Saudis taking over Newcastle | Maybe not

Dirty Schwein

Has a 'Best of Britney Spears' album
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
15,720
Location
Behind You
Supports
Luton Town
Stick to the fantasy footy threads where you belong son :lol: :drool:
:lol: I prefer it there. People giving each other shit advice, people asking for advice when they actually want validation, ranting etc. It's the best!
 

Kentonio

Full Member
Scout
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
12,360
Location
Stamford Bridge
American billionaires in sports can't compete with the wealth of Middle East oil money, or Russian oligarchs like Abramovich.
Well they could financially but the American ones so far seem to want financial returns on their investments, rather than just glory. Then again they have their own domestic sports that they're probably more passionate about.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,825
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
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.
I honestly don't know if United could have afforded to pay players 50k a week back then. Maybe 2 or 3 but the knock on effect in the rest of the squad could have seen the wage bill spiral out of control.

As far as I can remember United have always kept the wage bill below 50% of turnover. Other clubs like Chelsea risked it all and as you say nearly paid the price.

United's success was built on sound management on and off the pitch. Having an outstanding manager by far the best in the league. And a once in a generation group of players from the academy. Had Scholes Giggs and Beckham not came through at United I have my doubts if we could have been able to sign 3 players of that quality.

We paid 3.5m for arguably the best midfield in PL history. Beckham, Keane, Scholes and Giggs.
 

Commentary

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 28, 2021
Messages
26
This i
Well they could financially but the American ones so far seem to want financial returns on their investments, rather than just glory. Then again they have their own domestic sports that they're probably more passionate about.
This is true. I imagine they would rather buy an American NFL football team than a Premier League football team.

I looked up the wealth of owners in several American leagues and only Basketball has billionaires on par with someone like Roman Abramovich. If you want to compete in football, unless you can find one of the few super rich European owners, (or Jim Ratcliffe), I think your stuck with Arab oil money and autocratic oligarchs.

Anyhow, I think UEFA should introduce a soft salary cap into the Champions League, otherwise Man City or Chelsea will buy their way to victory for the next 25 years, and Mino Raiola will become the norm.
 

Wolf1992

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
104
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.
That's a good idea, however it's easy for footballers to kneel before a match than actually do some real change, especially if the change means receiving a less million of dollars...someone has to pay for their new yatches though.

Big reminder millionaires are progressive until you touch their bank account.
 

Hulksmash

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
386
Premier League has removed Saudi Arabia from their Piracy Watchlist.

More and More signs this takeover will go ahead this July.
 

Water Melon

before it dries out, eh
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
3,963
Location
garden bed
Premier League has removed Saudi Arabia from their Piracy Watchlist.

More and More signs this takeover will go ahead this July.
Looks like it. The Glazers will then realize that there is one more much stronger competitor in the prem. United are very unlikely to win anything big, if the club owners do not change their vision and approach.
 

reddevilchennai

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2019
Messages
479
End of competitive premier league football then. Them and City with their financial muscle will be competing for the title with Chelsea winning it once in a while.

Traditional clubs not backed by sugar daddies can feck off.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,314
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
End of competitive premier league football then.
People said that when Blackburn started spending lots, it didn't happen. Then they said it when Chelsea started spending even more and it didn't happen. Then they said it yet again when Man City started spending even more and it didn't happen.

The only time the Prem was really been uncompetitive was the first ten years when there were no real sugar daddy sides and Man United were miles better than everyone. There's been 5 different league winners in the past ten years and only 2 of those are really sugar daddy sides.

There's a ton of reasons not to want another rich owner in the league but "it will make it uncompetitive" doesn't really make sense.
 

MDFC Manager

Full Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
18,335
People said that when Blackburn started spending lots, it didn't happen. Then they said it when Chelsea started spending even more and it didn't happen. Then they said it yet again when Man City started spending even more and it didn't happen.

The only time the Prem was really been uncompetitive was the first ten years when there were no real sugar daddy sides and Man United were miles better than everyone. There's been 5 different league winners in the past ten years and only 2 of those are really sugar daddy sides.

There's a ton of reasons not to want another rich owner in the league but "it will make it uncompetitive" doesn't really make sense.
Well, what you said so far isn't wrong.

But then, this will be the first time that the league (or any league) will have 2 clubs with truly bottomless pits, and both with the same burning (owner's) ambition - to win everything in sight at whatever cost.

I think that's sufficient reason to worry about the league getting uncompetitive.
 

AltiUn

likes playing with swords after fantasies
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
16,169
End of competitive premier league football then. Them and City with their financial muscle will be competing for the title with Chelsea winning it once in a while.

Traditional clubs not backed by sugar daddies can feck off.
Not really, it’ll still be competitive, the competitors will just be the ultra wealthy clubs.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,314
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Well, what you said so far isn't wrong.

