The people trying to take us over are multi-club owners.
Multiclub ownership thread | Bournemouth and Burnley link up with Scottish clubs
- Thread starter WeePat
- Start date
The people trying to take us over are multi-club owners.
Unfortunately this is what creates an issue too where you have a fanbase (Everton) who sure as hell do not want their owner or perspective owners but get put in a position where they do because they ultimately have no power or say.
They are one example of a swing vote, basically having been in the league for 3 months. If this vote appened last year there's a chance the relegated teams vs promoted teams swing it a different way
Likewise do they vote again next year when they have a new set of three teams? Or does Sheffield utd say count more than Leicester due to the odds of the vote happening the one season where Leicester were out the top flight.
This counts towards Burnley too who voted against the ban and there's a chance they could be down at the end of the season but they might have affected the league long term due to their vote (eg if its never brought up again)
What do you mean?
I am referring to the PL regulations on number of loan players a PL club is allowed to bring in, it's 2 at a time and maximum of four throughout the season ( as in 2 in the summer winder and 2 in winter window and only 2 can be registered at one time).
Edit: I get what you meant now
Last edited:
I think they are saying how long will it be until the PL poses another vote which will change that limit.
No most clubs were for the ban, but you need a 14-6 majority apparently.
It’s not state owned, multi club owned can fight back on that front, it’s just disgusting.
City’s second club tops La Liga while Jim’s second club is behind PSG by a point .
Sir Jim can park the best young players in Europe at a top French club now that negates the Brexit debacle stopping English sides singing these youngsters anymore. It’s an unfair advantage that we have.
It’s the rest of Europe that should be worried about multi club ownership imo, not the teams in the actual league because we will soon be all at it and if not then you’re left behind.
I for one am shocked that the owners have put themselves first ahead of the sport and it's integrity. Unfortunately football is rotten to the core and corrupt beyond measure.
Teams are happy to take any opportunity to exploit loopholes and widen the competitive gap.
The best way to focus on football at the moment is just to take it one game at a time and try to enjoy the actual matches individually because at the moment the disparity between teams means you can pretty much already say with 90% certainty who will win or compete for what competition so there's little interest in that side of things.
Unfortunately if you're a QPR fan like me there's not much joy on an individual game basis either at the moment
Teams are happy to take any opportunity to exploit loopholes and widen the competitive gap.
The best way to focus on football at the moment is just to take it one game at a time and try to enjoy the actual matches individually because at the moment the disparity between teams means you can pretty much already say with 90% certainty who will win or compete for what competition so there's little interest in that side of things.
Unfortunately if you're a QPR fan like me there's not much joy on an individual game basis either at the moment
English football has been playing draughts/checkers not realising they were in a game of 5d chess.
The next step is the acquisition of potential PL clubs, which the Saudi's are already ahead of the 'game' with. Collecting potential votes/influence for whatever it is that's next in line.
Like a massive game of Yu-Gi-Oh.
The next step is the acquisition of potential PL clubs, which the Saudi's are already ahead of the 'game' with. Collecting potential votes/influence for whatever it is that's next in line.
Like a massive game of Yu-Gi-Oh.
I mostly agree, although at least it might make some of the European leagues more competitive. Most leagues have been dominated by the same clubs for ages, ie France and Spain. Also smaller leagues, where a couple of champions league group stages in a row means that you can completely blow other teams out of the water financially and cherry pick the best players from rivals.
There’s obvious drawbacks, not least how fans of those clubs actually feel about being a “feeder” club. I can’t imagine Girona fans are too bothered right now, but I may be wrong.
You're tying yourself up in knots to defend this after already explaining how it's benefitted forest.
Then ignored how it benefitted the other club as well.
It's no different than the team that owns Newcastle signing mbappe and loaning him to Newcastle. It's a different level of course but the unfair advantage gained is still the same.
There’s a trick to it. Look at Nice, their record sale seems to be 30m euros and a handful over 20m. It’s not like we would be going to Dortmund and taking their 100m players for cheap, you can park players there and pay 15m odd for them when we think they’re ready and that would be in line with what they do anyway.
To be fair we’re in the early stages of this from what it can become. If Nice and Girona challenge at the top every year then I’d say the sport has problems. There’s benefits of why would we ever send our players on loan to anyone but Nice but there’s the drawbacks of those fans expectations rising that seeing players pass though would get to them after a while
It looks like we voted in favour of the ban
It was already reported that United weren't among those clubs who voted against the ban. They needed 14 votes for but 7 clubs voted against and literally all of those 7 clubs have owners who own other clubs.
