Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2021-2022 Football Thread
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"How did yous guys mess this up. I thought that difference between them would be black and white !!!" (facepalm)
That's still not as good as "Signings! We need signings!"
"Sign Ings? OK, let's sign Danny Ings."
"Sign Ings? OK, let's sign Danny Ings."
So that begs the question...first big signing for the new owners? They'll want to to make a statement of some sort.Newcastle could do with a signIngs.
I'm thinking a Zlatan-esque signing. Big name. Swansong. Not one for the future.
They're looking down the barrel of a bleak gun at the moment perhaps they would take it.
had he got Newcastle a few years later perhaps we would have a different opinion. I’ve always felt as bad as he was he never let our impending financial meltdown materialise. It was just that he never did anything for the next ten years either.
Under FFP, how many of those three could they sign first-up? Coutinho and Ramsey, maybe? Bale would have a large payout clause that potentially wouldn't be worth paying.
Then I suppose it'd become a raiding party on the less wealthy Prem clubs...
I don’t think it’s likely they would be planning on all 3.
FFP runs over consecutive seasons (3 I believe) due to the past owner being tight it’s been reported they could spend £205m in the next year. To be honest I’m not keen for them to go spunking heaps. I would prefer them to build up in a more structured manor than just going mad.
I’m more interested in getting the right players than big names.
Jesse Lingard has also been mentioned and I would take him over all of the other three.
I just have a feeling that they are going to make a massive statement and transform the squad...not necessarily in the right way, but with has much cash as they are allowed and then some.
They may prove me wrong, but I have this niggling feeling that this will be a p!ss!ng war between Man Citeh and Toon over the next couple of seasons until it all settles down.
I don’t think that’s going to be the case straight away. The talk coming form Amanda Stavely seemed to suggest it wouldn’t be the case.
There’s a lot of scrutiny on the club and I can’t see them being able to get past FFP.
They need to invest in the club heavily training ground academy etc. luckily that’s not included in FFP.
Can't have Mbappe recovering in the wheelie bin of ice can we?
I suppose the assumption most people are making is that Newcastle United are now another Man City - bottomless wealth and run by a slick gulf state looking to burnish their (dodgy) national image abroad with some Premier League and hopefully European Trophies.
Not an unreasonable assumption, though time will tell what their actual ambitions and capabilities are. Bad news for every club other than Chelsea and Man City as well, as they can (theoretically) outspend everyone else in the league now.
One thing they do have that Man City didn't really have are some big 'club legends' like Shearer and Keegan. If they take a page out of Man Utd's playbook such 'legends' would be hired and form the public face of the club, human shields further insulating the ownership from scrutiny or critique as long as the money keeps flowing.
Of course, the emergence of another PSG/Man City 'state club' means further inflation of the transfer market for all clubs. I don't necessarily expect to see huge transfers in the short term but you never know. It could be that a statement signing is planned just to make a statement, even if it won't really improve the team much by itself.
Bread and circuses, you know.
Not an unreasonable assumption, though time will tell what their actual ambitions and capabilities are. Bad news for every club other than Chelsea and Man City as well, as they can (theoretically) outspend everyone else in the league now.
One thing they do have that Man City didn't really have are some big 'club legends' like Shearer and Keegan. If they take a page out of Man Utd's playbook such 'legends' would be hired and form the public face of the club, human shields further insulating the ownership from scrutiny or critique as long as the money keeps flowing.
Of course, the emergence of another PSG/Man City 'state club' means further inflation of the transfer market for all clubs. I don't necessarily expect to see huge transfers in the short term but you never know. It could be that a statement signing is planned just to make a statement, even if it won't really improve the team much by itself.
Bread and circuses, you know.
Newcastle's LGBTQ+ group, United With Pride, has released a statement about the PIF takeover, taking the opportunity to 'formally welcome the new owners' and seeing the ownership situation as a chance to have a 'positive influence' on Saudi domestic social policy.
Homosexuality is a crime punishable by a variety of methods including public flogging, imprisonment, torture, and death in Saudi Arabia. United With Pride, as an organization, would not be permitted to exist there.
Homosexuality is a crime punishable by a variety of methods including public flogging, imprisonment, torture, and death in Saudi Arabia. United With Pride, as an organization, would not be permitted to exist there.
I feel like I come across as defending the Saudi regime and I just want to make it clear I’m not.
On this issue what’s the alternative? The group are obviously aware of the situation in Saudi but if they come out distance themselves from the club and get no involvement.
Or they take a more proactive view and work with the club. This in turn is then beamed in to households in Saudi Arabia via TV and social media.
The thing to remember is the regime and it’s ideas aren’t unpopular in Saudi, if there’s to be change the kingdom it has to come from the people and that will only happen with exposure. Sports washing is going to work both ways. Every other post on Newcastle social media is by an Arab at the moment so there’s a big platform to be had.
Last edited:
I suspect that there is truth that Ashley technically turned down larger offers than the PIF-led consortium, but I also suspect Ashley is omitting some key facts.
It’s not an uncommon thing in football takeovers for the buyers to pay via instalments. Previously the Ashley regime negotiated with other interested parties in 2016-17 where a part of the agreement would be that Ashley would lend part of the capital to the buyers to buy the club from Ashley, but the buyers needed to fund the rest themselves. Had this gone through Ashley would have received maybe 40-50% of the asking price now and then be paid the rest back over several years.
