he won his case & it forced a major change to Uefa's rule book. Players weren't ever allowed to be out of contract & leave their club on a free transfer prior to the Bosman court case.
Finally a proper fan representing Chelsea! Always felt that the other Chelsea fan reps were either not passionate, or did not want to be bold and back their club, or just had no clue what was happening and would simply nod at Neville and Carragher's distasteful remarks.
people dont realise Todd done the same at the Dodgers its his strategy - he builds a young exciting team to slowly develop into a constant title club over many years with not loads of change just adding where needs be.
I think boehly has thought he can apply a similar system to American sports where contracts are front loaded and you can cut players with minimal consequences. Football just doesn’t work the same way when players don’t necessarily bring their ‘stats’ to a new team.
Thanks Si for the Chelsea point of view, excellent job explaining how we view things and surviving the barrage of questions from the rival fans about the recruitment tactics. Enjoyed that!
Regretfully they didn't keep Robbie on as host after everyone commented on how great he was last time - I honestly thought he did a fantastic job and carried the vibe much better than Josh.
I think that transfer fees should only be the size of the contract that the player has left. Eg if a player has 3 years left on a £100k a week contract, the transfer fee is just a bit over £15mil
Folk should read Martin Samuel's article on the charges against City and why it's not so easy to give a title to the runner up of a year. Also he goes into the FFP rules and how they were set up to protect the elite clubs like United, Arsenal and Liverpool.
Great from Gary at 19:40, getting at the heart of the issue. There must be a funding model that provides for sustainability and potential for growth for smaller clubs. But the key piece of criteria that Gary left out in criticizing Andy Hull's model is FAIRNESS. If you allow any club's owner to contribute funding to cover losses/increase revenues, then any club that does not have an owner that can maximize that limit will not be able to compete in the long run. Any permitting of owner injection of funds will result in every club seeking to maximize those contributions year on year, and any club that can't do so will fall behind. Gary says that there is simply no way to grow a club without owner injection of cash--this is objectively false. Many clubs have done that and there are models for how to do it. Tottenham is the obvious example. Also Brentford and Brighton, which have had some owner investment, but who could have had the same success using the same expertise and strategy, although it would have taken longer. It IS possible to grow revenue without owner injection of cash, period.
How about this: all Premier League teams can only spend 50% of the previous season's team with the highest gross' income. That way, there's a ceiling on the biggest clubs, but no limit on the smallest clubs.
Wouldn't Gary's point about allowing owner funding just mean that the results of the clubs were only dependent on the revenue of the owners. Meaning: The richer the owner is the better your club performs. This has therefore dramatically decreased the importance of academies and just created a shortcut for any club: have a rich owner.
I’m a Liverpool fan and I obviously feel a fierce rivalry with city and an intense hatred of how they’ve obviously (fairly or not) bought their success. However, the fan speaking is how every football fan would defend their team and save their cherished football memories. I think he did a good job articulating his side. Also the football they’ve provided has been incredible and entertaining. There’s just a huge issue with finance in European football as a whole and it needs a complete revolution and new ways of making it as fair as possible.
@Side of B two teams that are way off city ? United have been piss poor up until this season and Chelsea are shocking this season ! Liverpool the only team that could compete and with way less of a budget !
@Side of B scoring the most goals doesn't mean city play entertaining football. Most of those goals are against much inferior sides in one sided bore fest's mate
Fantastic to have the Fan Debates back, love the new studio set-up… but go back to the longer form edit, please. I understand why you’d want to edit for time, but it makes the episodes and the chat a bit clunky. The best format is the one you allow to breathe.
Wish they touched more on Spurs and Arsenal and how unfair it is to those clubs and others like them that try to bring success organically through smart investment.
Man, wish I was the chelsea fan on there … he did an ok job answering their questions but i felt like he was only scratching the surface. You can not compare what city (allegedly) did to what chelsea are doing. Chelsea are playing within the rules and there is an element of risk involved by awarding these players such long term contracts, like if they flop or get long term injuries. Why didn’t anyone mention badiashile, he looks like he been at the club for 5 years, the way he’s just dropped in, and Chelsea bought him for 30mil.
Chelsea haven't gamed the system. They might have been able to overspend according to their revenue this year but they will have reduced spending in future years when these funds will actually land
City for life!! Wasn't long ago I was watching City play in the second tier at Maine Road. They can relegate us all they can, I will always support this club.
My 2 cents worth on the Chelsea long term contracts is that yes it's a risk because you could find it hard to move on player ls who doesn't perform. At the same time if they are on a low enough wage that in a few years they want more money and a new contract, that loophole will be closed by then so any new contract will be a maximum length that is a much shorter than the original. It's actually quite sensible if you look at it. I don't agree with it but if it's within the rules i can see how it could be a benefit.
