I purposely didn’t use them as they were one of the most successful clubs in English football up to the late 1950s. I tried to use clubs who haven’t ever really had big or sustained success before (I know West Ham won the European Cup Winners Cup... and the World Cup!... but they’ve never won the league).I agree but am surprised you've missed the one club with possibly the biggest potential, Newcastle. A big city team with a passionate fanbase capable of full capacity every home game, helped by the ground logistics. If only they could get free of the shackles of Ashley and get an owner with a decent business development strategy, I'm convinced they would be a credible top four force in the PL making it even more attractive than it is now.
Bayern Munich are Qatari funded?
Our owner isn’t in this for money he’s got more money than he could possibly ever need. This is about global exposure and he wouldn’t be remotely interested in your boring bland model. The football pyramid works by having super clubs and super stars who generate most of the revenue, the solution is to distribute it to the rest of the pyramid. People like to follow and associate themselves with excellence and some ‘everyone is the same’ approach would kill the goose the laid the golden egg. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.Owners could control costs and make money. Which is what they want.That's how all this shit started, because the US owners couldn't compete with the likes of us and Chelsea.
They do anywayBut locking it to a % of turnover is absolutely stupid. It means Madrid/United can spend more on wages than City.
And there you have the reason why I couldn't give a flying fuck about any other team bar Manchester City. We should only look after No 1 & fuck the rest of them.fuck....sad this
YesBayern Munich are Qatari funded?
Sponsored you mean. That’s different.
You may want to look at our wage bill.They do anyway
They have 27 sponsors so I think it isn't a big deal though as they are not a main one.