The reality for Ashley is that the PIF-led consortium had the cash all ready to be transferred into his account. Sure, he could probably have sold it for another £20-million to someone else but he would have needed to wait longer to get the full amount. £305million is worth more to Ashley now than e.g. £325million spread over 5 years - and the cost of chasing to get every penny paid.
I think Ashley’s line that he is selling to PIF out of generosity because they can ‘take the club forward’ is merely spin. I think he sold to PIF because they had the full cash amount right now.
Ashley is also a businessman who will be looking for investment in further ventures. Taking a small hit here to not upset an investment fund of this scale is probably just good business.
Getting 'no involevment' with the club through opposition to PIF is a better stance than potentially becoming their tool and losing credibility.
I, myself, want to make it clear that I am not primarily directing my ire at NUFC the club or the Newcastle fans. My concerns are directed elsewhere for the most part. It is angering to see how the questions seem to be directed primarily at the club and fans - the least guilty parties! If the Big Finger of Blame is to be pointed, it should be pointed first at the Premier League and their laughable vetting of owners, at PIF for being a front for the barbaric Saudi government, at Ashley for not giving a shiny you-know-what about anything whatever apart from money, at Stavely and Co for being shills for PIF, at the FA for their cowardly supine 'oversight' of how football is run in this country, and ultimately the government for not stepping in to keep things from going to far.
The fans have a difficult choice to make now, however. The supporters trust, and United With Pride, have taken the line that reform through engagement is the best approach for fans at this early juncture. I understand the logic of their decision but I do not agree - the Saudis will never listen in a meaningful way when it comes to the basic issue here: human rights in Saudi Arabia. It's a very uncomfortable truth and one that people will be tempted to simply rationalize away. But it is the reality, and PIF will use those groups for their own purposes if they can.
And the tragedy of it is, Newcastle fans face this choice knowing that, apart from moral responsibility, they will never personally bear the burden of Saudi rule the way people in Saudi Arabia do. It's all so far away...the classic westerner's dilemma. But it's increasingly intruding on our daily lives.
Anyway, I don't mean to bang on about this endlessly. There will, I'm afraid, be years to speak of it further. I blame the international break.
What benefit does does no involvement have for the LGBT community on Tyneside or in Saudi?
It feels trivial to say but MBS has taken some steps to make Saudi more liberal. Women can now drive and yea that’s a ridiculous thing to say and laud as an achievement but at the same time women can now drive. There is progress to be had there even if it is very small steps. I just don’t see how ignoring (which no involvement amounts to) helps.
I would direct your ire higher than the FA and EPL. Football is a business, we pretend it something more but Saudi is involved in business in the UK and the FA and EPL don’t control that.
For starters, I am not worried that these groups have to 'play nice' or they will be snubbed. I shouldn't have used your term 'no involvement' because that's not going to happen. We've seen supporters groups take a very hard line with clubs during the Super League fiasco and it had an effect. If the supporters groups aren't willing to play bad cop, then apparently nobody is.
I disagree with the line the supporters' groups are taking, but I am not pre-judging the situation. It all comes down to whether it results in actual progress of some kind, or endless prevarication from the Saudis.
As for my ire, I've directed it at everyone up to and including the government (and let's be sure to throw in FIFA as well, they are always guilty even when not seemingly directly involved). Short of deities I can't aim higher than that!
The difference between this situation and superleague is the saudis already own the club so what can supporters groups do at that point? Also the government was sticking its oar in, clearly that’s not going to happen with a regional ally. The two situations are not that comparable.
Also I’m not saying they’re not important but how big is an LGBT group actually going to be and how much pressure can they apply? My guess is very little.
another difference between this and the super league is sponsors. I fully imagine the new owners would be happy for sponsors to pull out of Newcastle. It gives them a free run at using their own sponsors or those of friends to pay overs ard circumvent FFP like city supposedly do with Etihad paying over the going rate.
Even if they don’t want them to leave, are sponsors going to risk upsetting the Saudi regime?
Last edited:
It is not the responsibility of supporters' trusts or fan groups to bring about social change in their owners' country. So I don't think we should judge them based on the amount of influence they have in that regard.
But they can and do have a voice and an indirect influence on how the club is run in England and how the club name and brand are used generally. They can serve as an alternative voice to the party line. That is the metric I'm judging them by. I am not expecting United We Stand or any other group to end homophobia in Saudi Arabia, that would be ridiculously unfair on them.
The Super League comparison carries many differences, I admit - but my main point is that supporters' groups do NOT lose their power by refusing to play nice with owners as long as they are taking a an organized and thoughtful stand on meaningful issues. In fact, that could be the quickest path to increased relevance and influence. And it has the key benefit of maintaining an independent voice and avoiding accusations of being co-opted by the ownership.
Last edited:
Agree the situations are not really comparable. The Super League had supporters of all clubs up in arms (even some of the greedy six supporters). But with NFC the club has been purchased and the new owners have passed the PL casual fit and proper owner test. So apart from protesting what can fans do? I think many of them are quite happy to suddenly find a big spender to splash the cash, and won’t give a second thought to where it came from. Others will have a more measured view. But in truth the situation isn’t likely to change by protests or whatever. It would be great if there were more fans group owned clubs. But those that are, are firmly at the wrong end of the footballing pyramid.
People don’t want to protest. I know Ashley isn’t close to the level of scumbag as the new owners but people have protested for so long nobody want to protest anymore.
Think of it like WW2 everyone knew what was going to happen in Eastern Europe but nobody could be bothered with the hassle after the main event.