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

Bozza said:

You can't see the difference between owning a small minority shareholding of a multi-national conglomerate worth over $50bn over which they be 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.

Click to expand...

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...

Springal said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

Arthur said:

Of course I see the difference but as I asked yesterday on another thread what are you expecting them to do at Newcastle? Sack all female staff, ban alcohol, only serve halal pies and behead anyone who makes a mistake?

Click to expand...

Arthur said:

I don't see how this is any different from what happened at Man City or PSG and if you go back far enough Chelsea. How City and Chelsea have the brass tacks to complain about the take over is beyond me.

Click to expand...

nickbrighton said:

I think my point was as Arthur has put more succinctly than my clumsy attempt, was that there is massive outrage supposedly on moral grounds, but the vast majority of us (myself included) don't really care who owns Disney, Uber , or where Primark gets their clothes made, its convenient so we are blind to the behind the scenes, when its Newcastle, which other than maybe not getting the points, it has no direct bearing on us, we can afford to be outraged.

If we aren't worried about what % of Disney is owned by them, why should we be concerned about 80% of Newcastle being owned by them, or why aren't we all protesting the £billions of deals the country makes with Saudi, or looking into our pension funds or isas or whatever it is to see whether or not we would support the companies we are investing with?

I think we are all guilty of double standards here, the Newcastle take over and the scenes of jubilation shown by both fans and some pundits has just highlighted all of our own ability to ignore inconvenient truths and perhaps a lot of the outrage is externalising this in some way .

As with most things , I don't think there is any easy answer, no correct view point, its all far to complicated and nuanced for that, I just think the outpouring of outrage is a bit much given my thoughts above.Others will have equally valid and contradictory view points.

Click to expand...

Bozza said:

I don't believe I've expressed any disgust at Newcastle's new ownership structure, so I'm guessing I'm cool to keep my Disney+ subscription?

You say double standards, I see it as more a case of people picking the battles they wish to fight. There aren't enough hours in the day for anyone to research, learn about and involve themselves in all of the worthy causes that exist in this big, bad world. Just because someone cares about a nation state with a record of highly questionable practices taking control of a football club, doesn't mean they don't care about any other cause.

And surely it's better to be involved in one thing you believe is wrong (even if that means you "ignore" others) than to just let everything go?

Click to expand...

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...

nickbrighton said:

I think my point was as Arthur has put more succinctly than my clumsy attempt, was that there is massive outrage supposedly on moral grounds, but the vast majority of us (myself included) don't really care who owns Disney, Uber , or where Primark gets their clothes made, its convenient so we are blind to the behind the scenes, when its Newcastle, which other than maybe not getting the points, it has no direct bearing on us, we can afford to be outraged.

If we aren't worried about what % of Disney is owned by them, why should we be concerned about 80% of Newcastle being owned by them, or why aren't we all protesting the £billions of deals the country makes with Saudi, or looking into our pension funds or isas or whatever it is to see whether or not we would support the companies we are investing with?

I think we are all guilty of double standards here, the Newcastle take over and the scenes of jubilation shown by both fans and some pundits has just highlighted all of our own ability to ignore inconvenient truths and perhaps a lot of the outrage is externalising this in some way .

As with most things , I don't think there is any easy answer, no correct view point, its all far to complicated and nuanced for that, I just think the outpouring of outrage is a bit much given my thoughts above.Others will have equally valid and contradictory view points.

Click to expand...

Neville's Breakfast said:

But you have said it yourself. We don’t really care who owns Disney etc. We do care about who owns our football club. It’s more personal. By extension we care about the company our football club keeps and my thoughts on Newcastle are exactly the same as my thoughts on Chelsea, Man C etc. I didn’t wave those takeovers through and the fact they were allowed does not affect my opinions on the current shenanigans. There are no inconvenient truths is any of this because I am not advocating that Saudi Arabia be excluded from the global capitalist system rather that they not be allowed to sportswash their reputation in our football league. You don’t see pictures of their grinning new chairman when you watch Disney but you certainly do at the football because that’s the whole idea of their investment.

Click to expand...

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...

Is it PotG? said:

Saudi Takeoi....can he play LB?

Click to expand...

Lower West Stander said:

Its a fair point you make but I think it needs to be looked at in a wider context.

In the UK, the financial media are obsessed with companies with publicly quoted equity - in fact there are many, many large private companies which are owned by some very dodgy individuals and sovereign wealth funds from dubious regimes. How many people know for example that a large number of M&S warehouses in the UK are owned by a Chinese sovereign wealth fund?

Newcastle are no different in that respect and I just don't see how anyone can object to them being owned by the Saudis when many companies who we use in day to day life have equally dodgy ownership. Howls of version over their takeover is just the tip of the iceberg in UK Plc....

What gets my goat more is FFP - its absolute rubbish. Just please stop pretending that all the financial chicanery around it has any credence whatsoever.

Click to expand...

zefarelly said:

No, he's a 20 a season striker, left footed with a bullet header.

Click to expand...

Bry Nylon said:

On Radio 5 last night, Rory Smith described Newcastle United as nothing more than "The marketing arm of an oppressive regime."

Of course, PIF hold minority positions in a number of global blue chips in order to limit the Saudi government's future reliance on oil revenues. That is just how the global economy works. But beyond that there is something particularly distasteful and cynical (to me) about buying 80% of a football club for no other reason than an attempt to get people to look the other way whilst you persecute minorities, withhold basic human rights and commit atrocities with impunity.

Like everybody else, I was queuing up to buy their petrol 3 weeks ago but that doesn't mean I'm going to dance around with a tea towel on my head and marvel at Newcastle's elevation to the footballing stratosphere.

Click to expand...

Bozza said:

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.

Click to expand...