GRcade

Finish.Last wrote:

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:

JChalmers wrote:This Saudi ramp up and mass signing players definitely feels like when China did it a few years ago.

Yeah indeed. I also can't help but be a bit suspicious as to how many Chelsea players are linked considering Saudi PIF (who own all these Saudi clubs) are big investors in Clearlake who own Chelsea. A slight conflict of interest there.

Saudi PIF also own Newcastle, don’t they? As well a the top four clubs in Saudi? And a major part of Chelsea?

Yeah it's all a bit dodgy really. They are noted as major investors in Clearlake which is the investment consortium that owns Chelsea. As clear lake is a private investment fund it's not clear what their stake if any may be in Clearlake.

Murky Lake amirite?

I think that many folk - including myself - are probably thinking "it's a bad thing that Saudi Arabia is buying up clubs and players for crazy money and paying them silly wages; it could harm our game here in the UK".

But... isn't this pretty much what (some) Italian clubs did in the late 80s and (some) English and Spanish clubs have done since the early 2000s? Unless a global set of financial rules for football are agreed - and this is pretty unlikely or will at least take many years - there is probably not too much that can be done. Individual leagues may set rules but, with the vast amounts of cash being offered, it's likely that players will be lured away.

jawa_ wrote:I think that many folk - including myself - are probably thinking "it's a bad thing that Saudi Arabia is buying up clubs and players for crazy money and paying them silly wages; it could harm our game here in the UK".

But... isn't this pretty much what (some) Italian clubs did in the late 80s and (some) English and Spanish clubs have done since the early 2000s? Unless a global set of financial rules for football are agreed - and this is pretty unlikely or will at least take many years - there is probably not too much that can be done. Individual leagues may set rules but, with the vast amounts of cash being offered, it's likely that players will be lured away.

It's already harmed the game, City are dominating every competition.

jawa_ wrote:I think that many folk - including myself - are probably thinking "it's a bad thing that Saudi Arabia is buying up clubs and players for crazy money and paying them silly wages; it could harm our game here in the UK".

But... isn't this pretty much what (some) Italian clubs did in the late 80s and (some) English and Spanish clubs have done since the early 2000s? Unless a global set of financial rules for football are agreed - and this is pretty unlikely or will at least take many years - there is probably not too much that can be done. Individual leagues may set rules but, with the vast amounts of cash being offered, it's likely that players will be lured away.

I think the big difference between what's happening now with what happened in the past is that we now have the investment arms of nation states getting involved. It used to be that the big clubs were big and could offer big transfer fees and wages because of the money they made, but now you have historically middling clubs like Man City, Newcastle and PSG having effectively bottomless pits of wealth to draw from and it's just warping the entire game. PSG signing Neymar warped global football transfers for years, and they were only able to do that because the money they had access to came from Qatar's investment fund.

Preezy wrote:

jawa_ wrote:I think that many folk - including myself - are probably thinking "it's a bad thing that Saudi Arabia is buying up clubs and players for crazy money and paying them silly wages; it could harm our game here in the UK".

But... isn't this pretty much what (some) Italian clubs did in the late 80s and (some) English and Spanish clubs have done since the early 2000s? Unless a global set of financial rules for football are agreed - and this is pretty unlikely or will at least take many years - there is probably not too much that can be done. Individual leagues may set rules but, with the vast amounts of cash being offered, it's likely that players will be lured away.

I think the big difference between what's happening now with what happened in the past is that we now have the investment arms of nation states getting involved. It used to be that the big clubs were big and could offer big transfer fees and wages because of the money they made, but now you have historically middling clubs like Man City, Newcastle and PSG having effectively bottomless pits of wealth to draw from and it's just warping the entire game. PSG signing Neymar warped global football transfers for years, and they were only able to do that because the money they had access to came from Qatar's investment fund.

/sportswashing

Fin.

Yeah, SoK beat me to it. The fact what these nations are doing is affecting football is a secondary issue.

No disrespect meant to Preezy's post.

Football should be nationalised. All clubs get given the same amount of cash each year and are not allowed to spend any more than that allocated amount.

No worries, I could have summed it up like too

I do think there's another side of this that doesn't really get any attention, mainly because of the sportswashing issue - I'm against any nation state owning football clubs, not just those that have questionable human rights records. I would be against Man City, PSG or Newcastle being owned by the Norwegian Pension Fund, for example, it's just fundamentally unfair and leaves clubs also seeking nation-level investment in order to keep up. There's also the soft power aspect as well, this slow creeping influence of other countries buying up all of the historic community institutions of the UK so that they're just assets in a portfolio, it's all mildly depressing.

Preezy wrote:No worries, I could have summed it up like too

I do think there's another side of this that doesn't really get any attention, mainly because of the sportswashing issue - I'm against any nation state owning football clubs, not just those that have questionable human rights records. I would be against Man City, PSG or Newcastle being owned by the Norwegian Pension Fund, for example, it's just fundamentally unfair and leaves clubs also seeking nation-level investment in order to keep up. There's also the soft power aspect as well, this slow creeping influence of other countries buying up all of the historic community institutions of the UK so that they're just assets in a portfolio, it's all mildly depressing.

Do you think it was fair to Championship/League One/League Two/non-league clubs when Rupert Murdoch's Sky pumped so much money into the Premier League?

