Saudis taking over Newcastle | Maybe not

LilyWhiteSpur

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
10,870
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
I just want my club to be able to spend its own wealth, not be leached upon. Show me one alternative, one.

If you think these things you list only happen in Saudi and that’s enough for you to hate my opinion then fair enough.
Do we behead people in the street in the UK? This place at times is odd as feck.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,825
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Really? Who supports the owners of their club?

Do we ‘support’ the Glazers?

Do Arsenal fans ‘support’ Kroenke?

Its totally out of our control and nothing to do with the fanbase. I think this is the key ingredient and cause between fan opinion on who owns their club.

Not a single fan on earth ‘supports’ their clubs owners. They support the club and team.
Yeah I've never seen loads City fans defend or praise their owners, literally never happened. Oh no wait it actually happens all the time, sportwashing is a very real phenomona my friend.

Also have a look at this from Newcastle fans last year and this was before the deal was even completed.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/newcastle-united-saudi-arabia-mbs-memes-joke-abuses
 

OleGunnar20

Full Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2018
Messages
735
Really? Who supports the owners of their club?

Do we ‘support’ the Glazers?

Do Arsenal fans ‘support’ Kroenke?

Its totally out of our control and nothing to do with the fanbase. I think this is the key ingredient and cause between fan opinion on who owns their club.

Not a single fan on earth ‘supports’ their clubs owners. They support the club and team.
Hmm. I see what you're saying, but feel that regimes such as the Saudis are a different thing altogether. We all know what they're about, there's no point listing the shitty things about them for the umpteenth time.

The Glazers, Kroenkes etc are bad sure - greedy leeches only interested in personal gain - but these guys are quite clearly on another level.

Their only reason to buy a club would be to to sports wash, ergo any player bought, goal scored or trophy won under their ownership would be innevitably tainted by this fact.

It's a personal choice of course. But for me, I'd not want to be associated with anything Saudi, including the football club I've supported all my life.

Each to their own.
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,531
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
Hmm. I see what you're saying, but feel that regimes such as the Saudis are a different thing altogether. We all know what they're about, there's no point listing the shitty things about them for the umpteenth time.

The Glazers, Kroenkes etc are bad sure - greedy leeches only interested in personal gain - but these guys are quite clearly on another level.

Their only reason to buy a club would be to to sports wash, ergo any player bought, goal scored or trophy won under their ownership would be innevitably tainted by this fact.

It's a personal choice of course. But for me, I'd not want to be associated with anything Saudi, including the football club I've supported all my life.

Each to their own.
On the bolded, this is where I think we differ in opinion.

Personally I believe that our future success is built upon our past and what we’ve done to strive to be one of the greatest sports teams in the world.

Surely it’s a narrow viewpoint to say the future success of a Saudi owned United has nothing to do with our existing standing in the game and the massive revenues we already generate.

Aside from improving the stadium and facilities ironically they wouldn’t have to pump much money in United to get us competing, we just need to spend what we earn already.
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,531
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
Yeah I've never seen loads City fans defend or praise their owners, literally never happened. Oh no wait it actually happens all the time, sportwashing is a very real phenomona my friend.

Also have a look at this from Newcastle fans last year and this was before the deal was even completed.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/newcastle-united-saudi-arabia-mbs-memes-joke-abuses
All they are doing is trying to justify it because their small time clubs wouldn’t compete at the top without these owners.

It’s different for United, entirely. We are already an established Goliath, an institution within the game. This would be nothing but a business transaction to enable us to operate to already established potential.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,825
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
All they are doing is trying to justify it because their small time clubs wouldn’t compete at the top without these owners.

It’s different for United, entirely. We are already an established Goliath, an institution within the game. This would be nothing but a business transaction to enable us to operate to already established potential.
Maybe mate personally I'm not so sure. I suspect there would be a few idiots down on the Old Trafford forecourt with tea towels round their heads like there was when City got bought by Abu Dhabi. And passionately defending the Saudi's online and social media before long.



But even if what you are saying is true. Then there are indeed not just one but tens of thousands of fans of these sugar daddy clubs who support their owners.
 
Last edited:

OleGunnar20

Full Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2018
Messages
735
On the bolded, this is where I think we differ in opinion.

Personally I believe that our future success is built upon our past and what we’ve done to strive to be one of the greatest sports teams in the world.

