I don’t understand how it makes it worse? I get the scenario where Nation states own clubs but in the case of us and Oly, Oly are in no position to loan us a £60m+ game changing player as they have their own FFP to think about. If anything we are helping Oly out. Loaning them a defender and midfielder that wouldn’t make our 25 this season is hardly bringing the game into disrepute is it?
Multiclub ownership thread | Bournemouth and Burnley link up with Scottish clubs
- Thread starter WeePat
- Start date
We’ve been owned by Marinakis for 7 years. for 6 of those years Leeds have been the better team?
There are other options too: West Ham (Sparta Prague), Forest (Olympiakos), Everton (various)
Lots of inter related clubs nowadays
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I am shocked that the good people at City, Chelsea and Newcastle would vote against this.
Expected.
What a farce this league continues to be.
Asking a league full of multi club ownership to vote on multi club ownership. What could go wrong?
It still separates the rich from the poor. It's not just about having clubs you can loan good players from but about accounts fiddling, about getting players in and loaning them out to groom them for one of your clubs etc. It's shite and another nail in the coffin for football that takes it further away from the fans and into the hands of rich owners.
Another nail in the coffin for the PL
This ruling benefits the teams at the top a lot because many of them have an extensive network of clubs to manipulate. It helps your team a little bit (but not relative to the top teams) and actually puts the rest of the league at a competitive disadvantage. This doesn't mean the gap to you is now somehow insurmountable, but it does mean it's wider - and even wider again to the top teams employing this kind of structure.
I fail to see how Forest's improvement over the last 3 years and our decline over similar is evidence of anything at all and if it was it would be evidence in my favour.
Kinda funny that a team like Sheffield United has a big say on this
If multiple owners own one club but one of those owners owns multiple clubs then do they get multiple votes or does their vote just count multiple times?
What if Ratcliffe were to end up part owning Man Utd but also part owned Brighton who were part owned by Chelsea who's owner part owned Jim Ratcliffe? Is that a multiclub or a multimulticlub?
What if Ratcliffe were to end up part owning Man Utd but also part owned Brighton who were part owned by Chelsea who's owner part owned Jim Ratcliffe? Is that a multiclub or a multimulticlub?
It is a mess and so corrupt.
Time and time again, the powerful only think of themselves. Integrity goes out the window.
Time and time again, the powerful only think of themselves. Integrity goes out the window.
Wonder what the reasons are for Sheff Utd. Promised something by someone? This strengthens several of their immediate rivals.
Football really is a festering corpse.
Football really is a festering corpse.
They’re owned by Saudi royalty, who also own Al Hilal in the Saudi league as well as a second tier Belgian club and a third tier French club.
Sorry, I’m missing something here, how are Forest or Oly fiddling accounts? Both clubs have to abide by FFP so the margin that any of this can benefit us is virtually nil.
The only advantage we’ve gained is that Omar Richards has gone across to get minutes. Due to injury he hasn’t kicked a ball in 18 months, he’s still a couple of weeks away from fitness thus impossible to loan otherwise. We can’t include him in the 25 so without Oly, he would miss a second seasons competitive football.
Never knew that, thanks for the info. Makes sense
If you want to offload a player and another club has spare FFP manoeuvrability then you can trade between. Also trading to one club and then loaning them to another if it isn't possible to do it one way. Trading to get around work permit issues and all sorts. There are many levels to it that clubs can exploit.
These are just some things clubs can do. I don't get why you're so defensive anytime anyone says anything about Forest. We (Everton) look also set to be a club with multi-ownership and it's just not good for the game or fans.
The more I read into this, the less I ever want to give any money of mine to anything to do with football ever again. It's unbelievable. I could never support a "football group" for crying out loud, and the potential for abusing the system inherent in this sort of thing is just -... I mean it turns it into WWE doesn't it, having a stable of football clubs.