But then, this will be the first time that the league (or any league) will have 2 clubs with truly bottomless pits, and both with the same burning (owner's) ambition - to win everything in sight at whatever cost.

I think that's sufficient reason to worry about the league getting uncompetitive.
How much money do you think it would take to turn Newcastle in a side as "dominant" as Man City? None of their current squad are good enough.

£500 million, spent wisely? It won't happen.
 

MDFC Manager

Full Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
18,335
How much money do you think it would take to turn Newcastle in a side as "dominant" as Man City? None of their current squad are good enough.

£500 million, spent wisely? It won't happen.
Oh its going to take more than that, definitely. But it seems to me that saudis will ramp up much much quicker than city and PSG. Plus there's no FFP anymore, who's gonna stop these from pumping in half a billion every season?
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,825
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
How much money do you think it would take to turn Newcastle in a side as "dominant" as Man City? None of their current squad are good enough.

£500 million, spent wisely? It won't happen.
A billion at least to get them into the top 4 regularly. So probably 3-4 years of spending £300m+ every window. Fun times ahead.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
26,726
Location
Where fans' expectations are too high
How much money do you think it would take to turn Newcastle in a side as "dominant" as Man City? None of their current squad are good enough.

£500 million, spent wisely? It won't happen.
Aye more like a billion I’d guess, especially as city acquired their “spine” way before the crazy inflation post the Neymar deal.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,314
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Oh its going to take more than that, definitely. But it seems to me that saudis will ramp up much much quicker than city and PSG. Plus there's no FFP anymore, who's gonna stop these from pumping in half a billion every season?
Is FFP officially dead with nothing replacing it?

They'll still have to compete with all the other rich clubs and there's only so many great players out there.

I'm sure if Newcastle do become Saudi owned then they'll eventually compete for titles but that's about it, the league will become more competitive, not less.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,424
People said that when Blackburn started spending lots, it didn't happen. Then they said it when Chelsea started spending even more and it didn't happen. Then they said it yet again when Man City started spending even more and it didn't happen.

The only time the Prem was really been uncompetitive was the first ten years when there were no real sugar daddy sides and Man United were miles better than everyone. There's been 5 different league winners in the past ten years and only 2 of those are really sugar daddy sides.

There's a ton of reasons not to want another rich owner in the league but "it will make it uncompetitive" doesn't really make sense.
Ehm, yeah. Since Abramovich took over Chelsea, you've been the most successfull English side :lol:. 5 Premier League titles, 2 Champions League titles, 4 FA cups, 3 league cups, 2 europa leagues.

Since City were purchased by the Abu Dhabi bunch, 12 seasons of football has been played. They've won the league in 5 of those seasons. Depending on the overall league situation, there's always going to be a transitional period, it's a solid return.

The last 10 seasons, Chelsea have won it 2 times, City have won it 5 times.

In terms of being competitive, you've somewhat misunderstood the concept here if you reckon it's competitive because there's potentially 3 sugar daddy clubs fighting for trophies. The effect on the rest of the league means that it's it's pretty much impossible to compete against it, that's why it's uncompetitive. The situation is miles worse than it's ever been. The path of Chelsea, City, PSG, perhaps Newcastle if the deal is completed, is impossible for clubs that depend on their own income. The losses that Chelsea sustained during the majority of time since Abramovich came in, impossible without someone happy to finance it all.

For sugar daddy clubs, it'll probably feel more competitive, but for the league itself it's only going one way...
 

Lastwolf

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,544
Location
Brick Sofa
Is FFP officially dead with nothing replacing it?

They'll still have to compete with all the other rich clubs and there's only so many great players out there.

I'm sure if Newcastle do become Saudi owned then they'll eventually compete for titles but that's about it, the league will become more competitive, not less.
It's officially still alive, but in reality it's toothless, with the cases against City and PSG largely being overtuned or severely reduced, it has proved not fit for purpose.

They caught both of them red handed, took years and handed them some relatively small fines, that people 1billion+ into a project will chalk up to "cost of doing business". Caught red handed juicing the books and boasting about getting away with it and they ultimately did. The model is now well established, take over a club and start pumping in millions via biscuit sponsors and UEFA can't and won't do shit about it.
 

redshaw

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
5,751
People said that when Blackburn started spending lots, it didn't happen. Then they said it when Chelsea started spending even more and it didn't happen. Then they said it yet again when Man City started spending even more and it didn't happen.

The only time the Prem was really been uncompetitive was the first ten years when there were no real sugar daddy sides and Man United were miles better than everyone. There's been 5 different league winners in the past ten years and only 2 of those are really sugar daddy sides.