Surely it’s a narrow viewpoint to say the future success of a Saudi owned United has nothing to do with our existing standing in the game and the massive revenues we already generate.

Aside from improving the stadium and facilities ironically they wouldn’t have to pump much money in United to get us competing, we just need to spend what we earn already.
Fair enough, agree to disagree.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,360
Location
Stamford Bridge
We were 4th in net spend by the end of the 90s.

There’s a massive difference between us then and current Bayern. Even within the PL, prior to you hitting the jackpot, we didn’t get a single first teamer off primary rivals like Arsenal or Liverpool, and that didn’t change until the RvP transfer (or if you want to stretch the definition of ‘rival’, Carrick in 06 or Berbatov in 08).
Who cares if you were taking first team players off 'rivals' when you barely had any rivals anyway? You were certainly taking the best players off plenty of other teams.

Hearing United fans talking about that time sounds exactly like listening to rich kids talking about how they deserve what they have and how intrinsically better they just are than other people.

Honestly it's bullshit. You guys dominated the league for a decade because you were a rich and very powerful club that took full advantage of that to maintain your dominance. Plus you had a great manager who helped keep you there.

What annoys me is that the above isn't even a bad thing per se. It just irritates the hell out of me when you guys just can't even admit that, and instead have to act like United is some fairytale club where none of the normal rules apply and your success just came from some morally pure fantasy.
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
11,422
Location
Melbourne
Who cares if you were taking first team players off 'rivals' when you barely had any rivals anyway? You were certainly taking the best players off plenty of other teams.

Hearing United fans talking about that time sounds exactly like listening to rich kids talking about how they deserve what they have and how intrinsically better they just are than other people.

Honestly it's bullshit. You guys dominated the league for a decade because you were a rich and very powerful club that took full advantage of that to maintain your dominance. Plus you had a great manager who helped keep you there.

What annoys me is that the above isn't even a bad thing per se. It just irritates the hell out of me when you guys just can't even admit that, and instead have to act like United is some fairytale club where none of the normal rules apply and your success just came from some morally pure fantasy.
You started this discussion by equating our dominance during the 90s/early 00s with Bayern, implying that we got there by financial dominance over other clubs. It’s just patently untrue.

Yes, we took players off other teams in the same league, just like Liverpool did, just like Arsenal did, just like Blackburn or Newcastle did (for a season or two). We enjoyed no competitive advantage over other title contenders, besides, as you said, having a damn good manager (and a very fortuitous timing with a crop of academy players, which said manager was partly responsible for). The end result might be comparable to what Bayern/Juve/PSG are doing, but there was no structural reason preventing them from competing. It’s vastly different from, you know, taking a key player off your arch-rival (Ashley Cole), thereby directly weaken them while strengthening yourself.

If we were buying Henry/Bergkamp/Owen/Gerard during those years, you would have a point. It’s just a false equivalence otherwise. We were very lucky, but our luck didn’t come at the expense of others.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,424
Here's something new, Chelsea supporters defending certain type of ownerships :lol:

There's no divine right to win trophies, or even be decent, Manchester Uniteds period of dominance was a result of excellent management and timing, Ferguson played a large part in building that, didn't just wake up rich and took advantage of it. Manchester Uniteds spending was hardly outragous either, there was a budget decided based on how much we had earned, we were well run. If other clubs were run poorly both on and off the pitch, who gives a feck. Who gives a feck if it's hardly been entertaining that Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi have pretty much dominated awards for over 10 years now, maybe we should just introduce doping to the rest of the players to make things more competitive at the top, mint.

It truly is fecking shambles, looking at PSG, City, Chelsea. Can't wait for more years of who'll spend the most, team Qatar, team Dubai, team Saudi or team friends with Putin.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
38,401
Yeah who would have thought a Chelsea fan wouldn't see a problem with a rich owner cruising in and artificially embiggening a club's level.
 

Forevergiggs1

Full Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2019
Messages
1,960
Location
Barcelona
Supports
United
Its not tricky, its pretty simple, any owner of any company in the west, who has connections or influence over a regime that uses public capital punishment or dismemberment should have no place in the UK or ANY civilised society, no matter how much dirty money they have. I would go further but it wouldn't be wise.
The Saudis have been one of our biggest sponsors for the last decade. The Glazers are in bed with them which by default makes us supporters in bed with them as well so all this moral outrage being caused I suppose depends on the lines people are willing to cross or to put it another way how far across the line people are willing to go because the line has already been crossed.

