comment by Kroenke_out (U21076)
posted 8 seconds ago
I'm guessing that the person who came up with the phrase, sandy, has filtered you, otherwise you'd have just responded to one of his articles to ask him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Sandy came up with this “phrase”?
Financial doping - the situation in which the owner of a sports franchise invests his or her own personal wealth into securing high-performing players, rather than relying on the revenue the franchise is able to generate for itself.
"Doping" term borrowed from the taking of performance enhancing drugs. "Financial" in reference to purchasing power. Phrase popularised by football manager Arsène Wenger, in relation to Chelsea winning the Premier League championship in 2005. Also referring to subsequent cases of clubs winning significantly more prizes after a financial injection by wealthy benefactors. Outside of the Premier League, the term describes the process of buying success through financial might. In Ireland, the term has generally been associated with Dublin GAA.
Become a member of the premier league.
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
comment by Ole-dirty-baztard - You want ole in, ole out, in, out, in, out, shake it all about. Do the ole Koke-Penited (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
Become a member of the premier league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even better if you're a yo-yo club. Payments of millions for getting relegated
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 minutes ago
At last. Thank you divock
I’m regards to definition 1.
Expand on that especially in relation to jeopardising.
Definition 2,
Provide your own explanation as to why that has ever been regarded as a bad thing, and if it is a negative, negative to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s easy
1. Look at Portsmouth and Leeds.
2. Look at Manchester City and Chelsea.
1. You’re betting your house on short term success. You’ll have the success but the prize money wont cover the banks repossession costs.
2. It all comes down to personal opinion and credibility. You’ll have success but it won’t compare emotionally to that of a club that achieve similar by living within it’s means as opposed to relying on its owners bank balance. Think of it like a child with pocket money. They either earn that £5 by washing their dad’s car or they’re just given it. One will appreciate it more, the other is just spoilt
Finally, we are now starting to get to the crux of this…
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 25 minutes ago
At last. Thank you divock
I’m regards to definition 1.
Expand on that especially in relation to jeopardising.
Definition 2,
Provide your own explanation as to why that has ever been regarded as a bad thing, and if it is a negative, negative to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You never asked that last question in your OP. You got answers within 4 comments and then decided to move the goals post because your article backfired
comment by 8==Divock #SLM 🐟 (U22339)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 minutes ago
At last. Thank you divock
I’m regards to definition 1.
Expand on that especially in relation to jeopardising.
Definition 2,
Provide your own explanation as to why that has ever been regarded as a bad thing, and if it is a negative, negative to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s easy
1. Look at Portsmouth and Leeds.
2. Look at Manchester City and Chelsea.
1. You’re betting your house on short term success. You’ll have the success but the prize money wont cover the banks repossession costs.
2. It all comes down to personal opinion and credibility. You’ll have success but it won’t compare emotionally to that of a club that achieve similar by living within it’s means as opposed to relying on its owners bank balance. Think of it like a child with pocket money. They either earn that £5 by washing their dad’s car or they’re just given it. One will appreciate it more, the other is just spoilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your posts on this thread divock are the posts that have meant the most. Thank you.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
Sandy's a bit like an ice cream van that goes past your house everyday.
You recognise the tune but tend to forget it quickly because it's bland and repetitive.
comment by One Love - Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 25 minutes ago
At last. Thank you divock
I’m regards to definition 1.
Expand on that especially in relation to jeopardising.
Definition 2,
Provide your own explanation as to why that has ever been regarded as a bad thing, and if it is a negative, negative to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You never asked that last question in your OP. You got answers within 4 comments and then decided to move the goals post because your article backfired
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Backfired?
The thread hasn’t even got going yet.
(Well only starting to take hold)
How can I ask a follow up question to anyone when no one has answered my initial question?
One love, I’m deleting you know because you haven’t the capability to understand the point of this thread.
1. Look at Portsmouth and Leeds.
2. Look at Manchester City and Chelsea.
1. Using someone else's money, borrowing beyond your limits.
2. Using your own money to increase the value of your asset.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
One love, I’m deleting you know because you haven’t the capability to understand the point of this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
delete answers that dont fit your narrative or wumming, so delete them.
Maybe the internet is not for you
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
comment by One Love - Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
One love, I’m deleting you know because you haven’t the capability to understand the point of this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
delete answers that dont fit your narrative or wumming, so delete them.
Maybe the internet is not for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh give over you patronising fool.
Add something worthwhile, instead of making personal digs, and then I’ll take you seriously.
