Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Football] Premier League Clubs REALLY pissed off with Saudi takeoi







M

m@goo

New member
Feb 20, 2020
1,056
For me they should be protesting on moral grounds not because they're scared they'll buy all the best players which is what any club with the most money would do and does do.

I thought the FA had a fit and proper persons rule. Doesn't that rule include human rights records and murder?
 


Swansman

Swansman

Pro-peace
May 13, 2019
22,320
Sweden
m@goo said:
For me they should be protesting on moral grounds not because they're scared they'll buy all the best players which is what any club with the most money would do and does do.

I thought the FA had a fit and proper persons rule. Doesn't that rule include human rights records and murder?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Shouldnt be about the money.

Also not sure its just about sponsorship money but also money in other senses as any shady Saudi stuff, and there will be more, could hurt the PL brand.

Obviously this should have been done ages ago though as its the easy way of ignoring FFP.
 
Last edited:


E

Eddiespearritt

Well-known member
May 23, 2012
757
Central Europe
Amazing how some of these clubs have developed some morals all of a sudden, when the boot is on the other foot.

I dimly recall a moment a few months ago, when 6 of these clubs were offered dream sums of money to up sticks and join some bankrolled European Super League.

Only when their own supporters pointed out gently that this wasn't very sporting did they all profess shame and plead for understanding and forgiveness.

Squealing that Newcastle might gain an unfair advantage is all a bit mealy mouthed to me.
 






Commander

Commander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 28, 2004
12,972
London
It's comical really. No sympathy for 90% of those clubs. You reap what you sow.
 


A1X

A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
17,971
Deepest, darkest Sussex
m@goo said:
I thought the FA had a fit and proper persons rule. Doesn't that rule include human rights records and murder?
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that it amounts to little more than a credit check and a convictions check. So Nelson Mandela would fail it but Josef Stalin wouldn't.
 


Couldn't Be Hyypia

Couldn't Be Hyypia

We've come a long long way together
NSC Patron
Nov 12, 2006
15,925
Near Dorchester, Dorset
m@goo said:
For me they should be protesting on moral grounds not because they're scared they'll buy all the best players which is what any club with the most money would do and does do.

I thought the FA had a fit and proper persons rule. Doesn't that rule include human rights records and murder?
Click to expand...

I despise everything about the Saudi regime (and I lived there for a while) but I think it's a tough call on the FA or Newcastle to take a moral stance against the Saudis when it's one of our governments biggest trade partners. This shit starts at the top (or the bottom, depending on your view of politicians).

And the Premier clubs position? A big kid has entered the playground and they are bricking it - the self serving @rseholes.
 






N

nickbrighton

Well-known member
Feb 19, 2016
1,936
Its been covered on other threads, and there is a lot of criticism of the take over by this Saudi Group, by all quarters, however I don't see the same indignation over all the other areas this group has fingers in, which are undoubtedly utilised by many of the same people spitting feathers over the football

The group is heavily invested in some of the biggest names in streaming tv , airlines, car sharing (uber type), all sorts of things but most seem very happy to allow that with barely a whisper of criticism

Im not saying the take-over by this particular group is a good thing, just that there are so many double standards on show, anyone who is happy to stream Disney(I believe it to be them, apologies if its another) or use the taxi service surely is in no position to call foul on one particular investment and ignore the others

There is a whole separate question on the whole "state owned" football clubs, or multi billionaire owners able to just throw a seemingly endless stream of money to effectively ensure success. That goes into funding right across the game though, where would we be without Blooms millions? , which although several magnitudes less than the likes of Abramovich, still must be seen for what it is, a wealthy owner bank roiling a team to success, however benign that ownership is. we are ,to the likes of many league two or one clubs, as City, Chelsea , and now Newcastle are to us

No idea what the ideal format is to ensure fair completion, certainly there are massive issues with the "right and proper person" clause, and one thing is for certain, rightly or wrongly, money talks
 


MJsGhost

MJsGhost

Oooh Matron, I'm an
NSC Patron
Jun 26, 2009
4,522
East
m@goo said:
For me they should be protesting on moral grounds not because they're scared they'll buy all the best players which is what any club with the most money would do and does do.

I thought the FA had a fit and proper persons rule. Doesn't that rule include human rights records and murder?
Click to expand...

That was the whole point of the charade about whether the PIF is separate to the Saudi government or not. The Saudis were worried that they would fail it (funny that given their proclivity for murdering journalists), so wanted to hide behind their state investment fund and claim it is independent of the govt (despite its chairman being the crown prince and several board members being government ministers). Some independent assessors (3 I think) were paid for their opinion and concluded the PIF is controlled by the Saudi govt and therefore not separate, but were ignored for some reason.

Weird isn't it - it's almost as if there are other forces at work.
 




Bozza

Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,832
Back in Sussex
nickbrighton said:
Its been covered on other threads, and there is a lot of criticism of the take over by this Saudi Group, by all quarters, however I don't see the same indignation over all the other areas this group has fingers in, which are undoubtedly utilised by many of the same people spitting feathers over the football

The group is heavily invested in some of the biggest names in streaming tv , airlines, car sharing (uber type), all sorts of things but most seem very happy to allow that with barely a whisper of criticism

Im not saying the take-over by this particular group is a good thing, just that there are so many double standards on show, anyone who is happy to stream Disney(I believe it to be them, apologies if its another) or use the taxi service surely is in no position to call foul on one particular investment and ignore the others
Click to expand...

