They still spent more than they could, and killed the clubs in the process. It's just a matter of scale.Leeds foreign billionaire Peter Risdale?
Mandaric and Gaydemark are/were both worth less than £200m.
Neither Chelsea, nor City at this time get the crowds or sponsorship to be viable long term either at the present spending rate. City's ownership dressed up their subsidization as new naming rights on the stadium, and a new shirt sponsor deal, but it's still money coming in that isn't sustainable. Chelsea don't make enough from commercial or matchday revenue to make up for their spending.AS Monaco's owner just paid out his ex-wife 1/2 his fortune so has taken a massive hit in his personal wealth. The other problem with Monaco is they are in a city which doesn't follow football and don't get the crowds or sponsorship to be a viable long term "toy thing"
The present concern is that they at some point might stop the spending. And then the clubs would be in trouble. The wider concern is that football has always been a business. The objective of a business is to make a profit. All clubs were run along those principles. The problem is that if certain owners show up, and rather than follow basic business principles, massively over-spend beyond the commercial capabilities of the clubs, then it leads to a vicious cycle. You either have to do likewise, and thus, spend more than you earn in perpetuity in order to compete, or you have no change of competitive success. That's why it's called financial doping.
Italian clubs did that in the late 80s and early 90s, with many going nearly bust, getting propped up with loans from ownership. Inter and AC Milan are feeling that hangover at the moment. The reason FFP was introduced was because it was recognized to be a problem. You are trying to claim that since others do it, all clubs, and therefore owners should be expected to do the same. Why though, should ENIC be expected to shovel money into Spurs on a continuous basis? It is a business, it is expected to make money.