It's not a case acceptance. It should be all or nothing which basically makes a lot of the arguments being thrown out here redundant as the Saudis are already associated with the club. Just because it's not as owners doesn't validate the argument.
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
6,655
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
Do we behead people in the street in the UK? This place at times is odd as feck.
Ye literally stopped having the death penalty 60 years ago and your country is awash in Saudi money. You are partners. United are already partners with them. Thinking the U.K. is somehow morally above is crazy. Do you know your countries history at all? You’re also Saudi Arabia’s main weapons supplier after the USA. It’s more than a bit late for the moral outrage bit
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
4,113
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I think the underlying question is how the Western world should deal with oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia in general. Many in here have (rightfully) pointed out that the country is already invested heavily in European economy, it is just not as prominent as an investment in a football club. But greed aside, one could also argue that cultural exchange and trade is a driver of change in such countries and severing ties with them completely could actually make matters worse for everyone.

Just a general thought regarding the moral discussion. Like almost everyone else I don't like the idea that Newcastle could become another super rich club.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
4,734
I think the underlying question is how the Western world should deal with oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia in general. Many in here have (rightfully) pointed out that the country is already invested heavily in European economy, it is just not as prominent as an investment in a football club. But greed aside, one could also argue that cultural exchange and trade is a driver of change in such countries and severing ties with them completely could actually make matters worse for everyone.

Just a general thought regarding the moral discussion. Like almost everyone else I don't like the idea that Newcastle could become another super rich club.
It's kind of a big topic to broach to be honest. Essentially in a globalized world we are all somehow sending money to oppressive regimes and corrupt companies. Our goverments sell arms to the Saudi's. The idea of the Saudi Prince whitewashing his image through football doesn't really sit well with me. It doesn't sit well with me that hundreds(possible thousands I think) will have died building the stadiums for the 2022 world cup which is where I think if footballers and fans are really into virtue signalling would do well to boycott the whole damn thing because it's ludricious that many people will have died so we can have the world cup in the desert more or less.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
4,734
Who cares if you were taking first team players off 'rivals' when you barely had any rivals anyway? You were certainly taking the best players off plenty of other teams.

Hearing United fans talking about that time sounds exactly like listening to rich kids talking about how they deserve what they have and how intrinsically better they just are than other people.

Honestly it's bullshit. You guys dominated the league for a decade because you were a rich and very powerful club that took full advantage of that to maintain your dominance. Plus you had a great manager who helped keep you there.

What annoys me is that the above isn't even a bad thing per se. It just irritates the hell out of me when you guys just can't even admit that, and instead have to act like United is some fairytale club where none of the normal rules apply and your success just came from some morally pure fantasy.
Obvoiously the riches of Man Utd helped us build and maintain succes, but we also got lucky with the class of 92 and had the best manager in the world. Obviously the normal rules do apply to Man Utd, but Man Utd certainly was more a fairly tale club than City, Chelsea etc. We are pretty shit now and the gloss has gone. However I still think that some of the difference is that Man Utd built their own succes however that doesn't mean that obviously it becomes easier to maintain a monopoly that we had for a while however we weren't even the biggest spenders in transfer in the 90's and Arsenal proved that they could rock the boat once in a while. Liverpool's recent succes proves how far a good manager can take you. Personally I do think that Chelsea's and Man City's emergence through oil money has made the PL more competive and interesting for the neutral, but I feel there is still a pretty hollow feel to it. If the Saudi's enters the fray it's going to be even more so.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,360
Location
Stamford Bridge
Obvoiously the riches of Man Utd helped us build and maintain succes, but we also got lucky with the class of 92 and had the best manager in the world. Obviously the normal rules do apply to Man Utd, but Man Utd certainly was more a fairly tale club than City, Chelsea etc. We are pretty shit now and the gloss has gone. However I still think that some of the difference is that Man Utd built their own succes however that doesn't mean that obviously it becomes easier to maintain a monopoly that we had for a while however we weren't even the biggest spenders in transfer in the 90's and Arsenal proved that they could rock the boat once in a while. Liverpool's recent succes proves how far a good manager can take you. Personally I do think that Chelsea's and Man City's emergence through oil money has made the PL more competive and interesting for the neutral, but I feel there is still a pretty hollow feel to it. If the Saudi's enters the fray it's going to be even more so.
I don't begrudge Uniteds success in the slightest (I certainly did at the time, but I'm older and hopefully a bit wiser now). You guys became successful at just the right time and the club were smart enough to leverage that and your past reputation into a massive brand that kept you on top for a long time. It also coincided with an incredible manager and a superb set of youth prospects. A genuine golden age.