I really don't get this line of debate, which a few people have used over the last week or so.

PIF own a fraction of one percent of Disney's current issued share capital - a tiny, tiny fraction. Are you suggesting that, as consumers, we should be vetting the entire share register of any company we wish to do business with and boycott any that has a single shareholder that we feel a bit indifferent towards?

There is a world of difference in a nation state fund buying s tiny minority shareholding in a publicly-listed conglomerate and buying all of (or a controlling interest of) a football club, and I'm surprised so many people seem to be bracketing these together. To be honest, it feels like someone made this point on social media a short while ago, and lots of folk have picked it up and run with it, without really considering its merits.
 


S

Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
23,923
GOSBTS
Bozza said:
I really don't get this line of debate, which a few people have used over the last week or so.

PIF own a fraction of one percent of Disney's current issued share capital - a tiny, tiny fraction. Are you suggesting that, as consumers, we should be vetting the entire share register of any company we wish to do business with and boycott any that has a single shareholder that we feel a bit indifferent towards?

There is a world of difference in a nation state fund buying s tiny minority shareholding in a publicly-listed conglomerate and buying all of (or a controlling interest of) a football club, and I'm surprised so many people seem to be bracketing these together. To be honest, it feels like someone made this point on social media a short while ago, and lots of folk have picked it up and run with it, without really considering its merits.
Click to expand...

Agreed - there’s a crappy infographic the geordies love. But most of the share holdings are minimal like you say - and also they are publicly traded companies. Newcastle is a private entity where they have had a significant controlling share holding - completely different to the others they mention
 






Nobby Cybergoat

Nobby Cybergoat

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2021
7,078
I don't think it's that the clubs are pissed off.

Just scared.

Scared of losing their best players and staff, scared of having a team they normally were above now being above them, scared of wage escalation.

As appalled as I am about football being used so egregiously for sportswashing, the other 19 PL clubs are playing this game, of hoarding the wealth of football, so can't complain when someone with more of it comes along. Personally I don't think we should be voting for legally dubious, protectionist measures
 


Arthur

Arthur

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2003
8,589
Buxted Harbour
Bozza said:
I really don't get this line of debate, which a few people have used over the last week or so.

PIF own a fraction of one percent of Disney's current issued share capital - a tiny, tiny fraction. Are you suggesting that, as consumers, we should be vetting the entire share register of any company we wish to do business with and boycott any that has a single shareholder that we feel a bit indifferent towards?

There is a world of difference in a nation state fund buying s tiny minority shareholding in a publicly-listed conglomerate and buying all of (or a controlling interest of) a football club, and I'm surprised so many people seem to be bracketing these together. To be honest, it feels like someone made this point on social media a short while ago, and lots of folk have picked it up and run with it, without really considering its merits.
Click to expand...

Disagree. If you are going to get your knickers in a twist about them buying Newcastle on supposed moral grounds then what does it matter if they've invest $1 or $1b into other ventures?

Making it an unlevel playing field for other teams I could understand but the league is already like that.

I shall await my ban and take it with grace.
 


Bozza

Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
55,832
Back in Sussex
Arthur said:
Disagree. If you are going to get your knickers in a twist about them buying Newcastle on supposed moral grounds then what does it matter if they've invest $1 or $1b into other ventures?

Making it an unlevel playing field for other teams I could understand but the league is already like that.

I shall await my ban and take it with grace.
Click to expand...

You can't see the difference between owning a small minority shareholding of a multi-national conglomerate worth over $50bn over which they are able to exert negligible influence, if any at all, and having full control of a football club - a relatively small enterprise in corporate terms but, more pertinently, is deeply entwined with a local community?

Fair enough.

Must just be me, then.
 


M

m@goo

New member
Feb 20, 2020
1,056
Couldn't Be Hyypia said:
I despise everything about the Saudi regime (and I lived there for a while) but I think it's a tough call on the FA or Newcastle to take a moral stance against the Saudis when it's one of our governments biggest trade partners. This shit starts at the top (or the bottom, depending on your view of politicians).

And the Premier clubs position? A big kid has entered the playground and they are bricking it - the self serving @rseholes.
Click to expand...

Yeah my comment was half tongue in cheek. I doubt there are many club owners in a place to take a moral high ground over anything. But like I say, most probably haven't murdered or executed gay people.
 




W

Wardy's twin

Well-known member
Oct 21, 2014
8,461
I think we all need to accept that the competitive football structures that many on here will have grown up with are long dead - FA CUP dominated by a few teams and many clubs not treating it seriously (including our own) and a Football league which (in general) reflects a table of wealth of the owners. It's what it is , the PL is the source of it problem but we all were happy to get there. The fact that Newcastle might have now come into huge amounts of money is just another page in that book , nothing radically different.

Hope they get relegated though.....
 


S

Shropshire Seagull

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2004
8,519
Telford
Spoken in a Kevin Keegan accent/voice:

I would love it, just love it, if Newcastle got relegated this season!

See then, how they will attract the world's most expensive players to come to blighty and play in the championship - that would pi$$ on their parade ....
 


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here