I'm saying the main argument people have against the concept of state ownership isn't the money they're able to spend. Lots of clubs can and have spent more than City. The problem they have with it is sports washing angle, hence why anyone that previously had an issue with City (and PSG and Newcastle) for those reasons will have a problem with City and the other two clubs. Boehly's spending at Chelsea will have zero impact on how those people feel about City. That was all I was saying
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chelsea Thread - 2022/23 | Pochettino confirmed as new manager
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I'm saying the main argument people have against the concept of state ownership isn't the money they're able to spend. Lots of clubs can and have spent more than City. The problem they have with it is sports washing angle, hence why anyone that previously had an issue with City (and PSG and Newcastle) for those reasons will have a problem with City and the other two clubs. Boehly's spending at Chelsea will have zero impact on how those people feel about City. That was all I was saying
The main worry for me if I was a Chelsea fan is if this spending spree does not get results what happens next.
Rumours Jose wanting one more chance at the Bridge.
Yeah of course that is a worry but that is a worry regardless. If we had only spent 200m it would still be a worry. I don't think there's any chance Chelsea hand over this young and vibrant team over to a dinosaur like Jose.
I'm saying the main argument people have against the concept of state ownership isn't the money they're able to spend. Lots of clubs can and have spent more than City. The problem they have with it is sports washing angle, hence why anyone that previously had an issue with City (and PSG and Newcastle) for those reasons will have a problem with City and the other two clubs. Boehly's spending at Chelsea will have zero impact on how those people feel about City. That was all I was saying
If we assume that City are state backed (which isn't /literally/true, City are a great investment project, for the owners can sell the club for more money than they have invested in), most fans of the other top clubs wouldn't have a big problem with that if City were a mid-table club. It's mostly because City stop the other top clubs from winning the league that many fans have a problem with our owners. It's the supposed link between being state backed and having financial power that irks the supporters of the other clubs. In their minds, being state backed and being able to spend more than the other clubs are intimately related. Thanks to Boehly, that intimate relation gets a lot weaker.
If we assume that City are state backed (which isn't /literally/true, City are a great investment project, for the owners can sell the club for more money than they have invested in), most fans of the other top clubs wouldn't have a big problem with that if City were a mid-table club. It's mostly because City stop the other top clubs from winning the league that many fans have a problem with our owners. It's the supposed link between being state backed and having financial power that irks the supporters of the other clubs. In their minds, being state backed and being able to spend more than the other clubs are intimately related. Thanks to Boehly, that intimate relation gets a lot weaker.
But PSG aren't a huge threat to anyone. They haven't stopped anyone on the continent from winning anything, yet people still have issues with them being state backed? It's why I'm saying people that have attacked City for the 'sports washing' will continue to do so no matter what goes on at Chelsea.
But PSG aren't a huge threat to anyone. They haven't stopped anyone on the continent from winning anything, yet people still have issues with them being state backed? It's why I'm saying people that have attacked City for the 'sports washing' will continue to do so no matter what goes on at Chelsea.
PSG are a big threat to any team wanting to win the CL. They are attracting the biggest stars and are making it more difficult for traditional powers to compete. If PSG couldn't sign Neymar, Mbappe and Messi, people wouldn't complain about them. Had Barca kept Neymar, they'd have been more successful. Had Real signed Mbappe in 2017/18, they'd have been more successful, etc. etc.
Again, it's the link between being state backed and financial power that worries fans. Had PSG been a mid-table club in France, nobody would give a shit about their ownership.
Fordyboy46
Well-Known Member
Boehly's money is good though mate, not dirty oil money is it. That's the narrative with them all, the deluded wankersFunny Klopp not calling out chelsea spending!? Instead came out with something like this “if I know pep he will be buying big this summer”
PSG are a big threat to any team wanting to win the CL. They are attracting the biggest stars and are making it more difficult for traditional powers to compete. If PSG couldn't sign Neymar, Mbappe and Messi, people wouldn't complain about them. Had Barca kept Neymar, they'd have been more successful. Had Real signed Mbappe in 2017/18, they'd have been more successful, etc. etc.
Again, it's the link between being state backed and financial power that worries fans. Had PSG been a mid-table club in France, nobody would give a shit about their ownership.
I understand the link between being a top team and being state backed is amplifying it but the core issue is still being state backed. City and PSG are in the limelight because they're good teams. If a midtable club in France was also state backed, the same people would have a moral issue with that too but it wouldn't be at the forefront of their minds if that club isn't in the CL and therefore visible to the masses.
I do hear what you're saying though, and I will concede I perhaps undersold the spending power aspect a bit but I still think the moral opposition people have to City isn't the money City have spent but how and why City are being used by unscrupulous individuals as a vehicle to sports wash their image.
I still think the moral opposition people have to City isn't the money City have spent but how and why City are being used by unscrupulous individuals as a vehicle to sports wash their image.
This is something fans of other, less successful, clubs tell themselves to feel better.
Western countries were responsible for terrible crimes in other parts of the world, far worse than those which happen in some Middle East countries now. Many fans don't know about them. Plus, most fans don't give a shit about what happens in other parts of the words, whether they are democracies or not. Taking the moral high ground is a cheap way to play down the achievements of rival clubs.
This is something fans of other, less successful, clubs tell themselves to feel better.
Western countries were responsible for terrible crimes in other parts of the world, far worse than those which happen in some Middle East countries now. Many fans don't know about them. Plus, most fans don't give a shit about what happens in other parts of the words, whether they are democracies or not. Taking the moral high ground is a cheap way to play down the achievements of rival clubs.
Totally agree with that
- Status
- Not open for further replies.