Saudis taking over Newcastle | Maybe not

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
41,415
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
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.
I agree of course. My only point is that having a third Sugar Daddy club (Newcastle) won't lead to an uncompetitive league.

Pre-Roman (so the first 11 seasons), the Prem had 3 different winners and 1 of those was a sugar daddy side. Post Roman (17 seasons), there's been 6 different winners. It got more competitive with the addition of side who could compete with Man United.

5 different winners in the past 8 seasons as well. The Prem is probably the most competitive of all the "big" league.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
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.
Going forward in a league with 3 sugar Daddy clubs and two of them Oil state funded. The only way to compete will be to hope your club also get's bought by a Gulf state or Billionaire willing to pour unlimited funds into your club. And there is only so many of those looking to buy an English football club.
 

Idxomer

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
3,777
I agree of course. My only point is that having a third Sugar Daddy club (Newcastle) won't lead to an uncompetitive league.

Pre-Roman (so the first 11 seasons), the Prem had 3 different winners and 1 of those was a sugar daddy side. Post Roman (17 seasons), there's been 6 different winners. It got more competitive with the addition of side who could compete with Man United.

5 different winners in the past 8 seasons as well. The Prem is probably the most competitive of all the "big" league.
And post-Roman for 11 seasons, only 3 teams won it. There's an obvious variable that hasn't been in the equation for the last 8 seasons which led to the variety we've seen in league winners.
 

Lastwolf

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,544
Location
Brick Sofa
I agree of course. My only point is that having a third Sugar Daddy club (Newcastle) won't lead to an uncompetitive league.

Pre-Roman (so the first 11 seasons), the Prem had 3 different winners and 1 of those was a sugar daddy side. Post Roman (17 seasons), there's been 6 different winners. It got more competitive with the addition of side who could compete with Man United.

5 different winners in the past 8 seasons as well. The Prem is probably the most competitive of all the "big" league.
Arguably, it could lead to a more competitive league, but if trends continue and the money stays how it is, without champions league football and/or sugar daddy investment some of these clubs are fecked.

If you add a Newcastle into the mix, that's a "big 7" (baring in mind, clubs like Everton, West Ham and Leicister are not included here) where realistically 4 teams are fighting it out for the other spot. And maybe you'll get the odd year where one or more SDC's fall off but the difference is they can afford the finical hit.

Maybe, it's just upsetting personally as it effects the status quo, which has worked out quite well for me.
 

Bebestation

Full Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
4,498
Another buyer just makes the PL even more stronger. Its why I dont rate players that stick to a single other league all their life. ;)
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
380
Going forward in a league with 3 sugar Daddy clubs and two of them Oil state funded. The only way to compete will be to hope your club also get's bought by a Gulf state or Billionaire willing to pour unlimited funds into your club. And there is only so many of those looking to buy an English football club.
What's the big difference between 2 or 3? 3 should create more competition for players and therefore more unpredictability, at least within those sides.

It is undoubtedly bad news for us but unless good governance and structural reform is put in place that interrupts the way these clubs can spend money it makes no difference whether Newcastle get bought, Norwich get bought or anybody else. It is the only way they're ever going to do anything, and you cannot on the one hand acknowledge that private backing to the extreme extent we've seen is welcome and then argue about competition. If it is about competition then money has to be more equally distributed in general.
 

largelyworried

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2021
Messages
206
What's the big difference between 2 or 3? 3 should create more competition for players and therefore more unpredictability, at least within those sides.

It is undoubtedly bad news for us but unless good governance and structural reform is put in place that interrupts the way these clubs can spend money it makes no difference whether Newcastle get bought, Norwich get bought or anybody else. It is the only way they're ever going to do anything, and you cannot on the one hand acknowledge that private backing to the extreme extent we've seen is welcome and then argue about competition. If it is about competition then money has to be more equally distributed in general.
The difference is huge when there are only 4 slots to the Champions League and you have to get into the CL to have any hope of competing at the top. After all, how do Leicester feel right now? Their success has largely come through good scouting, good purchasing and good management. They're right on the verge of becoming another big club, but probably need CL qualification a few times to really settle in. If they now find Newcastle leap ahead of them simply by virtue of having a rich owner and close the door to the top at the same time, that's the opposite of competitive.
 

Classical Mechanic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
31,713
Location
xG Zombie Nation
The difference is huge when there are only 4 slots to the Champions League and you have to get into the CL to have any hope of competing at the top. After all, how do Leicester feel right now? Their success has largely come through good scouting, good purchasing and good management. They're right on the verge of becoming another big club, but probably need CL qualification a few times to really settle in. If they now find Newcastle leap ahead of them simply by virtue of having a rich owner and close the door to the top at the same time, that's the opposite of competitive.
Leicester are owned by billionaires which is why they've moved beyond other clus of a similar stature.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
What's the big difference between 2 or 3? 3 should create more competition for players and therefore more unpredictability, at least within those sides.