@5thDawg no one currently is anywhere near that salary at arsenal. Yeah... you are Chelsea ! Chelsea yearly player salary: £202,540,000. Arsenal's yearly player salary: £100,360,000. Double our player salary and you pick on Ozil 😆
@5thDawg to be fair, Arsenal don't normally do that historically speaking. They took a gamble on one player who at the time was considered to be the next global star. It's quite unfair to lump Arsenal into an overall situation that they have largely avoided for a decade at that time.
The long term contracts is Todd Boehly’s experience in Major League Baseball here in the USA. That is how the MLB teams get around salary caps and he is trying to bring that into English Football. I think it’s going to blow up in his face. Right now it seems to be working and it’s great for fans because they are spending money. But, eventually it will come back to bite him in the arse. In MLB it usually gets to 5 years left and they try to move them on with player plus cash trades. They don’t do those in English Football.
@Danni Wilder and also the fact they are holding that cost for an extra 3 years, so as they buy each window (which I assume they will make future purchases) that 'saving' becomes less and less
@Danni Wilder The point is the insane spend not the distinction between 5 or 8 years. That comparison is based on the assumption the spend would happen anyway, whereas the spend is the subject in question. Chelsea spent £323m in January. Even assuming all contracts were 8 years that's a little above £40m annualized cost, again before even looking at a new player. Add in the potential prospect of missing out on Champion's League and the significant revenue contribution it makes then yes, it is a risky strategy.
@Garry Cotton That's nonsense. It's not a massive risk at all. And your claim that Chelsea have already spent £50 - £70m in future transfer windows makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Explain what you mean & how you've come to this conclusion? The only difference the length of a contract makes is to the club's annual amortisation cost & what impact that has on the overall amortisation budget for that particular year. What has been totally overlooked in all of this tabloid gossip is how the difference between a 5 year contract & an 8 year contract in terms of a player's annual amortisation cost is very minimal in the overall scheme of things. If Mudryk cost £88m & is on an 8 year contract at 100k per week (£5m p.a) then his year one amortisation cost will be £22.6m. If Mudryk had signed a 5 year contract instead of an 8 year contract then his year one amortisation cost would be £16m. That's a difference of just £6.2m and he is one of the two big signings Chelsea made. If Badiashile cost £35m & is on an 8 year contract at £80k per week (£4m p.a) then his year one amortisation cost will be £8.4m. If Badiashile was on a 5 year contract instead then his year one amortisation cost would be £11m. That's a difference of £2.6m. I would hazard a guess that by putting all the players Chelsea signed this January on 7 & 8 year contracts instead of 5 year contracts it has reduced this coming year's amortisation cost by no more than £23m. Now when you're spending the amounts that Chelsea have spent then it all helps but the fact remains that relative to the total budget £23m is pretty small beer.
There is no salary cap in MLB the owners can spend as much as they want without any consequences the gap between the highest payroll team to the lowest is ballpark $300 million
There is clearly a difference in fan & supporter on some of these bodies representing certain clubs, not sure most would understand their clubs culture in what it means to be a supporter. Great studio tho well done to the team
Football has lost here, for years certain teams have continued to spend( which has confused most people)...imagine the city squad for just about any manager if you were lucky enough?..lets see what happens with this, fireworks i think!
Not gonna lie, there is a part of me that thinks "If I buy a business, its upta me if I can invest" 😤 Then I remember there's rules to the game that we play 😉
The problem I have with Gary Neville is that the solution he recommends doesn’t solve the so called problem . If you have an owner who has a lot of money and owns a club that is already successful how do you expect the spending and power on the transfer market to be same as a division 3 or 2 team . It just can’t work .
Fair doesn't mean every club at every level is the same. It just means there is a.set of rules that everyone is playing by, and that there is a correlation between income and expenses. It's not a crazy concept
Part Two & Three will be out very soon, make sure to subscribe & turn notifications on 📽🔔
Weird studio set up with people behind the panel. Weird
Other races in the universe are expanding their territories.
Before it's too late, we must secure a lot of celestial bodies and build defenses.
We need to train everyone in the world to be scientists.
10:20 Crazy how a "journalist" is so ill-informed, there was no match fixing in Calciopoli, it was about talking to referee designators and many teams were doing it, including Milan, Lazio and Inter, the latter hid the evidence until it was too late to prosecute them due to the statute of limitations and got a cardboard league title for coming 3rd out of it. Juventus are not trying to reclaim the title, they're trying to get it taken off Inter who stole it unfairly. Use better, more knowledgeable journalists next time please.
Great idea getting the journalists involved, adds a lot of information rather than just speculation to these chats.
Guy’s from The Athletic are very good 👍🏼
@Davie Bananas Corruption obviously, but match fixing is a specific thing, generally understood to mean bribing an official to help you, which I don't believe happened. It was more about wielding influence in shady backrooms, and the fact all 3 of the top teams at the time, Inter, Milan & Juve were at it, makes it particularly murky. Certainly a bad comparison to today, were it's clearly about only one team cooking their books. Also, the title was hurriedly assigned to Inter because UEFA were putting pressure because they had to assign CL allocations, which isn't the case here.