Unfortunately we are playing catch up. Other teams have been straddling the rules in regards to ownership, medical stuff and god knows what else. Our owners have had no inclination to do anything to give us an edge since 2005. You only have to hear about the training facilities and lack of scouting and data and analytics previously to realise that. I don’t agree with the club group ruling I think it’s bad for the game but it’s clearly better for the clubs who have it so until such a time as we can’t then I think we need to take advantage of any loophole that gives us even a tiny edge back otherwise we are just losing money hand over fist and wasting talent and momentum way too easily. We badly need to modernise and unfortunately this is a part of it as things stand
Last edited:
A - because non of this Forest or Oly are doing - all multi ownership clubs are being tarred with the Saudi brush.
B - compared to the other financial and legislative inequities inherent within the PL (FFP for one) this is basically irrelevant.
Surprised we voted against this, I thought it was a staple of INEOS vision for us but I suppose it’s Glazers who would vote for United as a whole.
I’d love to see Mainoo and Diallo go out on loan over there for the rest of the season
I’d love to see Mainoo and Diallo go out on loan over there for the rest of the season
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Small request: Can you add “ownership” to the thread title?
You literally just said in the other post how you were taking advantage of it with Richards.
+
There is nothing stopping you from taking further advantage in the future.
Last edited:
Why is it funny, they are a PL club
Expecting multibillionaire corporations and dynasties who exploit football clubs to vote against their possibilities to exploit football clubs - how more futile can you get?
If someone is going to stop big money autocrats, it’s political power, not appeals to big money autocrats’ sense of moral obligation.
If someone is going to stop big money autocrats, it’s political power, not appeals to big money autocrats’ sense of moral obligation.
Do the Newcastle owners own the … entire Saudi pro league? Honest question.. I have no idea (or interest before now) in how that works.
Since regulations exist to monitor whether player valuations are out of whack, how many loans can be made regardless of who it’s to each year, etc already exist … I don’t see how it’s bad unless it is dramatically taken over the top.
Which, again, could be fixed by simply not letting nation states own teams.
I have enjoyed watching Strassbourg matches this year knowing our affiliation. I think having some centralized theme among a structure of teams has proven effective and good for developing players as well.
City may get tagged for how they’ve paid for what theyve built… but what they’ve built is really, really good. They are producing top quality players and they are only at the tip of the iceberg in using the model properly for development.
Right now we are having to threaten contractual fines if Santos doesn’t get the playing time promised in the agreement with Nottingham F. You send out a promising player you’ve invested in and just … hope for the best? Whereas Angelo Gabriel is getting consistent development AND playing well with Strassbourg.
United now will have Ineos as a major investor, with reported control over football operations? That means you will be tied to OGC Nice, FCLausanne, and, maybe most crucially, an Ivory Coast squad that will allow you to cultivate talent at a very young age in areas you wouldn’t have the same level of access to.
I think just about any group with ambition will have some form of multi tier model in the future. The clubs that get indignant and talk about it being demeaning, and making it so they exist only to develop players for other clubs …. must not realize that’s already the reality. In fact their chances of accomplishing something major in and international competitions probably go up with affiliation to a bigger club, not down.
Since regulations exist to monitor whether player valuations are out of whack, how many loans can be made regardless of who it’s to each year, etc already exist … I don’t see how it’s bad unless it is dramatically taken over the top.
Which, again, could be fixed by simply not letting nation states own teams.
I have enjoyed watching Strassbourg matches this year knowing our affiliation. I think having some centralized theme among a structure of teams has proven effective and good for developing players as well.
City may get tagged for how they’ve paid for what theyve built… but what they’ve built is really, really good. They are producing top quality players and they are only at the tip of the iceberg in using the model properly for development.
Right now we are having to threaten contractual fines if Santos doesn’t get the playing time promised in the agreement with Nottingham F. You send out a promising player you’ve invested in and just … hope for the best? Whereas Angelo Gabriel is getting consistent development AND playing well with Strassbourg.
United now will have Ineos as a major investor, with reported control over football operations? That means you will be tied to OGC Nice, FCLausanne, and, maybe most crucially, an Ivory Coast squad that will allow you to cultivate talent at a very young age in areas you wouldn’t have the same level of access to.
