progman07
Established Member
Yes, the whole moving to Emirates concept did not take into consideration that there can be a shift in power in the PL, and that there will also be a shift in the relative percentage of revenue streams. The amount of money you can make from those extra 20k seats (or so?) is relatively fixed, unlike the money coming from TV coverage and marketing. But maybe I'm wrong about that, because it seems like building stadiums is still worth it...A few things come to mind:
1. The club probably expected FFP to be enforced more stringently, if this was the case then self-sustaining model would've been more feasible. As it happens, UEFA have been quite lenient and seemingly allowed PSG/City et al free reign to spend whatever they want.
2. The club was backed into a corner with the stadium move and so they had to sign these sponsorships that were less than ideal, although I do sympathise with them here. Seeing the likes of Liverpool and United sign more lucrative deals every few years while we were stuck in long-term arrangements meant that we were always going to be playing catch up when it came to renewal time.
3. Even though Chelsea came into money in 2003, the club probably didn't expect lightning to strike twice with regards to Man City. You can argue that they should've expected more foreign investment in the PL but the sheer scale of City's spending was always going to be an abberation, especially if going back to point 1 there was no real enforcement of FFP beyond squad size restrictions.