@AliceTalksFooty Still tweeting about Hall ๐๐๐ NUFC have zero cover at full back and have just sold Alex Murphy, you think theyโre gonna sell their only LB ๐๐คฆ๐ผโโ๏ธ
@Spurs_Optimist Correct they did have similar revenues, a clubs trajectory is guided by their owners. NUFC had the worst in MA who underinvested in the club for years. When city and Chelsea got new owners they pumped the ๐ถ in to propel them to where they are. NUFC arenโt allowed to do that now
@adamdnathan The injustice comes from city and Chelsea being able to spend millions with no cap in the past, propelling them into the positions they are today and clubs like AVFC & NUFC with new ownership canโt do the same. City had players like Richard dunne at CB before the ๐ถ came in!
@sufferingspurs clubs are businesses and if a new owner buys a club, they should be allowed to invest as much as they want to improve that business, not be hindered by new laws that only allow spending against historic revenue. Chelsea and Man City did exactly that when PSR wasnโt here
@inHighburyN5 Thatโs what happens when you park 11 men behind the ball with 24% possession hoping to win through set plays or defend to penalties. You had one fortunate action in the game that led to havertzโ goal and tried to grind out the typical 1-0 win youโre known for. Football won today!
@WelBeast@Carra23 Itโs more the fact youโre over reliant on your set piece goals. I donโt think any past champion had an open play XG of nearly dead last in the league!
@AnnemarieDray@JeffriesOliver Agreed but even the financial expert for PSR confirmed the rules were pushed by the top clubs as they were worried about new money coming into the premier league.
@AnnemarieDray@JeffriesOliver Man City and Chelsea bought the league when they got new owners, overpaying on wages and pumped millions and millions every year to be successful. Big six were threatened with new money coming into the league and didnโt want another Man City to happen. Hence PSR was created ๐๐ผ