@Alex ab Yeah, the later evidence actually implicated Inter more than Juve, but the fact that Moggi was dealing with refs via burner phones is clear evidence of corruption by Juve officials too. Even if it WAS just inter who were influencing refs, it’s still match fixing.
@Davie Bananas In 2011, FICG Chief investigator Stefano Palazzi alleged in his report that Inter & Milan were committing more serious article 6 violations, which is actual match fixing (ie telling refs what kind of calls to make). The statute of limitations had passed so they weren't punished.
All Calciopoli refs were acquitted except De Santis, who had nothing to do with Juve but had received calls by Inter former player and then-executive Facchetti)
@Davie Bananas @Davie Bananas Also, I know Inter and their allies ran the company that recorded and leaked the phone taps, ran the newspaper that published them and was used as evidence in the trial (Gazzetta), ran the commission investigating Calciopoli:
Guido Rossi (FIGC comissioner and “real Interista who avoids coffee at the juventus bar" according to Gazetta), Marco Tronchetti Provera (Telecom Italia president and 2nd biggest Inter shareholder who released the Juve tapes and hid the Inter recordings then resigned the next year from Telecom), Carlo Buora (former Inter vice president, Gazzetta owner and Telecom managing director).
Gary loves the phrase “The next 12-18 months “ 😂
Ooooh
Whereby
Mancheshd Yoonited
@MrGts92 i am a thicko...am certainly not the brightest spark
@MrTomas09 yet you're here skulking around.
This is a very good type of football talk show. Getting foorball journalists and football l personalities and experts together in person to discuss. Just come across it and subscribed. Love it.
Neville is spot on ffp only benefits the top 6 as they make more and can spend more then a club like wolves for example who have a rich owner their owner can’t go and spend what they want so the top 6 always stays the top 6
FFP was brought in the help united
@MrGts92 Well answer it then, if it's so obvious...
@parky_1712 "lol when did United, Arsenal, Liverpool get private investment that helped them achieve what they have been"....this is why.
@MrGts92 Really??? How do you work that out?
@parky_1712 based on your first comment. You really don't know your football history
Fergie winning another PL 10 years after the final whistle in his final game?!
…..The ultimate Fergie time.
@Daquavious bingleton no arsenal Wenger did in 2009
As arsenal fan if city are crooks pay up man u or anyone even liverpool got robbed 2 titles
@insomnia1914 reading is hard I know, but if you try again and see it says winning another title 10 years after his final game it might make sense for you. Never once did it mention the last game was the Sunderland game when city won the league
That wasn't Fergie's final game though.... He managed United for another season after that and won the title in 2013 before retiring.
I love what this channel is doing, the interviews and supporter debates. Having a home is important, so the studio is a good decision.
@surendran9311
He was probably doing that while he typed with his other hand
@Josh to the Max maybe you should? :)
@Josh to the Max Thanks for the comment
Get a grip
Before I watch this, somebody better get Carragher to address his comments about Martinez, he's been ducking the topic for months. 😆
@Palash Rawat I mean, anyone in their right mind would have said the same. They literally got dominated everything or game of the knockouts bro 😂 he was wrong, but it was a logical and rational wrong
@S khan Have a laugh at the delusional Liverpool fans who believed Liverpool were going to win the quadruple last season. Embarrassing so they are! 😂😂😂
I don't think anyone gives a shit if you don't watch it, so "somebody better do this and that before you watch it" no
@William Edward Souness has had some rory jennings level takes
@Jarrad Burgon You can't do all tu3 selective choices of stats you like. United have had three or four games where they conceded far too many but take those games out & their defence has been far better than the likes of Liverpool's etc., United in all comps have the most cleansheets in the league.
This was brilliant! Thank you so much for the amazing content 🙏🔥
This has got to be my favourite football channel rn. Everyone gets a chance to say their peace and they’re all really knowledgeable people
Good watch. Well done to all. Decent debate. Respect. Learning. Great stuff. Do more of this. Enough said.
Agreed. Nice work.
Am glad Gary has mentioned the price factors for positions in football...it's hard to make sense. Football agents, press and clubs need to be put to check
Players and agents now run the market of transfers.
All the power is in the hands of the players, and clubs will work with likes of Mendea and Kia Jorabarichshsgan to smooth those costs.
Ruben Neves doesn’t end up at Wolves, and Tevez/Mascherano never play for West Ham
As with anything, it’s not what you know - but who you know.
£30-40M worth of player like Ruben Neves move to Wolves in Championship - when every top club in Europe would have taken him for right price.
Agree...I would say that's a better way to attempt to limit a monopoly.
Let’s goooo! Always a great convo. Thankfully the City news didn’t come out right after this was recorded
Gary is bang on the money on FFP and sustainability within football, even though it does serve his best interests at Salford
@parky_1712 will do. Take care
@Dre P Cool... let me know how you get on with that.