Until then, go away
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 minutes ago
1. Look at Portsmouth and Leeds.
2. Look at Manchester City and Chelsea.
1. Using someone else's money, borrowing beyond your limits.
2. Using your own money to increase the value of your asset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The models between Portsmouth and Leeds and then City and Chelsea couldn’t be further apart.
It's explained five posts in pretty conclusively.
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
I posted this the other day but...
Personally it's not often I comment on City's spending and it doesn't actually bother me that much. I also don't think they are cheating FFP as it stands today due to the things listed in the OP.
But they certainly did break FFP at one stage and certainly were given a quite enormous amount of money which got them into the position where they could win said prize, sponsorship and TV money so the "we don't cheat... anymore" will not really wash with a lot of people.
You'll get no end of people not really respecting City's achievements as a result and that's just how it is.
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 seconds ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst analogy ever.
Sign in if you want to comment
Is anybody here able to…
Page 2 of 4
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Kroenke_out (U21076)
posted 8 seconds ago
I'm guessing that the person who came up with the phrase, sandy, has filtered you, otherwise you'd have just responded to one of his articles to ask him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think Sandy came up with this “phrase”?
posted on 16/8/21
Financial doping - the situation in which the owner of a sports franchise invests his or her own personal wealth into securing high-performing players, rather than relying on the revenue the franchise is able to generate for itself.
"Doping" term borrowed from the taking of performance enhancing drugs. "Financial" in reference to purchasing power. Phrase popularised by football manager Arsène Wenger, in relation to Chelsea winning the Premier League championship in 2005. Also referring to subsequent cases of clubs winning significantly more prizes after a financial injection by wealthy benefactors. Outside of the Premier League, the term describes the process of buying success through financial might. In Ireland, the term has generally been associated with Dublin GAA.
posted on 16/8/21
Become a member of the premier league.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Ole-dirty-baztard - You want ole in, ole out, in, out, in, out, shake it all about. Do the ole Koke-Penited (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
Become a member of the premier league.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even better if you're a yo-yo club. Payments of millions for getting relegated
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 minutes ago
At last. Thank you divock
I’m regards to definition 1.
Expand on that especially in relation to jeopardising.
Definition 2,
Provide your own explanation as to why that has ever been regarded as a bad thing, and if it is a negative, negative to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s easy
1. Look at Portsmouth and Leeds.
2. Look at Manchester City and Chelsea.
1. You’re betting your house on short term success. You’ll have the success but the prize money wont cover the banks repossession costs.
2. It all comes down to personal opinion and credibility. You’ll have success but it won’t compare emotionally to that of a club that achieve similar by living within it’s means as opposed to relying on its owners bank balance. Think of it like a child with pocket money. They either earn that £5 by washing their dad’s car or they’re just given it. One will appreciate it more, the other is just spoilt
posted on 16/8/21
Finally, we are now starting to get to the crux of this…
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 25 minutes ago
At last. Thank you divock
I’m regards to definition 1.
Expand on that especially in relation to jeopardising.
Definition 2,
Provide your own explanation as to why that has ever been regarded as a bad thing, and if it is a negative, negative to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You never asked that last question in your OP. You got answers within 4 comments and then decided to move the goals post because your article backfired
posted on 16/8/21
comment by 8==Divock #SLM 🐟 (U22339)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 12 minutes ago
At last. Thank you divock
I’m regards to definition 1.
Expand on that especially in relation to jeopardising.
Definition 2,
Provide your own explanation as to why that has ever been regarded as a bad thing, and if it is a negative, negative to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s easy
1. Look at Portsmouth and Leeds.
2. Look at Manchester City and Chelsea.
1. You’re betting your house on short term success. You’ll have the success but the prize money wont cover the banks repossession costs.
2. It all comes down to personal opinion and credibility. You’ll have success but it won’t compare emotionally to that of a club that achieve similar by living within it’s means as opposed to relying on its owners bank balance. Think of it like a child with pocket money. They either earn that £5 by washing their dad’s car or they’re just given it. One will appreciate it more, the other is just spoilt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your posts on this thread divock are the posts that have meant the most. Thank you.
posted on 16/8/21
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
posted on 16/8/21
Sandy's a bit like an ice cream van that goes past your house everyday.
You recognise the tune but tend to forget it quickly because it's bland and repetitive.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by One Love - Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 25 minutes ago
At last. Thank you divock
I’m regards to definition 1.
Expand on that especially in relation to jeopardising.