There's a ton of reasons not to want another rich owner in the league but "it will make it uncompetitive" doesn't really make sense.
I remember people saying Walker's money wouldn't last and it didn't but he bought Blackburn the league, it was a glimpse of how things can turn quickly with money, how a club can be manufactured.

City have won 3/4 and 5/9 Premier Leagues so a dominance is being laid there, it takes 5-10 years and could take Newcastle 5+. Chelsea haven't been in this spending bracket during the whole of Roman's time and for a long time and were the only one club, fees and wages have been attainable by others. To top City Chelsea are really spending now. The Saudi's will start spending and it will turn into a battle between City and Newcastle with Chelsea.

You cut off the part of his post
"Them and City with their financial muscle will be competing for the title with Chelsea winning it once in a while.

Traditional clubs not backed by sugar daddies can feck off. "

You could argue with City Newcastle and Chelsea swapping league wins most of the time that will be competitive. It does take good managers and people running the club but they will buy and pay the best. I actually said City will get their competitor when Saudi buy Newcastle as I can see the dominance of Abu Dhabi taking shape in England, a Saudi run club will have the unlimited spending as well to be the best for as long as they want.

FFP have kept clubs largely in check although we know City have got around that with no punishment, FFP is said to be going or gone due to the pandemic so spending will move up to another level.
 
Last edited:

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,314
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Ehm, yeah. Since Abramovich took over Chelsea, you've been the most successfull English side :lol:. 5 Premier League titles, 2 Champions League titles, 4 FA cups, 3 league cups, 2 europa leagues.

Since City were purchased by the Abu Dhabi bunch, 12 seasons of football has been played. They've won the league in 5 of those seasons. Depending on the overall league situation, there's always going to be a transitional period, it's a solid return.

The last 10 seasons, Chelsea have won it 2 times, City have won it 5 times.

In terms of being competitive, you've somewhat misunderstood the concept here if you reckon it's competitive because there's potentially 3 sugar daddy clubs fighting for trophies. The effect on the rest of the league means that it's it's pretty much impossible to compete against it, that's why it's uncompetitive. The situation is miles worse than it's ever been. The path of Chelsea, City, PSG, perhaps Newcastle if the deal is completed, is impossible for clubs that depend on their own income. The losses that Chelsea sustained during the majority of time since Abramovich came in, impossible without someone happy to finance it all.

For sugar daddy clubs, it'll probably feel more competitive, but for the league itself it's only going one way...
We've been the most successful but it's never been to the point of dominating or uncompetitive.

The only time the league has really been uncompetitive was the first 10 years, long before Roman got involved.

Like I said, of course I get why people hate sugar daddy clubs but I don't buy that they make the league uncompetitive, not when Leicester and Liverpool recently won the Prem (and champs League) and Lille just beat PSG to the French title!
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
23,221
We've been the most successful but it's never been to the point of dominating or uncompetitive.

The only time the league has really been uncompetitive was the first 10 years, long before Roman got involved.

Like I said, of course I get why people hate sugar daddy clubs but I don't buy that they make the league uncompetitive, not when Leicester and Liverpool recently won the Prem (and champs League) and Lille just beat PSG to the French title!
You spent 250m odd during a pandemic and won the CL? 3 oil clubs rraching the CL semi finals. Its a definite trend.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,314
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
You spent 250m odd during a pandemic and won the CL? 3 oil clubs rraching the CL semi finals. Its a definite trend.
It's the first time the champs league final was between two sugar daddy clubs, that's not a trend.

As for Chelsea spending 250 million last year, you know that's because of our transfer ban the previous season. We've spent about the same over the past two seasons as Man United.
 

Idxomer

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
3,729
We've been the most successful but it's never been to the point of dominating or uncompetitive.

The only time the league has really been uncompetitive was the first 10 years, long before Roman got involved.

Like I said, of course I get why people hate sugar daddy clubs but I don't buy that they make the league uncompetitive, not when Leicester and Liverpool recently won the Prem (and champs League) and Lille just beat PSG to the French title!
It depends on your definition of the league being competitive.

United dominated the 90s but the gap was never as big as it's now between City and the other clubs when they win it. Arsenal and United won it back then getting less than 80 points. Only 3 times a team won it getting 90+ points. Chelsea already achieved that in their 1st two wins, they had no competition because no one was ready to compete with that at first.
 

Lastwolf

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,544
Location
Brick Sofa
Like I said, of course I get why people hate sugar daddy clubs but I don't buy that they make the league uncompetitive, not when Leicester and Liverpool recently won the Prem (and champs League) and Lille just beat PSG to the French title!
In the last 10 years (since take over) PSG has won 7 titles (of their total 9 ever league titles), when Monaco broke their 4 year winning streak, they bought Mbappe for 180 the year after doubling the previous world record transfer fee. This is fine?

