Saudis taking over Newcastle | Maybe not

Status
Not open for further replies.

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
50,145
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
19,836
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
15,014
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
6,729
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

Im a doctor btw, my IQ destroys yours
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
11,862
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
6,023
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
2,101
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
35,216
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
19,836
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
6,023
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
19,836
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
6,023
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.
 

Paxi

Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
27,678

These guys get too much of a pass. They’ll abuse anyone over the Saudis. Abused your mans fiancé when she asked the British government to stop the takeover. Bunch of cnuts.
 

DixieDean

Everton Fan
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
5,297
Location
Liverpool
Supports
Everton

These guys get too much of a pass. They’ll abuse anyone over the Saudis. Abused your mans fiancé when she asked the British government to stop the takeover. Bunch of cnuts.
Newcastle fans lust for the Saudis to takeover is one of the most depressing things I've ever seen in football. And that's saying a lot.
 

Chesterlestreet

Man of the crowd
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
19,505
Newcastle fans lust for the Saudis to takeover is one of the most depressing things I've ever seen in football. And that's saying a lot.
Yeah. Seemingly (I say seemingly), a lot of them don't give a feck about the nature of the prospective new owners.

ETA There was a poll done by a major fan site which was referenced by several mainstream media outlets quite recently - with three alternatives, which were (basically): 1) stick with the current owners 2) welcome the Saudis (even though they're clearly problematic) and 3) welcome the Saudis (and I don't give a feck about how they run their country).

The split between 2) and 3) was something like 40/60 (obviously hardly anyone went for the first option).

Of course, you could say all sorts of things about the options offered - but the fact that a clear majority actually went for "don't care" over "yeah, but they're clearly cnuts" is pretty depressing.
 
Last edited:

Flytan

New Member
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
3,754
Location
United States
Yeah. Seemingly (I say seemingly), a lot of them don't give a feck about the nature of the prospective new owners.

ETA There was a poll done by a major fan site which was referenced by several mainstream media outlets quite recently - with three alternatives, which were (basically): 1) stick with the current owners 2) welcome the Saudis (even though they're clearly problematic) and 3) welcome the Saudis (and I don't give a feck about how they run their country).

The split between 2) and 3) was something like 40/60 (obviously hardly anyone went for the first option).

Of course, you could say all sorts of things about the options offered - but the fact that a clear majority actually went for "don't care" over "yeah, but they're clearly cnuts" is pretty depressing.
I'm sure a lot of the blame for 2 and 3 being popular is because of the City's/PSGs/Qatar World Cup. Fans see other clubs with similar/worse things happening and are desensitized to it and since it's happening elsewhere, why not benefit from it too?
 

Hulksmash

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 9, 2019
Messages
521
Look I don't want Saudis to takeover Newcastle but something really corrupt going in this Matter.

Like they always postponing the Takeover. The American Owners don't want more Competition in the League which is a serious Threat for the Premier League. There's actually no Hope for a club to become a big club again.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
Look I don't want Saudis to takeover Newcastle but something really corrupt going in this Matter.

Like they always postponing the Takeover. The American Owners don't want more Competition in the League which is a serious Threat for the Premier League. There's actually no Hope for a club to become a big club again.
Not wanting the Saudis and not wanting competition are not the same thing.

The League has clearly not played by the rules here but if they had, the Saudis would be running Newcastle right now. I find it hard to criticise too much when the alternative is waving through a murderous regime with resources to make City look like Wigan.

Newcastle fans ranting about corruption is just about the most disingenuous thing I can imagine. Their argument boils down to " the Premier League should act honourably so we can be owned by the most dishonourable state on Earth".

I get that they have been through the wringer with an awful owner who has ruined their club, but they're letting themselves down with this nonsense.
 