But as a supporter of a different team, it was a difficult time. It felt like no-one else really had a chance and felt very monolithic. Great players would appear at other clubs and end up at United and it all felt extremely one sided. So forgive me for being a little touchy when I have to hear people who enjoyed all that success calling our clubs 'plastic' when that monopoly finally ended, and acting like United's dominance was some huge benefit to the game itself.

I'm all for more rich owners now to balance out the game. Ideally there wouldn't be any, and all the clubs would be community run, but in the real world that's not going to happen.
 

LilyWhiteSpur

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
10,870
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
Ye literally stopped having the death penalty 60 years ago and your country is awash in Saudi money. You are partners. United are already partners with them. Thinking the U.K. is somehow morally above is crazy. Do you know your countries history at all? You’re also Saudi Arabia’s main weapons supplier after the USA. It’s more than a bit late for the moral outrage bit
Unbelievable :lol:. Thief's have their hands chopped, adulators stoned (mostly women), homosexuals can face death, all publicly, yeah turn it round. I'm not an arms dealer by the way.
 

LilyWhiteSpur

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
10,870
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham
yeah, unbelievable a British person pontificating about the morals of another country without a hint of the irony lost on you. Hilarious.
The UK isn't perfect, far from it, but we have progressed as a society, I'm not British btw. Is the Saudi justice system acceptable to you, is law based on religion acceptable to you, public capital punishment for the masses? Yes or no?
 
Last edited:

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
4,734
The UK isn't perfect, far from it, but we have progressed as a society, I'm not British btw. Is the Saudi justice system acceptable to you, is law based on religion acceptable to you, public capital punishment for the masses? Yes or no?
Is there still a chop chop square in the UK?
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
4,734
yeah, unbelievable a British person pontificating about the morals of another country without a hint of the irony lost on you. Hilarious.
Personally I think there is some wisdom and relevance by jugding a country by it's present rather than mostly on it's past. Saudi Arabia could be the Norway of the Middle East. Instead it's considered progress that women are allowed to drive.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
4,734
I don't begrudge Uniteds success in the slightest (I certainly did at the time, but I'm older and hopefully a bit wiser now). You guys became successful at just the right time and the club were smart enough to leverage that and your past reputation into a massive brand that kept you on top for a long time. It also coincided with an incredible manager and a superb set of youth prospects. A genuine golden age.

But as a supporter of a different team, it was a difficult time. It felt like no-one else really had a chance and felt very monolithic. Great players would appear at other clubs and end up at United and it all felt extremely one sided. So forgive me for being a little touchy when I have to hear people who enjoyed all that success calling our clubs 'plastic' when that monopoly finally ended, and acting like United's dominance was some huge benefit to the game itself.

I'm all for more rich owners now to balance out the game. Ideally there wouldn't be any, and all the clubs would be community run, but in the real world that's not going to happen.
No, I do agree that English football is in many ways better off with smaller clubs being pumped full money to end the monopoly. It would be even more exciting if United had proper management and hadn't pissed away all their own money on dross for the last decade. Maybe it's just because i'm older as well, but I just don't find myself caring much when City win league. I doubt that it matters to City fans though.
 

Dirty Schwein

Has a 'Best of Britney Spears' album
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
15,720
Location
Behind You
Supports
Luton Town
Why are you guys talking about Arabs in the Sancho thread?

Edit: this is not the Sancho thread. I'll see myself out.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,825
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
I don't begrudge Uniteds success in the slightest (I certainly did at the time, but I'm older and hopefully a bit wiser now). You guys became successful at just the right time and the club were smart enough to leverage that and your past reputation into a massive brand that kept you on top for a long time. It also coincided with an incredible manager and a superb set of youth prospects. A genuine golden age.

But as a supporter of a different team, it was a difficult time. It felt like no-one else really had a chance and felt very monolithic. Great players would appear at other clubs and end up at United and it all felt extremely one sided. So forgive me for being a little touchy when I have to hear people who enjoyed all that success calling our clubs 'plastic' when that monopoly finally ended, and acting like United's dominance was some huge benefit to the game itself.