Definition 2,
Provide your own explanation as to why that has ever been regarded as a bad thing, and if it is a negative, negative to whom?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You never asked that last question in your OP. You got answers within 4 comments and then decided to move the goals post because your article backfired
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Backfired?
The thread hasn’t even got going yet.
(Well only starting to take hold)
How can I ask a follow up question to anyone when no one has answered my initial question?
posted on 16/8/21
One love, I’m deleting you know because you haven’t the capability to understand the point of this thread.
posted on 16/8/21
1. Look at Portsmouth and Leeds.
2. Look at Manchester City and Chelsea.
1. Using someone else's money, borrowing beyond your limits.
2. Using your own money to increase the value of your asset.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
One love, I’m deleting you know because you haven’t the capability to understand the point of this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
delete answers that dont fit your narrative or wumming, so delete them.
Maybe the internet is not for you
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by One Love - Admin 3 (U1250)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 1 minute ago
One love, I’m deleting you know because you haven’t the capability to understand the point of this thread.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
delete answers that dont fit your narrative or wumming, so delete them.
Maybe the internet is not for you
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh give over you patronising fool.
Add something worthwhile, instead of making personal digs, and then I’ll take you seriously.
Until then, go away
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 minutes ago
1. Look at Portsmouth and Leeds.
2. Look at Manchester City and Chelsea.
1. Using someone else's money, borrowing beyond your limits.
2. Using your own money to increase the value of your asset.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The models between Portsmouth and Leeds and then City and Chelsea couldn’t be further apart.
posted on 16/8/21
It's explained five posts in pretty conclusively.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
posted on 16/8/21
I posted this the other day but...
Personally it's not often I comment on City's spending and it doesn't actually bother me that much. I also don't think they are cheating FFP as it stands today due to the things listed in the OP.
But they certainly did break FFP at one stage and certainly were given a quite enormous amount of money which got them into the position where they could win said prize, sponsorship and TV money so the "we don't cheat... anymore" will not really wash with a lot of people.
You'll get no end of people not really respecting City's achievements as a result and that's just how it is.
posted on 16/8/21
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
posted on 16/8/21
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 57 seconds ago
comment by RespectYourAldersSon (U22365)
posted 2 minutes ago
Of you don't want a copy and paste answer, then financial doping is money injected into a club that is above their actual means/revenue thus creating, if not an unlevel playing field, then a playing field above their actual means.
Its not a term I use, couldn't really care less I just enjoy the football, but that's what it means.
I'm City's terms, there's both suspicion and accusation of it, I don't know how thorough the investigation into it was, but so far they're cleared (although the background chatter still sounds like the sponsorship deals were suspect by injecting more money in than the worth of those sponsors)
Heard less of the term surrounding Chelsea at the time of tje Abramovich takeover, but now they're also seemingly lumped into the same category but their finances seem a lot more clear cut.
Alas, that's my understanding 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!
In response to your reply, i have to ask, is an owner investing money into something that he owns a bad thing?
If it is a bad thing, then why?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So long as they're playing within the rules and parameters that a governing body set out, then no. It's why the private sector oversee new buyouts within their field to avoid monopolies, as competition is key.
If the owner is within those rules, then crack on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And what are those rules?
(I ask that specifically in response to what is happening in Spain with Barcelona…
A huge club with a huge standing in the game, that can’t afford to run on its current model. And then I compare that to an ambitious club that wants and can afford to (via its owners initial investment) try and compete with such clubs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look it up mate, you asked a definition, I gave it as I understand it.
You asked if I think it's okay, I gave you my opinion.
Now you're asking for facts of the rules, do your own research pal 👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand it completely.
I’m asking if others understand it.
If you are unable to expand on the definition you gave, then all you’ve shown yourself capable of doing is copying and pasting.
(I’m not saying this of you specifically, but your reply to me is unnecessarily antagonistic, so I’m only left to wonder why you would respond in such a way.
posted on 16/8/21
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 4 seconds ago
As someone who’s never used the term (and has probably never typed a comment on here about City’s spending that wasn’t a light-hearted joke), I think it’s pretty obvious?
The metaphor is clearly with sport and fitness. Putting the effort in over a long period to achieve muscle/fitness, that grows over time and builds on previous results, is not the same as pretty much waking up one day and having a lot of muscle/fitness that you didn’t have the day before because you’ve injected it in.
You can fit the two above scenarios to any clubs you like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst analogy ever.
Page 2 of 4