I have no problems with it. A lot of us here would accept them if it was our club that's in dire straights.
Maybe the noisy neighbors would be quiet for once.
Maybe the noisy neighbors would be quiet for once.
Newcastle United now owned by the PIF | PL receives "legally binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not control NUFC" ;)
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
so you think that barça ownership (a club owned by over 100k people) is the most despicable ownership of the world.
surprising, but ok.
I think we've become the noisy neighbours now..
I was talking about you personally you numpty. To the newbies or was that someone else?
honestlyThe other Premier League clubs are not happy:
Angry Premier League clubs demand emergency meeting on Newcastle deal
- Other 19 clubs united in opposition to Newcastle takeover
- Clubs concerned Premier League’s brand could be damaged
https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...bs-demand-emergency-meeting-on-newcastle-deal
Angry Premier League clubs demand emergency meeting on Newcastle deal
- Other 19 clubs united in opposition to Newcastle takeover
- Clubs concerned Premier League’s brand could be damaged
https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...bs-demand-emergency-meeting-on-newcastle-deal
Too late. Its done.
A breakaway league will eventually happen. The Super League is inevitable.
What possible objection can City have to this deal?
A warchest to make the City sheik shrink.
It would make more sense now.
The owner of Newcastle, metaphorically, has a bigger reproductive organ than the owner of City. They can no longer swing their said reproductive organ around and get everything they want.
So they may then appoint as the manager the well known Dutchman with the surname of Advocaat? Then they can even boast about their manager too.
Yep, its not. The fans are not celebrating human rights abusers buying their club, they are celebrating super rich owners buying their club. They are ignoring that these same owners are horrible people. Just like people in the UK ignore that their country funds arms in Saudi Arabia. It is very much comparable, as it is the same thing. Are the people who say fans should protest this takeover, also protest against UK's policies wrt Saudi Arabia?
Its selective outrage really. I bet 95% people here wouldnt care a bit about the human rights things if these were poor owners. The real issue people have is extremely rich owners basically funding teams to success, wrapped inside a moral grandstanding argument. Before someone says I'm engaging in whataboutism, lemme just say my point is about the hypocrisy and double standards.
It sounds very hollow now considering the track record of other owners in the PL, and where their money comes from.
Last edited:
The only way out is super league.
The only way they become a powerhouse quickly is if they inflate the market so much that they’re the only team that can afford anyone, and if that’s the case, the footballing powers will find a way to limit them.
And by inflating the market, I mean spending 150m+ regularly and paying players 2 million a week. Which they won’t do.
It's a sovereign fund, it will need some level of ROI at some point. I bet it will be a property play. Buy up the property around the stadium which is smack in the middle of the city and turn the entire city centre into some sports Disneyland, topless men albeit obese ones to boot. Dhahran/Aramco of football.
A lot of the clubs have dabbled into it, Spurs being the latest. But in Newcastle's case, its in the middle of the city., lots of human traffic that is not being exploited.
Otherwise, a football stadium seems like a redundant property, being used mainly once every two weeks..
We should just let City Newcastle and Chelsea duke it out in the oil world series and form a new league and allow 3 extra teams from the championship.
I think it'd be great if we sell them Martial. Ronaldo, Cavani, Greenwood are enough for the ST position. The problem though is, who's going to accept Martial's wage demands? If Newcastle do, then that's great.
We should only sell them VDB if we don't sell Lingard. We need 1 CAM on the bench in case Bruno gets injured and for rotating Bruno to avoid fatigue. One of VDB or Lingard has to stay at the club. Whoever is easier to sell in terms of wages should be sold.
Baily should be sold. He's our 4th best CB but he's not reliable because of his injury record.
Money from these 3 sales would be more than enough to buy a starting quality DM.
We should only sell them VDB if we don't sell Lingard. We need 1 CAM on the bench in case Bruno gets injured and for rotating Bruno to avoid fatigue. One of VDB or Lingard has to stay at the club. Whoever is easier to sell in terms of wages should be sold.
Baily should be sold. He's our 4th best CB but he's not reliable because of his injury record.
Money from these 3 sales would be more than enough to buy a starting quality DM.
[
Long time no see, Brophs.
Long time no see, Brophs.
Many are outraged that the UK sells arms to Saudi Arabia.
Alan Shearer on the BBC: "Of course there are questions about human rights (i.e. "I don't give a shit, we can buy anyone we want and win the league.")..."
I think most of the barcodes will have that attitude. Poor City, there's always somebody with a faster car...
I think most of the barcodes will have that attitude. Poor City, there's always somebody with a faster car...
Financial fair play? They have no revenue to speak of.
Regarding Ashley, I could fully understand why the fans despised him and are now glad to be rid of him. He clearly only cared about the club not getting relegated each year to cling on to the Premier League TV money, and nothing more.