I'm all for more rich owners now to balance out the game. Ideally there wouldn't be any, and all the clubs would be community run, but in the real world that's not going to happen.

Like who?

Sure United signed players from other PL sides but back then we weren't in the business of signing ready made superstars from rivals.

Back then personally I was jealous when genuine World Class players like Laudrup and Desailly turned United down to go to Chelsea for double the wages United were able to offer because of United's strict wage structure. So Chelsea weren't exactly paupers back then, United's dominance in the 90's wasn't based on being vastly richer than every other club. In fact bar 98/99 we were outspent every summer in that decade, and players could earn double the salaries on offer at United even at the likes of Middlesbrough. Ravenalli was on something like £40k a week in 1996.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
4,734
Like who?

Sure United signed players from other PL sides but back then we weren't in the business of signing ready made superstars from rivals.

Back then personally I was jealous when genuine World Class players like Laudrup and Desailly turned United down to go to Chelsea for double the wages United were able to offer because of United's strict wage structure. So Chelsea weren't exactly paupers back then, United's dominance in the 90's wasn't based on being vastly richer than every other club. In fact bar 98/99 we were outspent every summer in that decade, and players could earn double the salaries on offer at United even at the likes of Middlesbrough. Ravenalli was on something like £40k a week in 1996.
We rarely went galactico in the way that Real Madrid did, but we did break the british transfer record quite a few times. Cantona and Scmeichel were bargains, but I think Keane and Andy Cole were domestic transfer records back then.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,825
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
We rarely went galactico in the way that Real Madrid did, but we did break the british transfer record quite a few times. Cantona and Scmeichel were bargains, but I think Keane and Andy Cole were domestic transfer records back then.
I'm not saying United didn't spend money or spend big on certain players (when we broke records it was often by having to spend an entire summber budget on one player). I'm just pointing out that United didn't buy win those titles by outspending everyone else.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,360
Location
Stamford Bridge
I'm not saying United didn't spend money or spend big on certain players (when we broke records it was often by having to spend an entire summber budget on one player). I'm just pointing out that United didn't buy win those titles by outspending everyone else.
The point is that you didn't have to. Your club was already so big and powerful that even when other clubs spent big it was just never enough. We pushed ourselves to the point of bankruptcy, and it was only enough to get occasional CL place towards the end. It took Roman arriving with his mega-millions to finally break that monopoly, and even then you won 3 of the next 5.
 

Commentary

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 28, 2021
Messages
26
I think player salaries have spiraled out of control to the point that the only people who can restore United to it's glory days will come from the "Dark money" of autocratic regimes....unless you try the Bayern Munich model???

American billionaires in sports can't compete with the wealth of Middle East oil money, or Russian oligarchs like Abramovich.

To my knowledge UEFA is the only major sports league in the world without a salary cap, I can't understand why they can't implement one? The sports corrupt. FIFA choosing Russia and Qatar as the next to world cup locations says it all.
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,360
Location
Stamford Bridge
No, I do agree that English football is in many ways better off with smaller clubs being pumped full money to end the monopoly. It would be even more exciting if United had proper management and hadn't pissed away all their own money on dross for the last decade. Maybe it's just because i'm older as well, but I just don't find myself caring much when City win league. I doubt that it matters to City fans though.
I do understand and honestly when I joined this site one of the things that made me stay was seeing how chilled and down to earth United fans were when faced with the come down after SAF. I developed a lot of respect for the fanbase after that.
 

MoskvaRed

Full Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
4,070
The point is that you didn't have to. Your club was already so big and powerful that even when other clubs spent big it was just never enough. We pushed ourselves to the point of bankruptcy, and it was only enough to get occasional CL place towards the end. It took Roman arriving with his mega-millions to finally break that monopoly, and even then you won 3 of the next 5.
To name but a few, Blackburn spent big (they got Shearer ahead of us and were famously about to sign Keane until their staff left early on Friday), Newcastle spent huge amounts (again beating us for Shearer) and Liverpool spent loads. We were a big, wealthy club but the main difference was the quality of management. It’s no coincidence that Arsenal were the first club to really take us on as they had a very good manager themselves who could also take advantage of a golden generation of players from his home country and offer a much more international city as a base. We could never asset strip our direct domestic rivals in the way that Bayern do, nor could we take top talent from Spain or Italy (even Veron was a special case involving a disputed passport).

Anyway, all history now and not directly relevant to whether we want to follow a league where MBS would be sportwashing.