@parky_1712 Uh...ok. Sir Parky...the chosen one. Lord of all debates. Judge of what maketh sense from what doesn't 🤣🤣🤣. You really make me laugh man. I'll start a petition, see if we can get any of those titles officially recognized. That way, whenever you claim someone isn't making "sense" or you're not getting any "sense"...it'll actually stick. Pffft. Sir Alex Ferguson once made a comment "never in my lifetime" guess nobody was taking him seriously
@Dre P Maybe I should, because I'm not getting any sense from you...
@parky_1712 maybe ffp might have discouraged them from even considering it 🤔. I dunno but Gary's words were he has sympathy for City because as far as he understands, he doesn't see how City could have challenged as wealthy a club as Utd etc in a short space of time without the massive investment and dream. Its not my words...it's Gary Neville's. Maybe you should stop debating with me and see if you can get in touch with him directly 🙄
The decision by Chelsea to go down the long-term contract route is all about risk vs reward. Boehly strongly believes football is going to continue experiencing strong growth, particularly on the broadcasting side. For Chelsea to stay aboard the gravy train, they need consistent Champions League football at a bare minimum.
With Newcastle back on the rise, we are well on-track to having a big 7. There are only 4 guaranteed Champions League places, and the revenue, exposure, and pulling power of one is crucial to the long-term success of these clubs. Boehly is taking this risk because the alternative is languishing mid-table whilst trying to rebuild over the next 5 or 10 years. Without CL football, and with the revenue gaps between clubs ever-increasing, that rebuild becomes a far more difficult process.
I mean it’s a one window thing as we can’t do it next window so it’s not really a long term thing
This is very true
I’m glad Sam Lee from The Athletic is on here he’s great on podcasts out there and a really eloquent bloke who knows his stuff 👍🏻
Great content this, Gaz & Carra knocking it outta the park……and to think we had to tolerate Keys & Gray for so long, can you imagine the set they’d have built, a boys club with dolly birds serving them gin & tonics, babbling on about black boots and foreign players diets!!!
There's a huge misconception here that before Boehly, every club would pay the full amount for a player in the same window. It has always been split over years. Chelsea just stretched it out over 7/8 years instead of 3/4 on the books
@Ore Baikie Good god. No, Chelsea are NOT paying any transfer fee over 4-5 years. They are paying the fees in the same way they pay most transfer fees, over 3 years.
@Ore Baikie Yes, for accounting purposes it helps reduce the annual amortisation cost but in real terms, in real life so to speak, Chelsea will still have to cough up the cash & pay the selling club in the same amount of time regardless of how long the player's contract might be.
So if Chelsea have agreed to pay the transfer fee in three annual installments then that's what they have to do whether the player's contract is 3 years long or 10 years long,
@D. O Yes, I agree with your explanation regarding the transfer fee & wages. The fee & the wages would indeed be divided by 8 if that's how long the contract is. This would be correct for year one of the 8 year contract.
Year two would be the transfer fee & wages divided by 7 as there would now be only 7 years remaining on the contract.
Year three would be the transfer fee & wages divided by 6, and so on and so on.
This is why a player's annual amortisation cost increases year on year. And it's why a player's annual amortisation cost is reduced whenever that player signs a new contract or extends his current contract.
But yes, you're right, the agreement the two clubs come to regarding how & when the transfer fee will be paid has nothing whatsoever to do with amortisation. Whether the whole transfer fee is paid in one lump or whether it's paid in ten installments of many years, the fact is this aspect of the transfer has no bearing on a club's annual amortisation budget.
@Ore Baikie That's correct. You are one of only a few people on here I've come across who seems to understand the basic principles of how clubs do their accounting.
So many people have confused what you've explained with instead thinking these contracts mean Chelsea are paying the transfer fees over that amount of time, over those number of years. The players contract is a completely separate thing to the agreement the two clubs have regarding the paying of the transfer fee in instalments.
They're going to have a problem in 5 years when they've got 4000 players still under contract
It’s brilliant to watch Jamie, Gary and the rest of the panel dodge how much they want to celebrate that this is happening to city after yearssss of slating their financial actions. They’ve got to be waiting for the day it (potentially) comes out to actually celebrate
Premium overlap seats - sitting and looking at the back of Gary’s and Carra’s head for an hour plus 😂
Loved Gary asking the audience at the start if they all like the new space as if he's their reception teacher welcoming them all to school.
@Adam Patterson You might have a trillion but let's be honest Newcastle will never reach Manchester United. Maybe our children could see it one day
@AyyCee ahhh yes because historically your spending has always been good 😂
Ridiculous
And listening to them speak garbage before concluding that all is fine with the Premier League.
Absolutley love Neville even as a City fan, he always has a good point of view most of the times, one of the best pundits out there in my opinion.
That is a comment on par with some of Rory Jennings worst takes. He is an awful pundit
He always kisses backside so he doesn't get accused of bias
@3 blade ninja Hargreaves is only on a couple of the BT europa/CL games and even then it's not like he has astute analysis. Neville is a better pundit than him easily
@Bondinho Not impossible until the maths make it so to be honest.