I believe that the club's commercial revenue barely increased during his 14 years in charge, and the club's offices were raided by HMRC. The stadium was left to rot and decay, and their training ground is among the worst in the Premier League (and is also far worse than Sunderland's or Middlesbrough's). Talk that he 'stabilised the club' was nonsense, and poor decisions that he made heavily contributed to their 2 relegations.
The likes of Ferdinand defending Ashley purely because Sports Direct exclusively sold his clothing brand, Keys and Gray also leaping to his defence etc. was cringeworthy.
However on the flipside, the way that 'some' of their fans acted that no-one else could possibly understand their 'suffering', that they had it far worse with Ashley's ownership than anyone else, was also cringeworthy. Numerous clubs that have been in the Premier League in the 21st century have had considerably worse owners than Ashley, from Leeds, to Charlton, to Blackpool, to Coventry, to Bradford etc. I don't like Leeds at all (a common sentiment on this forum I'm sure), but I'm sure that Ashley would have been a godsend compared to a succession of truly disastrous owners that they had for example.
I believe that the club's commercial revenue barely increased during his 14 years in charge, and the club's offices were raided by HMRC. The stadium was left to rot and decay, and their training ground is among the worst in the Premier League (and is also far worse than Sunderland's or Middlesbrough's). Talk that he 'stabilised the club' was nonsense, and poor decisions that he made heavily contributed to their 2 relegations.
The likes of Ferdinand defending Ashley purely because Sports Direct exclusively sold his clothing brand, Keys and Gray also leaping to his defence etc. was cringeworthy.
However on the flipside, the way that 'some' of their fans acted that no-one else could possibly understand their 'suffering', that they had it far worse with Ashley's ownership than anyone else, was also cringeworthy. Numerous clubs that have been in the Premier League in the 21st century have had considerably worse owners than Ashley, from Leeds, to Charlton, to Blackpool, to Coventry, to Bradford etc. I don't like Leeds at all (a common sentiment on this forum I'm sure), but I'm sure that Ashley would have been a godsend compared to a succession of truly disastrous owners that they had for example.
Last edited:
Now you can’t win nothing if you’re not a state-owned club
The difference between Newcastle fans and the average Uk citizen who doesn’t take to the streets over their countries relationship with Saudi is that the average Uk citizen isn’t being cynically weaponised in a PR battle. The Saudis brought the club to launder their reputation. They know that this is the best way to instantly generate an army of advocates online. Shouting down criticism of their human rights abuses and parroting whatever talking points they want in the media that week to defend their latest atrocities.
Those fans are being used in the most blatant and depressing manner. Used to whitewash ongoing state sanctioned humans rights abuses that vastly exceed anything the UK government has done in the recent past. They’ve become pawns of genuinely evil people. If they don’t even take a moment to think about what it means to be used in that manner then more fool them.
Liverpool won the league 2 seasons ago and the champions league the year before that.
A state owned club has never won the champions league.
PSG couldn't even win their domestic league last year.
This opinion only emphasises the thread re. Fans not understanding the importance of a manager. If it was as simple as spending vast sums of money to sign the best players, PSG and City would win everything, every season. If we had a world class manager and coaching staff we could compete with any state owned club, just as Liverpool are thanks to Klopp.
Why would you want to win nothing anyway?
Would you have preffered him at Blackburn to the chicken men?
If you don't got that you ain't not never gonna not win nothing.
Pull the other one. Compared to the owners of Liverpool, Utd and Spurs this is another level of s***housery. Something is deeply wrong when this is allowed to happen. Blood money.
The same naive comments were made when City were taken over.
Newcastle already have a much bigger fanbase, their own stadium, a one club passionate city. Recent history in PL battle and Champions League. The have a genuine claim of “sleeping giant”, the new manager and players will have a packed stadium absolutely bouncing from day one of their arrival. It’ll feel much more “legitimate” than Citeh ever did.
The location of Newcastle has zero bearing, apparently Manchester was a handicap yet superstar after superstar keep coming since the wages became amongst the best in the World.
It’s absolutely inevitable, I’d imagine it starts with Conte & a massive January.
The Telegraph reckon that they can spend £190m in January without breaching FFP!
Newcastle are big enough to not have to fiddle the figures as much as City.
Hopefully selling clubs will bleed them dry. City had an advantage in that aspect, the transfer fees weren't super crazy at the initial years of their takeover.
Then surely at first you look to nip in on players just about to renew contracts, ones running their contracts down etc. Going for ones on long contracts you most certainly get rinsed. Build your reputation, get a top manager and then players will agitate to join you anyway.
I'm certainly more open to it than I was last year. The reality is there will be more state owned clubs popping up in the future and a super league will likely be the last resort for some clubs to stay afloat.