Newcastle

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Ridiculous how clubs can cheat their way around ffp rules.

Unpopular opinion - FFP shouldn’t be a thing. People should be able to invest in whatever they want.

What should happen is that clubs shouldn’t be given loans. If an owner wishes to invest it should be by way of gifts

 

[alexccfc99]

They've got a new shirt sponsor for £25m a season. Company barely existing a few months ago, just a holding page for a website, and now a website that doesn't work

Must just be a coincidence that said sponsor is owned by the clubs owners

How is this shit allowed?

Ashley plastered Sports Direct round their stadium for years and nobody was bothered

 

[SonofErnie]

Unpopular opinion - FFP shouldn’t be a thing. People should be able to invest in whatever they want.

What should happen is that clubs shouldn’t be given loans. If an owner wishes to invest it should be by way of gifts

Only on the basis that state ownership and state backed owners are barred.

 

[steveo1987]

Unpopular opinion - FFP shouldn’t be a thing. People should be able to invest in whatever they want.

What should happen is that clubs shouldn’t be given loans. If an owner wishes to invest it should be by way of gifts

I don't have a problem with whatever way clubs fund themselves as rules will always be bent, I do however have a big problem with parachute payments, you take the risk and take it on the chin when relegated.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Unpopular opinion - FFP shouldn’t be a thing. People should be able to invest in whatever they want.

What should happen is that clubs shouldn’t be given loans. If an owner wishes to invest it should be by way of gifts

Not unpopular here... it's the only way most clubs have grown in the past, after all!

 

[chiefdave]

Ashley plastered Sports Direct round their stadium for years and nobody was bothered

Really? Think there was plenty of Newcastle supporters that weren't too keen on it. Surely you can see the difference between someone using a club they own for cheap advertising and the current owners paying massively over market value.

 

[alexccfc99]

Really? Think there was plenty of Newcastle supporters that weren't too keen on it. Surely you can see the difference between someone using a club they own for cheap advertising and the current owners paying massively over market value.

What I mean is Ashley plastered SD all over Newcastle’s ground when he was their owner and no one else was really bothered - their current owner have links to their new shirt sponsor and all of a sudden it’s a disgrace

Everyone is a human rights expert until it happens to their club, or there is a World Cup in Qatar or the F1/Boxing takes place in Riyadh - Like it or not we’d absolutely love to come into the money Newcastle have

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Like it or not we’d absolutely love to come into the money Newcastle have

I don't really fancy being bankrolled by oppressive dictatorships, arms dealers or people traffickers tbh.

 

[TomRad85]

I don't really fancy being bankrolled by oppressive dictatorships, arms dealers or people traffickers tbh.

I shall not pretend I wouldn't enjoy wealthy owners but I've always found Man City particularly distasteful. Even taking away the moral background of the owners, the way they can destroy competition while breaking rule after rule and get away with it... the thing that irks me the most is that they've basically just become a plastic, tourist club. Would genuinely hate that.
Newcastle and City can suck it.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I shall not pretend I wouldn't enjoy wealthy owners but I've always found Man City particularly distasteful. Even taking away the moral background of the owners, the way they can destroy competition while breaking rule after rule and get away with it... the thing that irks me the most is that they've basically just become a plastic, tourist club. Would genuinely hate that.
Newcastle and City can suck it.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

Tbf those rules are there to protect the status quo and ensure other dubious monied owners have their 'Investments' protected. I don't care if owners pump as much as they like in, the source is maybe an issue.

Although I look down the list of football club owners and it's a struggle to find many who are ethical and principled!

 

[TomRad85]

Tbf those rules are there to protect the status quo and ensure other dubious monied owners have their 'Investments' protected. I don't care if owners pump as much as they like in, the source is maybe an issue.

Although I look down the list of football club owners and it's a struggle to find many who are ethical and principled!

Not many billionaires are going to be squeaky clean are they but obviously some are significantly worse characters than others.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[slowpoke]

Man City are likely to win the Premier League year after year. It’s now become more of a competition on who finishes fourth and who of the bottom dozen or so finish above 18th.

 

[clint van damme]

I don't really fancy being bankrolled by oppressive dictatorships, arms dealers or people traffickers tbh.

It wouldn't bother me, I've no time for these regimes but successive governments have cosied up to them for decades, I'm jot sure why football should try and provide moral guidance.

If we sever our ties with them completely then great, but I don't think it's down to football to to be a beacon of principle when downing Street and the Palace are rolling out the red carpet, ( as well as golf, horse racing and F1).

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Tbf those rules are there to protect the status quo and ensure other dubious monied owners have their 'Investments' protected. I don't care if owners pump as much as they like in, the source is maybe an issue.

Although I look down the list of football club owners and it's a struggle to find many who are ethical and principled!

100% - the only reason the likes of United, Real Madrid etc complain is becuase it’s making it more difficult the more teams that can financially compete with them

 

[alexccfc99]

100% - the only reason the likes of United, Real Madrid etc complain is becuase it’s making it more difficult the more teams that can financially compete with them

Man United who are now spreading their cheeks for Qatari ownership by the way*

footballs biggest hypocrites, always have been

 

[Cov kid 55]

What I mean is Ashley plastered SD all over Newcastle’s ground when he was their owner and no one else was really bothered - their current owner have links to their new shirt sponsor and all of a sudden it’s a disgrace

Everyone is a human rights expert until it happens to their club, or there is a World Cup in Qatar or the F1/Boxing takes place in Riyadh - Like it or not we’d absolutely love to come into the money Newcastle have

Not for me Alex, and I would imagine, a good number of our fans would not want to be bankrolled by a country with a poor human rights record, although some fans would not be bothered. I quite like my club being well run, and not taking some dodgy sovereign wealth fund money. Newcastle taking shed loads of money from a country that hacked to pieces a dissenting journalist, is beyond the pale for me.

 

[Nuskyblue]

Not for me Alex, and I would imagine, a good number of our fans would not want to be bankrolled by a country with a poor human rights record, although some fans would not be bothered. I quite like my club being well run, and not taking some dodgy sovereign wealth fund money. Newcastle taking shed loads of money from a country that hacked to pieces a dissenting journalist, is beyond the pale for me.

Exactly this.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Not for me Alex, and I would imagine, a good number of our fans would not want to be bankrolled by a country with a poor human rights record, although some fans would not be bothered. I quite like my club being well run, and not taking some dodgy sovereign wealth fund money. Newcastle taking shed loads of money from a country that hacked to pieces a dissenting journalist, is beyond the pale for me.

And as someone above said - successive governments and royals have been best mates with them for years.

why should our football club be above all that? I’d welcome a sheikh with open arms

 

[SBAndy]

Now seems to have surfaced that the PIF is also an investor in Clearlake Capital, majority owner of Chelsea. Surely can’t be allowed?

 

[AFCCOVENTRY]

Now seems to have surfaced that the PIF is also an investor in Clearlake Capital, majority owner of Chelsea. Surely can’t be allowed?

There’s some strange transfer dealings going on where Chelsea’s expensive flops are all moving to Saudi.

 

[Hobo]

And as someone above said - successive governments and royals have been best mates with them for years.

why should our football club be above all that? I’d welcome a sheikh with open arms

Why is that an endorsement?

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Not an endorsement, just don’t see why football teams should get criticised for involvement with nefarious characters if the state has no problem with it