It is undoubtedly bad news for us but unless good governance and structural reform is put in place that interrupts the way these clubs can spend money it makes no difference whether Newcastle get bought, Norwich get bought or anybody else. It is the only way they're ever going to do anything, and you cannot on the one hand acknowledge that private backing to the extreme extent we've seen is welcome and then argue about competition. If it is about competition then money has to be more equally distributed in general.
It's one more.

The top 4 will consist of 3 sugar Daddy clubs and one of United and Liverpool. A big club like Arsenal can't even compete in the current climate, add in another Financially doped side looking to make a splash. Especially in a post FFP world and before long Sugar Daddy teams will be spending £200-400m every year trying to out do each other. No one else other than United and Liverpool (barely) will be able to even dream of competing. It might make things more competitive for City but that's about it.
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
380
It's one more.

The top 4 will consist of 3 sugar Daddy clubs and one of United and Liverpool. A big club like Arsenal can't even compete in the current climate, add in another Financially doped side looking to make a splash. Especially in a post FFP world and before long Sugar Daddy teams will be spending £200-400m every year trying to out do each other. No one else other than United and Liverpool (barely) will be able to even dream of competing. It might make things more competitive for City but that's about it.
All this is the case now. Chelsea and City have to royally mess things up to finish outside the top 4. Chelsea nearly did that with the transfer ban but generally speaking nothing is too dissimilar, would anybody bet against these sides next season? Or the one after? This is the way of the league, I don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about Newcastle or the Arab ownership in particular. Is it okay that we section off a couple of spots in the league for financial doping as you put it, but from this point forward nobody is allowed to buy a club by the exact mechanisms that allowed City and Chelsea to flourish?

That is not a position that makes any sense. They need to get to the root of the problem, to take a stance and to come up with a coherent strategy. Moaning about Newcastle and how anti competitive it is becomes rather besides the point. The only option now is to take action within the regulations, not to arbitrarily draw a line in the sand regarding particular owners or making these hypocritical arguments. It has already gone too far for half measures, the PL either accepts these with open arms or something must be fundamentally changed otherwise it is sheer hypocrisy.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,832
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
All this is the case now. Chelsea and City have to royally mess things up to finish outside the top 4. Chelsea nearly did that with the transfer ban but generally speaking nothing is too dissimilar, would anybody bet against these sides next season? Or the one after? This is the way of the league, I don't see the point in getting hot under the collar about Newcastle or the Arab ownership in particular. Is it okay that we section off a couple of spots in the league for financial doping as you put it, but from this point forward nobody is allowed to buy a club by the exact mechanisms that allowed City and Chelsea to flourish?

That is not a position that makes any sense. They need to get to the root of the problem, to take a stance and to come up with a coherent strategy. Moaning about Newcastle and how anti competitive it is becomes rather besides the point. The only option now is to take action within the regulations, not to arbitrarily draw a line in the sand regarding particular owners or making these hypocritical arguments. It has already gone too far for half measures, the PL either accepts these with open arms or something must be fundamentally changed otherwise it is sheer hypocrisy.
Hot under the collar? Moaning? :lol:

I'm simply pointing out the obvious, that with another Doped team with unlimited funds it makes it even harder and let's be honest virtually impossible for any other team to ever hope to break into the top 4. No matter how well they scout, how well they spend or how good their manager is.

the PL either accepts these with open arms
The Premier League with the United, Chelsea and City (twice) buy outs among others have shown they don't give a flying feck who buys English clubs.
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
380
Hot under the collar? Moaning? :lol:

I'm simply pointing out the obvious, that with another Doped team with unlimited funds it makes it even harder and let's be honest virtually impossible for any other team to ever hope to break into the top 4. No matter how well they scout, how well they spend or how good their manager is.



The Premier League with the United, Chelsea and City (twice) buy outs among others have shown they don't give a flying feck who buys English clubs.
Not necessarily you in particular, the general sentiment of those that are adverse to this particular transaction within the media and certain fan outlets seems to be to fixate on certain elements of the deal. The ethical considerations seem to elicit passionate responses, anti-competitiveness, all that jazz. Arguments that are fairly redundant when the house is not in order to begin with.

The argument you brought up regarding the top four and potentially 3 places being sealed off is a prime example. That is bad if we wish to protect our own position, but within the context of the wider issue of club ownership, football finances and the overall health of the footballing structure it is just a detail, a symptom, it is not that significant.

The chances for most clubs to do much but survive is already minimal. Of course this makes it harder again, but it is already broken, the competition is already lobsided, footballing economics are a mess, and we have regulations that promote entry into this ecosystem by players such as the Arabs. I don't think regulators can point to the league and say "look at the competition we have" or invoke arguments that didn't seem to be of any concern when we allowed the oil funded clubs to go mad.

I agree they don't care, there are far too many vested interests. But that is the only way it can happen. There has to be admittance that what they have allowed to happen is simply wrong and it has to be built from the ground up. Otherwise, I think they should be accepted under the current system as that would be consistent.