mancityvstoke
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 22,085
- Location
- Vintage terraced Kippax
- Team supported
- The only football team to come from Manchester
Who gives a fuck about Spurs........bunch of ****s since 1981
Regardless of what teams are mentioned when it comes to people moaning about spending getting out of control, ruining football and bizarrely, cheating as one daft spud accused us of ;-)
They are all referring to Manchester City, that's a simple fact... I am loving it and long may it continue, every City victory is that much sweeter these days for me, with the bile and utter bias against our club...!
Debt was never part of FFP but you can exclude depreciation on fixed assets and I think interest on any loans or other debt specifically taken out to finance infrastructure.Debt accrued as a consequence of infrastructure investment was specifically excluded from FFP restrictions.
Everton have received in excess of £75m for Lukaku, so of course they can afford to spend 150mI am not sure he is having a go a City.
City, United, Arsenal and Chelsea can afford these fees and wages. He is having a pop at Liverpool who could spend £200m this window. Or Everton spending £150m. They certainly can not afford it.
And yes, he is getting his excuses in early. Whatever he says, the stadium build will limit Spurs' spending. Alli will go. Kane will go. But does he care? Not one bit. In the medium term, the stadium and other commercial activities will establish Spurs along with City, United, Arsenal and Chelsea at the top table and they will be able to afford these fees too. Meanwhile the likes of Liverpool and Everton will be crippled by debt or sold to the Chinese.
He was neither whinging nor being hypocritical. He was being interviewed by the chairman of NASDAQ and didn't mention any other club. He merely gave his honest response when asked for his opinion about the current transfer market. He suggested that a club spending more than it earns is unsustainable in the long term. I don't see what's so wrong about that. He wasn't having a dig at City. It was quite clear that he was referring to the prospect of clubs getting themselves in financial difficulty - not something that City have to concern themselves with. In fact, the focus of Levy's comments on the matter was primarily Spurs, with him being keen to stress that he is only a temporary custodian of the club and that he has a responsibility to hand it over in a healthy state to whoever might succeed him.
Seems to me that you're getting yourself worked up about this for no good reason.
Considerably less than a billion, actually! But how is that relevant? It's perfectly clear, surely, that Levy was specifically talking about spending on players.