I think just about any group with ambition will have some form of multi tier model in the future. The clubs that get indignant and talk about it being demeaning, and making it so they exist only to develop players for other clubs …. must not realize that’s already the reality. In fact their chances of accomplishing something major in and international competitions probably go up with affiliation to a bigger club, not down.
Struggling to understand why Everton would vote against this? What do they gain?
Useless relegation fodder Sheffield United not so useless after all. Basically a sleeper cell.
They have proven to be a perfect pawn in a much bigger game.
I've never seen the word integrity used so much in a 2-week period as now in my life. There's just none of it left in football and the powers that be have been facilitators of that downfall from the outset. The game, as we know it, is well on its way to becoming something else. Your local team will soon be part of a portfolio, and if it's not the biggest one in said portfolio, just a tool to be used and exploited to the benefit others in said portfolio. Not only are you not there to compete, you're there to be harvested from or deposited to for so long as it serves others in the 'family'.
If you're a big club and wish to turn a blind eye or have an extreme dose of cognitive dissonance, this is only beneficial to you. If you are not, questions revolving around identity are likely to abound until the realisation of what you are and what purpose you serve, dawns.
We're going to see some serious piss-taking in subsequent transfer windows.
They have proven to be a perfect pawn in a much bigger game.
I've never seen the word integrity used so much in a 2-week period as now in my life. There's just none of it left in football and the powers that be have been facilitators of that downfall from the outset. The game, as we know it, is well on its way to becoming something else. Your local team will soon be part of a portfolio, and if it's not the biggest one in said portfolio, just a tool to be used and exploited to the benefit others in said portfolio. Not only are you not there to compete, you're there to be harvested from or deposited to for so long as it serves others in the 'family'.
If you're a big club and wish to turn a blind eye or have an extreme dose of cognitive dissonance, this is only beneficial to you. If you are not, questions revolving around identity are likely to abound until the realisation of what you are and what purpose you serve, dawns.
We're going to see some serious piss-taking in subsequent transfer windows.
Well well well… looks like the “rich super clubs” are no longer the only nefarious entities in football yes? A rule that so clearly favours billionaire owners with multiple clubs and yet… most of the premier league was against a rule to stop owned inter-club loans?? It means that most of the premier league is and will more and more end up with billionaires with such ambitions.
I want clubs like Everton to stop pretending like they’re the “real football clubs” looking out for the sanctity of the game. Everyone wants a one up and that’s okay.
I want clubs like Everton to stop pretending like they’re the “real football clubs” looking out for the sanctity of the game. Everyone wants a one up and that’s okay.
We know what fans and owners think, and have objectives of, can be diametrically opposed. Imagine if we were labelled by the ambitions of the Glazers.
Maybe it’s time for us to breakaway. I mean the real clubs or at least threaten too. This league is in real danger of being monopolized by these state owned entities and it’s about time it ends sooner rather than later. Let’s face it, any league with united and Liverpool is still the real deal.
Their owner is also from Saudi if I'm not wrong.
That's why I used the term sleeper cell. They served the one purpose that can affect the whole league, which makes them a very clever acquisition in this bigger game. For so long as they are there (in the PL), they are an additional vote for whatever nefarious activity is planned for the bigger picture. Little old Sheffield United then have far-reaching power and sway, which is insane.
PL clubs are allowed to register a maximum of 2 players on loan at one time, so it's not like Newcastle will bring in 4 or 5 players from Saudi.
So in the summer some other PIF club could sign the two players Newcastle need, but can't sign due to FFP, then immediately loan them to Newcastle, and subsidize the wages.
Newcastle meet FFP, but have an unlimited way around it, at least for two players.
Yep, seems fair.
Football is a joke. Why don't we just start playing the league in the middle east and get it done?
Newcastle meet FFP, but have an unlimited way around it, at least for two players.
Yep, seems fair.
Football is a joke. Why don't we just start playing the league in the middle east and get it done?
For how much longer? Another round of votes?
I agree.