This might be relevant for us if/when INEOS get involved. Why not start a new thread? It’s got nothing to do with sponsorship deals.
Shady new sponsorship for Newcastle
- Thread starter Giggsyking
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
More than 60% of the clubs in the Premier League have ownership that have other clubs on their books.
Against fecking Bournemouth.
It'll be tough to get this voted through, they'll need at least 14 of the 20 clubs to vote in favour and its unlikely City will and neither will Newcastle, Sheff Utd, and Chelsea who are owned by Saudi Arabia.
Posted in the other Newcastle thread, but it fits better here:
2022: Buy Kieran Trippier from Atletico Madrid for ~30m less than other teams were being quoted.
2023: Atletico are now sponsored to the tune of 30m/year by a brand new PIF owned airline that doesn't even have any planes yet.
Nothing to see here.
2022: Buy Kieran Trippier from Atletico Madrid for ~30m less than other teams were being quoted.
2023: Atletico are now sponsored to the tune of 30m/year by a brand new PIF owned airline that doesn't even have any planes yet.
Nothing to see here.
The amount isn't what matters. What matters is the fact that it's obviously not a genuine, autonomous company that has any business sponsoring some English club for £25m per year. They didn't even have a fecking website last month. It's their Saudi owners smuggling money into the club by way of a front, and it isn't even ambiguous. It's self-evidently the case. There's no sense talking about whether or not the size of the sponsorship makes it valid.
Get a handful of these fake sponsorships established and it's worth as much as a top-tier deal that clubs normally have to earn through decades of success and a slow build-up of global esteem. By bundling it into smaller sums, they expect it to fly under the radar.
Right now the way I see it, united aren't going to be in any position to compete with city, so we have to suffer watching them win trebles while we struggle. If newcastle can close that gap and start to take the success away from city, its the lesser of 2 evils.
If united somehow get there shit together then I'll worry about newcastle and there dodgy dealings
Chelsea is not owned by Saudi Arabia.
I think that’s the airline sponsoring front of shirt on Chelsea’s jersey next year.Posted in the other Newcastle thread, but it fits better here:
2022: Buy Kieran Trippier from Atletico Madrid for ~30m less than other teams were being quoted.
2023: Atletico are now sponsored to the tune of 30m/year by a brand new PIF owned airline that doesn't even have any planes yet.
Nothing to see here.
In fairness though, he FA said “NO” to the other sponsor applicants like Paramount+ who wanted the spot.
Infinite Athlete had to provide 10 years of financial records just to get the spot this year …
I was pretty surprised that this rumor became enough of a thing that Ben Jacobs felt the need to come out and actually say it was nonsense.
Those poor clubs
Apparently they are partly owned by a company that is owned by the same investors who own Newcastle
Interesting that for such a "big" company that was apparently founded in 1997, their wiki page was only created June this year and they didn't even have a website prior to 2020
All the middle east clubs are doing dodgy deals...we all know it, and it doesn't really bother me as whatever rules are put in place, rich clubs will always find a way around them.
What does bug me is the media's reaction/celebrating Newcastle as this plucky little underdog club come good, when the truth is they are one of the riches clubs in the world and owned by the Saudi government ffs.
What does bug me is the media's reaction/celebrating Newcastle as this plucky little underdog club come good, when the truth is they are one of the riches clubs in the world and owned by the Saudi government ffs.
Apparently they are not. Clearlake is an investment firm. Saudis invest money. That is the end of the relationship. I invest money, it does not make me an owner, nor do I or them have any say in Clearlake Capital. It is just typical internet silliness like Bigfoot built the Pyramids and people repeat it.
Even though "owner" would not be the most proper way to characterize it in lay terms because it implies a high degree of control, a limited partner in a fund will still have some degree of influence (even if not always on paper), even if they are not totally controlling the whole show. Just as it's silly to pretend that Clearlake are subject to the complete control of the Saudis, it's also a bit off the mark to suggest that the extent of the relationship ends when the money from such a big source of institutional capital is deposited into the Clearlake accounts. Saudi is not some regular Joe retail investor and they will have plenty of rights under the Clearlake's partnership agreement, some of which might include delayed disbursement of funds, depending on how it is structured. If they plan on raising other funds, they might want to keep the Saudis happy as well. I doubt any of us knows the true extent of the influence the Saudis are exerting on Todd & Co.