Guy Incognito

Full Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
17,714
Location
Somewhere
So takeover likely to happen. Will probably take years though for the owners to get their money’s worth, squad will need refreshing.
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
5,702
Well, just when we were feeling kind of comfortable about a set top four.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
37,331
So who will Newcastle keep out of the top 4 and send them into the ether?

my pick is Liverpool
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
12,778
So takeover likely to happen. Will probably take years though for the owners to get their money’s worth, squad will need refreshing.
Yep it took a while for the City project to actually bear fruit.

That being said, I do wonder just how effective having another club like this will be. Regardless of how much money that the club may have, at the end of the day there are only so many top quality players to go around in world football. Even if Newcastle get this influx of money, there's still United, City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Madrid, Barcelona (In a couple years), Bayern, PSG who can offer comparable wages and chances for trophies. These clubs themselves are already bickering over the seemingly shrinking pool of top tier talent. The "top tier" striker market right now consists of Kane, Mbappe and Haaland. Who are even the top quality midfielders that are around that one of these clubs could bring in?

On the surface of it it looks like another massive obstacle to compete with, but past the initial appearance I'm not sure just how much will actually change.
 

JB08

Searches for nude pics of Marcos Rojo
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
8,361
Stupid question but why is everyone assuming they will invest so heavily? Aren’t Sheffield Utd owned by Saudis as well?
 

Chipper

Adulterer.
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
5,468
So takeover likely to happen. Will probably take years though for the owners to get their money’s worth, squad will need refreshing.
Yes, hopefully we see some Robinho and Roque Santa Cruz type of signings that City made along the way rather than jumping straight up towards the top. Chelsea got it right almost straight away but were starting from a better position to begin with. It would be extremely unlikely for Newcastle to make an instant leap from where they are I'd have thought.

Then there's FFP if enforced, although I don't actually know the rules surrounding it currently.
 

LARulz

Full Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
18,138
Stupid question but why is everyone assuming they will invest so heavily? Aren’t Sheffield Utd owned by Saudis as well?
Why would they own it otherwise? They will invest heavily I think from the get go - money talks and players (maybe not the elites) will look at it
 

Sied

I..erm..love U2, baby?
Joined
Nov 28, 2013
Messages
10,323
Stupid question but why is everyone assuming they will invest so heavily? Aren’t Sheffield Utd owned by Saudis as well?
Sheffield United are owned by a prince. It's the nation of Saudi Arabia's investment fund linked with Newcastle, so they are vastly wealthier. A quick Google puts the prince's wealth at $200m vs the Saudi Arabia's public investment fund at $500 billion!

Beyond the difference in wealth, I guess everyone just assumes they'll inject vast amounts of money as it'll be peanuts to them. I've read that the purpose of the fund is to reduce their finance dependence on oil, but it's also to spread influence, which is presumably where Newcastle come in. Hard to see them buying a football club as a good earner for Saudi tax payers!
 

Mickeza

still gets no respect
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
13,979
Location
Deepthroating information to Howard Nurse.
The Everton owner is super rich but he can’t spend what he wants due to FFP - it’s why they invested so little this summer - although ironically better than they did with more money! I think Newcastle have missed the boat to become a powerhouse unless they make up commercial deals too.
 

11101

Full Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
21,207
Sheffield United are owned by a prince. It's the nation of Saudi Arabia's investment fund linked with Newcastle, so they are vastly wealthier. A quick Google puts the prince's wealth at $200m vs the Saudi Arabia's public investment fund at $500 billion!

Beyond the difference in wealth, I guess everyone just assumes they'll inject vast amounts of money as it'll be peanuts to them. I've read that the purpose of the fund is to reduce their finance dependence on oil, but it's also to spread influence, which is presumably where Newcastle come in. Hard to see them buying a football club as a good earner for Saudi tax payers!
Is that confirmed?

PSG are directly owned by the Qatar Investment Authority but City are actually owned by the personal investment company of the prince, not the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. Rules aren't rules over there but being a truly state owned company might mean they have a few more controls on their spending than a prince's personal plaything. Then again it is still one of the most secretive funds there is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.