He is the most delusional pundit, he thinks United can win the league
Couldn’t agree more with Gary about his view on FFP, it’s just a way to keep the big clubs at the top, nothing fair about it
Good to see you back! Get the next parts up quick :)
Big credit to Robbie from AFTV giving all these fans their opinion. He started this
Boelhy's contract model is based on the American sports contract models.... where you have massively long contracts but they have no issues with paying players severance fee's to cut them from the squad if they dont work.
I see more and more players being cut than sold on if it doesn't work for them there, alternatively they always seem to have the ability to loan players out
@Danni Wilder 83% of Man City’s revenue is from intercompany transfers and not commercial revenue. If Abramovich was owed no money then why was he paid back £2Bn not plus as part of the sale. Either way Chelsea was making losses which was covered by a holding company owned by Abramovich. We all know Chelsea’s price was over inflated. You have only quoted last 2 seasons but go back 10 years and Spurs, Arsenal and United would have been producing profits year after year.
@deejay Peekay You have got several points wrong & I shall be only too happy to point them out to you.
In the last financial year Arsenal FC made a loss, after tax, of £107.3m. The year before that they made a loss of £47.8m.
Liverpool made a loss of £46m last year & £4m the year before that. However, these figures are pre-tax because I could find the after tax figures.
Tottenham's losses were £80m & £64m for the last two years.
I'm not claiming that these clubs don't ever make an annual profit, they do, sometimes. But making a loss is far more common.
Don't worry about debt? I don't worry about it because my club doesn't have any. The problem with debt is it costs money. The millions of pounds that clubs are spending out every year on financing their debt could be spent elsewhere if they had no debt, like Chelsea have no debt. And although the most important thing is to be able to afford your debt, & these football clubs can, it still is a cost they'd rather not have.
Chelsea are overspending? And you know this because....??? Are you privy to the internal finances of Chelsea FC in some way? Because if you aren't then how can you possibly make a statement like that?
Contrary to the tabloid narrative Chelsea don't actually have a particularly large squad. They haven't even filled the maximum quota of 17 overseas players that clubs are permitted to register. Chelsea currently only have 15 of the 17 allowed. However, it's true that overall the squad is a little bloated at the moment. A couple of players were intended to go out on loan on the last transfer window but for various reasons this didn't materialise.
It is common knowledge that there will be several first team players leaving the club this summer & then the squad will be trimmed to the size that the manager wants. This is no big deal.
Chelsea have for 25 years now had either the biggest or one of the biggest wage bills in the league. Having a big wage bill is normal business for Chelsea. It's not like it's suddenly gotten any bigger than it usually is. None of the new signings are on the really big salaries. Jorginho who has just left was on a bigger wage than any of the new signings are on. And if Kante does leave in the summer then that would be the No.1 biggest wage earner off the books. We'll have to wait & see.
I don't know what you were saying about club directors lending money to their club & having to pay it back & charging interest, etc, etc, because none of that is relevant to Abramovich & Chelsea.
Abramovich was never a director of Chelsea FC & he also never lent money to Chelsea FC. Roman Abramovich was never owed any money by Chelsea FC. A parent company, Fordstam Ltd, was the company that owed Abramovich £1.5b. And there is no requirement whatsoever for interest to be charged on any monies loaned to this company.
You don't think Boehly & Clearlake will cover any annual losses that Chelsea incur? I totally disagree. How do you expect Chelsea to cover any losses then, via their bank? Lol.
This comment reminds me of how so many people were of the opinion that the new owners won't be spending money like Abramovich used to. How Chelsea fans were in for a huge culture shock & would now be shopping at TK Max & not Harrods.
It's undeniable that having a single individual as the club owner was a special thing, it was fantastic having only Roman in complete charge of everything. But that is a very rare thing, for the vast majority of cases it is a group of people that own our football clubs.
Lastly......no, Uefa definitely does not suspended FFP for two transfer windows when a club has new ownership.
What happens is they relax certain aspects, & only certain aspects, of the FFP rules. Yes, these very specific restrictions are relaxed for two years (or is it two windows, I can't remember right now) when new owners buy a club.
Newcastle more astute? LOL Is that what they call it? Or maybe it's just that Newcastle are on a different level to Chelsea in so many ways, & I mean on a much lower level, not higher. It's almost as if these two clubs operate in different worlds, different football worlds at least. I mean, if anyone doesn't agree with me on this or who is unable to see the difference clearly, there is one statistic that sums up why these two clubs are on different levels.......both clubs were recently put on the market & sold. One club was bought for £300 Million. The other club was bought for £4.25 Billion (or £4250 million). That means for the price of one Chelsea Football Club you could buy 14 Newcastle Football Clubs.
For the amount of money Chelsea have spent in the transfer market this season they could have bought two Newcastle United Football Clubs.
Annual revenue for NUFC is £179m. Annual revenue for CFC is £489m.