It's like if when United and Arsenal where battling it out for the prem, we just bought Henry to stop them competeting
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,424
We've been the most successful but it's never been to the point of dominating or uncompetitive.

The only time the league has really been uncompetitive was the first 10 years, long before Roman got involved.

Like I said, of course I get why people hate sugar daddy clubs but I don't buy that they make the league uncompetitive, not when Leicester and Liverpool recently won the Prem (and champs League) and Lille just beat PSG to the French title!
So apparantly it's not uncompetitive, because there were 4 years between Leicesters golden run, Liverpools league win, and Lille has won it to prevent PSG from winning it 8 times in 9 years :lol: Sounds great....It's not really a requirement that you have to buy it, or even understand it. Facts are, however, that it's becoming an even more closed group of teams with an untouchable financial position, no budgets. There's no way in to consistently compete with that, which you easily had even in the 90's, spots were up for grabs.

State funded, sugar daddy clubs, competing between themselves for trophies doesn't make it a competitive league.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,314
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
In the last 10 years (since take over) PSG has won 7 titles (of their total 9 ever league titles), when Monaco broke their 4 year winning streak, they bought Mbappe for 180 the year after doubling the previous world record transfer fee. This is fine?

It's like if when United and Arsenal where battling it out for the prem, we just bought Henry to stop them competeting
Theres more "uncompetitive" leagues without Sugar daddys than with them. Germany? Italy? Scotland? All dominated in recent years by one side. Bayern, Celtic and Juve all recently won 9 in a row, is that preferable?

France is the only place where one (sugar daddy) side dominates, and they lost the league this season. It also wasn't that long ago that Lyon won something like 8 in a row.
 

Siorac

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2010
Messages
19,851
Location
16th century
It depends on your definition of the league being competitive.

United dominated the 90s but the gap was never as big as it's now between City and the other clubs when they win it.
We did win the league with five games to spare in both 2000 and 2001. We finished 18 points ahead of Arsenal in 2000.
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
101,158
Location
Dublin, Ireland
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.
That’s not strictly true about United. Their most dominating period was when we brought through Beckham, scholes, Neville, butt, etc
We picked up Irwin & Schmeichel as bargains
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
361
I don't see how this will make the league less competitive. If anything it makes it more competitive by having another side with the financial clout to match City and Chelsea. You still have to get all your ducks lined up, that's why City are much better than Chelsea and ourselves at the moment - money in tandem with great decisions.

The crux of the argument has to be around reform, if there is actually any appetite at all for it. Not around vague notions of competitiveness because that argument makes no sense once the door is already open to this ownership, there is no point at barking at the moon under this system each time another owner comes along. The only way to compete in the long-term is to have teams on the same footing which means more teams able to be in the market for top players. Otherwise you have to structurally reform to ensure greater access to players based on factors other than money.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
23,221
It's the first time the champs league final was between two sugar daddy clubs, that's not a trend.

As for Chelsea spending 250 million last year, you know that's because of our transfer ban the previous season. We've spent about the same over the past two seasons as Man United.
3 oil clubs in the final over the last 2 seasons though. Youve spent the same but you had a transfer ban in one of those summers!
 

Lastwolf

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,544
Location
Brick Sofa
Theres more "uncompetitive" leagues without Sugar daddys than with them. Germany? Italy? Scotland? All dominated in recent years by one side. Bayern, Celtic and Juve all recently won 9 in a row, is that preferable?

France is the only place where one (sugar daddy) side dominates, and they lost the league this season. It also wasn't that long ago that Lyon won something like 8 in a row.
I don't think that anyone is arguing Bayern's financial dominace of the Bundesliga is a good thing, it's long being a bit of a joke how they just pick and choose the best of all the other teams, often for low rates.

Scottish football has been a mess since it's inception, I mean Rangers and Celtic have 106 titles between them, the leagues 131 years old, which means one team that's not them per decade has won the league, a feat that hasn't been done at all since 1984. This is not good and continues to not be good.

Juve got caught match fixing, how they managed to take the finical hit of relegation (which they costed out to be 443million in their failed compensation lawsuit), build a new stadium, win 9 in a row and still seem like having all the money depsite how broke the rest of the league always is, is super suspect.

There's loads of uncompetitive leagues that have no money at all realtively, my own local league, Linfield have won 55 of the league, the second is 23, the third club hasn't existed since 1949

but I don't think replacing one or two dominant forces with a sugar daddied ultra dominant force is the answer, to those leagues either.
 

Idxomer

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
3,729
We did win the league with five games to spare in both 2000 and 2001. We finished 18 points ahead of Arsenal in 2000.
And something similar already happened in 4 of the last 5 league wins when we already knew which team is going to win half way through the campaign.