Moggy wrote:

Preezy wrote:No worries, I could have summed it up like too

I do think there's another side of this that doesn't really get any attention, mainly because of the sportswashing issue - I'm against any nation state owning football clubs, not just those that have questionable human rights records. I would be against Man City, PSG or Newcastle being owned by the Norwegian Pension Fund, for example, it's just fundamentally unfair and leaves clubs also seeking nation-level investment in order to keep up. There's also the soft power aspect as well, this slow creeping influence of other countries buying up all of the historic community institutions of the UK so that they're just assets in a portfolio, it's all mildly depressing.

Do you think it was fair to Championship/League One/League Two/non-league clubs when Rupert Murdoch's Sky pumped so much money into the Premier League?

Obviously not, does anyone?

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Preezy wrote:No worries, I could have summed it up like too

I do think there's another side of this that doesn't really get any attention, mainly because of the sportswashing issue - I'm against any nation state owning football clubs, not just those that have questionable human rights records. I would be against Man City, PSG or Newcastle being owned by the Norwegian Pension Fund, for example, it's just fundamentally unfair and leaves clubs also seeking nation-level investment in order to keep up. There's also the soft power aspect as well, this slow creeping influence of other countries buying up all of the historic community institutions of the UK so that they're just assets in a portfolio, it's all mildly depressing.

Do you think it was fair to Championship/League One/League Two/non-league clubs when Rupert Murdoch's Sky pumped so much money into the Premier League?

Obviously not, does anyone?

Edit: I misread your post.

Football will never be fair and there's too much money and prestige for it to ever be truly equal.

Evil regimes, or people tied to evil regimes, shouldn't be allowed to buy clubs. But I'm not sure an American billionaire gives more of a gooseberry fool about local communities than a country that buys a club.

Moggy wrote:Football will never be fair and there's too much money and prestige for it to ever be truly equal.

Evil regimes, or people tied to evil regimes, shouldn't be allowed to buy clubs. But I'm not sure an American billionaire gives more of a gooseberry fool about local communities than a country that buys a club.

Yeah that's probably true.

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:Football will never be fair and there's too much money and prestige for it to ever be truly equal.

Evil regimes, or people tied to evil regimes, shouldn't be allowed to buy clubs. But I'm not sure an American billionaire gives more of a gooseberry fool about local communities than a country that buys a club.

Yeah that's probably true.

It's completely true. No one wants the sportwashing but the reality is is that the only people who can afford to buy a club like United and actually pay the debt and invest in the infrastructure is an oil rich billionaire. Personally id rather he gets it (it's looking like he will now) than Ratcliffe who cannot actually afford it off his own back and so is essentially a slightly more palatable form of the Glazers with his percentages and share options.

I want an owner to pay the debt, invest in the club and then let it go back to doing what it did better than anyone before the debt strangled it. Namely pay for itself with its massive appeal and marketability. We've got a good coach and a promising squad that with the right handling and investment can start challenging again.

Other people can wring their hands about the ethics. The reality is that that is how the football world operates.

Manchester is currently the centre of the footballing world. Certainly in Europe. But thats skewed heavily in the Blue half. About time we got back to a level playing field with our Noisy neighbours. That could still take a considerable amount of time, though.
Without cooking the books like we know they have been doing all this time.

Lineker said United and the two Spanish giants are the three biggest clubs in the world. He's not wrong. Its about time we started steering back towards that. We cant do that without the investment that city have had and Newcastle are now enjoying.

Of course United being United. The sale will drag on and on and we wont have bought who we wanted or needed by kickoff time.

Photek wrote:

jawa_ wrote:I think that many folk - including myself - are probably thinking "it's a bad thing that Saudi Arabia is buying up clubs and players for crazy money and paying them silly wages; it could harm our game here in the UK".

But... isn't this pretty much what (some) Italian clubs did in the late 80s and (some) English and Spanish clubs have done since the early 2000s? Unless a global set of financial rules for football are agreed - and this is pretty unlikely or will at least take many years - there is probably not too much that can be done. Individual leagues may set rules but, with the vast amounts of cash being offered, it's likely that players will be lured away.

It's already harmed the game, City are dominating every competition.

One champions league win in 12 seasons of trying. Liverpool have won the same number in that time and with the same number of final appearances. 7 out of 13 league titles is amazing but its just over half in that time period. They've been great. Amazing at times and their football has been a joy to watch if im honest but they've been pushed hard a few times. By Liverpool twice and even Arsenal this season. Pep has dominated the league but that's his first CL win for 12 years.

City have only harmed the game if they're found to be cheating. The positives they've brought to Manchester and the whole club and community are massive. The investment has for the most part been measured, considered and shown great foresight and planning for the future. In the community, the corporate aspects and the academy. That's the great irony. They shouldn't have needed to cheat but they couldn't help themselves.


It'd be interesting if an oil Billionaire buys Liverpool and gives them the cash influx and infrastructure they need to achieve parity. Interesting what your take would be then.

We're gonna win the Euros

Kovacic moving from Chelsea to City for just £30m seems like a steal, surprised Chelsea are so willingly strengthening their supposed rivals. Losing Kante and looking like losing Mount as well, doesn't seem to be any strategy to any of it

Arsenal should throw Thomas Partey into the Rice deal, sounds like they want shot of him anyway and he'd be a decent signing for West Ham

ITSMILNER wrote:Arsenal should throw Thomas Partey into the Rice deal, sounds like they want shot of him anyway and he'd be a decent signing for West Ham

Not sure throwing in a rapist who will hopefully end up in jail is much of a deal sweetener