@Firas Massadeh Also....you say Chelsea football club are not a social benefit run business......as if I'm suggesting Chelsea should be forced to give 8 year contracts. I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying where Chelsea WANT to give an 8 year contract then they should be allowed to. And if a player wants an 8 year contract because it gives him, at the very minimum, 8 years of certainty & 8 years of guaranteed income, then he should be allowed to sign an 8 year contract.
@Firas Massadeh My point about employment rights & the right of any individual, in any walk of life, to be legally entitled to sign a contract of any length, was only a general point I was making & even then I was simply being curious. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what the employment law is. But I know that some years ago a Dutch footballer called Jean-Marc Bosman took Uefa to court over a similar sort of employment & contractual issue & he won his case & it forced a major change to Uefa's rule book. Players weren't ever allowed to be out of contract & leave their club on a free transfer prior to the Bosman court case.
Finally a proper fan representing Chelsea! Always felt that the other Chelsea fan reps were either not passionate, or did not want to be bold and back their club, or just had no clue what was happening and would simply nod at Neville and Carragher's distasteful remarks.
Robbie did well to restrain himself after uttering the name Samir Nasri, thought he was gonna throw hands for a moment there..
people dont realise Todd done the same at the Dodgers its his strategy - he builds a young exciting team to slowly develop into a constant title club over many years with not loads of change just adding where needs be.
Love Flav chuckling away with Robbie. Brilliant!
I think boehly has thought he can apply a similar system to American sports where contracts are front loaded and you can cut players with minimal consequences. Football just doesn’t work the same way when players don’t necessarily bring their ‘stats’ to a new team.
Thanks Si for the Chelsea point of view, excellent job explaining how we view things and surviving the barrage of questions from the rival fans about the recruitment tactics. Enjoyed that!
Up the chels
Great show, good to see a couple of new faces now from some clubs as well.
It would be interesting to see if the players received any additional benefits. Apparently Mancini did according to allegations.
Looking forward to watching loads more episodes .
Regretfully they didn't keep Robbie on as host after everyone commented on how great he was last time - I honestly thought he did a fantastic job and carried the vibe much better than Josh.
Nice format - looking forward to watching into the future
Great show guys,appreciate the content
Could listen to matt slater about football finances all day. Great insight 👍
I think that transfer fees should only be the size of the contract that the player has left. Eg if a player has 3 years left on a £100k a week contract, the transfer fee is just a bit over £15mil
popcorn is ready 🍿 this'll be a good one.
Matt Slater is my favourite person to listen to talking about football finance
Neville is spot on with everything
Love to see the Don!! Robbie being generous letting them all sit in his studio 🙌🙌
The problem is to keep up with Man City, other clubs were playing catch-up and over spending.
Folk should read Martin Samuel's article on the charges against City and why it's not so easy to give a title to the runner up of a year. Also he goes into the FFP rules and how they were set up to protect the elite clubs like United, Arsenal and Liverpool.
Let them keep the titles and let them forever be tainted. Relegate them and slap an insanely strict decade long wage and transfer budget limit.
Great show & great format, cheers for doing this. PLEASE sort out some compression & limiting in the audio level haha
We need more overlap videos with all the fans in the studio!
Love the studio. Fair play to Neville
Robbie has been relegated
I love the over lap, great show!
The way Jamie Caragher says Mudryk gets me all the time. He is even thinking before he says his name 🤣🤣
If only everyone would think before they spoke 😉😉
@barker143 🤣🤣🤣🤣💥
He struggles blinking never mind speaking haha
Great episode. Wish there were more fans and get a chance to speak instead of the youtubers who everyone knows
Great from Gary at 19:40, getting at the heart of the issue. There must be a funding model that provides for sustainability and potential for growth for smaller clubs. But the key piece of criteria that Gary left out in criticizing Andy Hull's model is FAIRNESS. If you allow any club's owner to contribute funding to cover losses/increase revenues, then any club that does not have an owner that can maximize that limit will not be able to compete in the long run. Any permitting of owner injection of funds will result in every club seeking to maximize those contributions year on year, and any club that can't do so will fall behind. Gary says that there is simply no way to grow a club without owner injection of cash--this is objectively false. Many clubs have done that and there are models for how to do it. Tottenham is the obvious example. Also Brentford and Brighton, which have had some owner investment, but who could have had the same success using the same expertise and strategy, although it would have taken longer. It IS possible to grow revenue without owner injection of cash, period.
Fair play to Steven, did well. Can't be easy being in a room where 90% of who's there have already made up their mind that city are guilty.
these videos just brighten up my day. thank you very much.
Nevilla talking facts! Chelsea need looking into more than anyone else!
Its simple, I see the Overlap I hit like and sit back to enjoy! Always fantastic content, just wish there were more of them!
@TCR Smokey 100% agree! Would love a weekly round up of the overlap
@barker143 Agree with that, so wish it was more often but I guess hard for Gary and Carra with their workloads. Thanks for the comment bud!
Best football show out there
How about this: all Premier League teams can only spend 50% of the previous season's team with the highest gross' income.