And yet the post that started this side debate said the Saudis owned Chelsea, which they clearly do not.
Wouldn’t a rule like this negate any benefit from a multi-club model?
I’m quite excited at the prospect of being part of an ownership group which can be mutually beneficial for all clubs in the group in terms of access to players, development of youth etc….
I understand why clubs that are singularly owned might be against this, but the majority aren’t and stand to lose out by voting for such a rule. I don’t get it.
I’m quite excited at the prospect of being part of an ownership group which can be mutually beneficial for all clubs in the group in terms of access to players, development of youth etc….
I understand why clubs that are singularly owned might be against this, but the majority aren’t and stand to lose out by voting for such a rule. I don’t get it.
Sure, but that was invoked within the context of a discussion regarding the vote on this temporary ban. The Saudis do not need to "own" Chelsea in order to try to exert influence for something that would potentially affect another asset of theirs that they do own (Newcastle).
It's shady as feck because there's zero need to do it. There's countless refs that would be able to do a similar job. It's not like they're fantastic at it. Even if there's nothing more going on, it's a nudge to the refs that they'll get paid (probably very well) if they toe the line.
Again, you would need to believe Saudis have any type of influence over Boehly and Clearlake. To draw a parallel to Newcastle and Chelsea is silly. Unless you can show any influence because the invested into a fund that anyone can invest into.
As a limited partner in their fund, they do have influence. Neither you nor I knows exactly how much or whether it would be worthwhile to the Saudis to use their influence for this particular matter. And it's not a fund that anyone can invest into. Go try investing in Clearlake and see how that goes for you.
You don't? You don't believe there's a conflict of interest?
I think oppo fans really really want there to be one. When any of you can show any, and I do mean any influence, we can talk.
This exists, do I think the Saudis will have influence over Man United? No
Saudi Arabia's Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu has signed SR7. 5 billion ($1.9 billion) worth of investment agreements with the chemical company INEOS Europe to build two factories in Jubail Industrial city
INEOS doesn't own Utd but that would of course be a conflict of interest.
I'm constantly amazed by the degree of ignorance or naivety on this board concerning conflicts of interest - fyi, they're not all illegal, most industries are riddled with them, and they're spreading like mad in football. It's really silly to ignore the obvious.
It is much more silly to connect dots that are not connected. Just because money is invested to exact a return of profit does not mean they are doing so to try to influence a football team. It means they want to make money with firms that have a great track record of producing large returns. Football fans really are fanatical in the conspiracies they come up with.
Wilful ignorance is great, on the other hand.
By all means, please do show any example of influence.
I'll do one better - do you understand what a conflict of interest is?
sigh, just as you downplayed the conflict of interest with INEOS, there are levels to actual CoI. Then there is perceived CoI. In sports it is usually the perception of CoI thrown around rather than anything meaningful. Saudis money is so woven into British everything we could play this game about everything. When you can show an actual problem with Chelsea and the Saudis, like the current transfer with Newcastle, then it would be a meaningful conversation. Right now it is just the run of the mill oppo fan pointing to a perceived conflict of interest.
It would per the current rules, yes.
Even if it's just 25% on paper, if the terms mean they effectively take control of the "football side", the conflict is blatant.
They would - as it seems - be "influential" owners of two clubs that potentially feature in the same competition (the CL).
I mean, they outright own Nice and if they actually "control" United's football operation, that surely means they're "influential" owners.
The loan rule should have been in place anyway. Would be incredibly disheartening to see us pull a scummy move like that even if "it's allowed under the current regulations" IMO.
The PIF were interested in investing… primarily due I think to the development expansion of that Harbor area in London and other projects under the Venture banner of Clearlake.
I do not believe they have actually made any significant investment to this point though. People are conflating news of their interest with the recent 500m investment in the fund made by Ares. Ares is an American company though.
Technically the PIF has more money invested in the company funding Arsenal than us.
Last edited:
Can't believe Eminem would align himself with such a hate filled organisation.
How have I downplayed it? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, by the way.
Where on earth are you getting this from? Please provide your source.
Still waiting for you to show any at all influence.
Nothing to see. Adam needs to keep an eye out for shady looking men with duffle bags.