That way, there's a ceiling on the biggest clubs, but no limit on the smallest clubs.
For once, Garry N is spot on!
Wouldn't Gary's point about allowing owner funding just mean that the results of the clubs were only dependent on the revenue of the owners. Meaning: The richer the owner is the better your club performs. This has therefore dramatically decreased the importance of academies and just created a shortcut for any club: have a rich owner.
🎵 Citys going down with a billion in the bank, a billion in the bank 🎵
@user7 yeah good night
@JMAC MCFC enjoy playing Wrexham
@Mister clearly
@JMAC MCFC But you don't do you silly
WE DO WHAT WE WANT WE DO WHAT WE WANT.... WERE MAN CITY WE DO WHAT WE WANT... CITY CITY
The Man City fan started how he left off, non stop talking.
Great to see it back and having journalists there too
I’m a Liverpool fan and I obviously feel a fierce rivalry with city and an intense hatred of how they’ve obviously (fairly or not) bought their success. However, the fan speaking is how every football fan would defend their team and save their cherished football memories. I think he did a good job articulating his side. Also the football they’ve provided has been incredible and entertaining. There’s just a huge issue with finance in European football as a whole and it needs a complete revolution and new ways of making it as fair as possible.
@Side of B two teams that are way off city ? United have been piss poor up until this season and Chelsea are shocking this season ! Liverpool the only team that could compete and with way less of a budget !
@David Hegarty 😂😂 you mean like 6 against Utd, 4 against Chelsea etc.
Try again pal.
@Side of B scoring the most goals doesn't mean city play entertaining football. Most of those goals are against much inferior sides in one sided bore fest's mate
@David Hegarty score the most goals year in year out pal.
gary neville speaking facts on ffp
Haven’t watched yet but I’d have loved to see the fans ask about English bias by media and pundits.
It's "not an idea that no-one has ever thought of before", when we signed Kepa we literally amortized the cost over 7 years
Can’t wait to see this live in June !
Got to love Jamie's double standards
Fantastic to have the Fan Debates back, love the new studio set-up… but go back to the longer form edit, please.
I understand why you’d want to edit for time, but it makes the episodes and the chat a bit clunky. The best format is the one you allow to breathe.
Wish they touched more on Spurs and Arsenal and how unfair it is to those clubs and others like them that try to bring success organically through smart investment.
Bludd said Topspur 💀
Oh please
The funny thing, the overlap would never had happened if it wasn't for Robbie
Agree with Gary, why should the same so called 'traditional elite clubs' be the only clubs that can win titles!!!!
Because that's how football and sports work. The best clubs and the best teams win
Man, wish I was the chelsea fan on there … he did an ok job answering their questions but i felt like he was only scratching the surface. You can not compare what city (allegedly) did to what chelsea are doing. Chelsea are playing within the rules and there is an element of risk involved by awarding these players such long term contracts, like if they flop or get long term injuries. Why didn’t anyone mention badiashile, he looks like he been at the club for 5 years, the way he’s just dropped in, and Chelsea bought him for 30mil.
He’s played 5 games and they’ve conceded in almost every game. Why would you even bother mention him, has nothing to do with the discussion
@R Y How is that worse? 😂 I don’t like FFP, but City lied in their accounts to break rules that everyone else had to follow.
@Joe Havard prove it
The only obvious way to deal with teams spending more than they should is cap players transfer value and wages
The EPL should dig into all clubs' finances and investigate to make sure there aren't other clubs guilty of financial irregularities.
Chelsea haven't gamed the system. They might have been able to overspend according to their revenue this year but they will have reduced spending in future years when these funds will actually land
City for life!! Wasn't long ago I was watching City play in the second tier at Maine Road. They can relegate us all they can, I will always support this club.
Well said Michael
@SIB20 how is what they did on the pitch cheating??
@SIB20 remember when liverpool spyed on city?
@SIB20 We don't know that, all speculation at this time.
Wonder why Gary likes the idea of wealthy owners being able to pump money into smaller clubs
"The equivalent of when your gf asks to show your phone and you refuse" LOOOOOOOOL
You're basically vindicating City with that point.
Carra & Gary coming in through the crowd like prowrestlers you hate to see it
Brilliant comment from Gary Neville about FFP being biassed regards the big clubs .
Gary Neville seems well informed here
I so wanted to be that Chelsea guy, I had so much to say about everything they questioned.
If course Gary’s against FFP because he knows he’s going to have trouble when Salford keep getting promoted! 😂
My 2 cents worth on the Chelsea long term contracts is that yes it's a risk because you could find it hard to move on player ls who doesn't perform.
At the same time if they are on a low enough wage that in a few years they want more money and a new contract, that loophole will be closed by then so any new contract will be a maximum length that is a much shorter than the original. It's actually quite sensible if you look at it.
I don't agree with it but if it's within the rules i can see how it could be a benefit.
@5thDawg no one currently is anywhere near that salary at arsenal. Yeah... you are Chelsea ! Chelsea yearly player salary: £202,540,000. Arsenal's yearly player salary: £100,360,000. Double our player salary and you pick on Ozil 😆
@Ian Elkins maybe do some research before spewing crap out. None of the Jan signings are on massive wages.
@5thDawg to be fair, Arsenal don't normally do that historically speaking. They took a gamble on one player who at the time was considered to be the next global star. It's quite unfair to lump Arsenal into an overall situation that they have largely avoided for a decade at that time.
@Ian Elkins exactly mate which is why i said if they are signed on a low enough contract with add ons it could work well
@Ian Elkinsnone of the players newly signed with long contracts have more than 100k. So that won’t be a problem
The Everton lad is so funny the best part of the show 😂
The two scousers are great, both are always dropping a good line or two.
The long term contracts is Todd Boehly’s experience in Major League Baseball here in the USA. That is how the MLB teams get around salary caps and he is trying to bring that into English Football. I think it’s going to blow up in his face. Right now it seems to be working and it’s great for fans because they are spending money. But, eventually it will come back to bite him in the arse. In MLB it usually gets to 5 years left and they try to move them on with player plus cash trades. They don’t do those in English Football.
@Danni Wilder and also the fact they are holding that cost for an extra 3 years, so as they buy each window (which I assume they will make future purchases) that 'saving' becomes less and less
@Danni Wilder The point is the insane spend not the distinction between 5 or 8 years. That comparison is based on the assumption the spend would happen anyway, whereas the spend is the subject in question.
Chelsea spent £323m in January. Even assuming all contracts were 8 years that's a little above £40m annualized cost, again before even looking at a new player. Add in the potential prospect of missing out on Champion's League and the significant revenue contribution it makes then yes, it is a risky strategy.
@Garry Cotton That's nonsense. It's not a massive risk at all. And your claim that Chelsea have already spent £50 - £70m in future transfer windows makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Explain what you mean & how you've come to this conclusion?
The only difference the length of a contract makes is to the club's annual amortisation cost & what impact that has on the overall amortisation budget for that particular year.
What has been totally overlooked in all of this tabloid gossip is how the difference between a 5 year contract & an 8 year contract in terms of a player's annual amortisation cost is very minimal in the overall scheme of things.
If Mudryk cost £88m & is on an 8 year contract at 100k per week (£5m p.a) then his year one amortisation cost will be £22.6m. If Mudryk had signed a 5 year contract instead of an 8 year contract then his year one amortisation cost would be £16m. That's a difference of just £6.2m and he is one of the two big signings Chelsea made.
If Badiashile cost £35m & is on an 8 year contract at £80k per week (£4m p.a) then his year one amortisation cost will be £8.4m. If Badiashile was on a 5 year contract instead then his year one amortisation cost would be £11m. That's a difference of £2.6m.
I would hazard a guess that by putting all the players Chelsea signed this January on 7 & 8 year contracts instead of 5 year contracts it has reduced this coming year's amortisation cost by no more than £23m. Now when you're spending the amounts that Chelsea have spent then it all helps but the fact remains that relative to the total budget £23m is pretty small beer.
That’s why this is so important because it’ll set a precedent in European Football either way the decision gies
There is no salary cap in MLB the owners can spend as much as they want without any consequences the gap between the highest payroll team to the lowest is ballpark $300 million
So if Chelsea put 40 million down on a player how does that affect their ffp for the following seasons ?
Exactly 💯 💯 what I needed 👏 thanks overlap
"Everyone is a financial expert these days. Except you?". Hahahaha
There is clearly a difference in fan & supporter on some of these bodies representing certain clubs, not sure most would understand their clubs culture in what it means to be a supporter. Great studio tho well done to the team
Football has lost here, for years certain teams have continued to spend( which has confused most people)...imagine the city squad for just about any manager if you were lucky enough?..lets see what happens with this, fireworks i think!
Not gonna lie, there is a part of me that thinks "If I buy a business, its upta me if I can invest" 😤
Then I remember there's rules to the game that we play 😉
When the Chelsea fan appeared on the screen I was like "Of course he's a Chelsea fan".
If you think player prices are getting high then imagine if you got rid of ffp
Neville has a point
07:05 Carragher 😂 Legend, stumped him.
The problem I have with Gary Neville is that the solution he recommends doesn’t solve the so called problem . If you have an owner who has a lot of money and owns a club that is already successful how do you expect the spending and power on the transfer market to be same as a division 3 or 2 team . It just can’t work .
@Owen Rodgers But I do agree that there has to be a correlation between expenses and income
@Owen Rodgers I think there is already whether or not it makes everyone happy is a different thing entirely
Fair doesn't mean every club at every level is the same. It just means there is a.set of rules that everyone is playing by, and that there is a correlation between income and expenses. It's not a crazy concept
The City fan is a breath of fresh air. Let's not have double standards because if it was the other way around...
I wonder if Neville will change his mind on the 'state ownership' of clubs when Qatar QIA take over ManU