Feel sorry for the fans of some of these clubs. I read an article on Troyes the other day who are owned by the City Football Group. They were 13th in Ligue 1 last year when they appointed Patrick Kisnorbo from another of their clubs, Melbourne City. He was tasked with bringing Man City's style to the club but has only won 3 games in a year and they're now in the relegation zone in Ligue 2. There are protests and a fan group has called for boycotting games, they apparently had just 2 fans at their last league match away to Ajaccio.
These are individual clubs with their own history, they shouldn't be part of some group who have no real interest in them and clearly don't care what happens.
These are individual clubs with their own history, they shouldn't be part of some group who have no real interest in them and clearly don't care what happens.
Yep. Just vehicles to progress whatever the bigger club in the chain needs. It's shitting on the sport as a whole. Horrendous.
So only clubs with a certain level of longevity should have a vote is what you are saying
That's like saying the Government shouldn't pass any new laws because they might be gone next year
Sounds somewhat like how MLB runs its minor leagues via associations (not sure if any MLB ownerships also own any MiLB clubs). Perhaps these "subsidiary clubs" are there for other purposes, i.e. developmental, excess player/wage movement, etc.
Most Minor League clubs are independent but some are owned by MLB teams
The fight was already lost years ago. You should have never allowed the sale of Chelsea to a Russian oligarch. From there on there was no turning back, in my opinion. City and Newcastle are just the logical next steps.
I said its funny, because theres a chance if this vote happens next year or last season, two of the clubs which voted for it, arent there and its possible the vote goes differently. And also theres the possibility that one or two of the teams who voted for this for the league, wont see it affect them either way for a long long time.
It's utterly soulless. It's predatory. It's grim. I hate it with a passion.
Southampton, one of the relegated teams, are owned by owners who also own other clubs, one in Turkey and one in France.
And it's been that way since day 1 in the PL, that's what happens when you have promotion and relegation
I'm not sure if I'm following your train of thought here but anyway the rules are very clear that any individual/group can only own shares in one club in the PL, even if they are only a minority owner and don't have a controlling share. For example, during the Chelsea takeover process last year, one of the unsuccessful bidding groups included Josh Harris & David Blitzer as minority shareholders. Each of them currently owns around 10-20% of Crystal Palace and they would have had to fully cut ties with Palace if their group were successful in buying Chelsea.
Anyway, there should be a rule that prevents multiclub ownership entirely, or at the very least limited to one club per federation. It's utterly ridiculous the same owner can be allowed to control clubs in all the major countries and possibly even have the clubs competing in the same continental tournaments, not to mention the possibility of clubs owned by the same owner being able to do business with each other re. transfers. This is something that should have been addressed more than a decade ago ever since it became a regular occurence to have two Red Bull controlled clubs in the European competitions, as well as the continued growth of the City Football Group.
In recent times more and more owners have been hopping on the multiclub-bandwagon and now it just feels the ship to prevent all this has sailed long ago. Untangling all that would just cause a load of new problems and possibly even legal issues if the multiclub owners were to rally against any rule changes that would force them to sell some of their shares for below market value prices, as they could argue nobody would pay them fairly if everyone knew they absolutely had to sell and also because the market would be flooded with dozens of clubs being put up for sale simultaneously. The only way I could see a rule change like this working is if there was a transitional period of 5-10 years with a fixed deadline dictating when multiclub ownership is banned completely.
Players you loan won’t learn anything from playing with just kids in bad teams. The idea that teams in the group will ONLY be feeders is ridiculous. Strassbourg barely made it to 15th last year to stay up. They are currently 15th right now, but that’s after playing many of the top French teams, they have a game in hand and are only 2 points out of 9 th.
They have purchased more veteran quality players that will never have anything to do with Chelsea.
They have a plan for Strassbourg to be good. Why wouldn’t you want to aim for best team in France as well? The assumption people are making is that there are limited resources, and it will go to a primary club instead of other clubs in the group. Why would that be the case?
Unless they randomly meet in a European tournament, the success of one doesn’t have to be related to the success of the other at all.
IF you had a player in your French or Portuguese team that looked to be a world class player and they left for your English or La Liga team …. So what? That would happen anyway.
The Christians Ronaldo’s of the world are always going to move on from Sporting. BUT, if Sporting had serious backing as part of a larger ownership group maybe they wouldnt have sell what seems like their entire best 11 every two years. There would actually be less pressure for them to be a “selling club”.
They have purchased more veteran quality players that will never have anything to do with Chelsea.
They have a plan for Strassbourg to be good. Why wouldn’t you want to aim for best team in France as well? The assumption people are making is that there are limited resources, and it will go to a primary club instead of other clubs in the group. Why would that be the case?
Unless they randomly meet in a European tournament, the success of one doesn’t have to be related to the success of the other at all.
IF you had a player in your French or Portuguese team that looked to be a world class player and they left for your English or La Liga team …. So what? That would happen anyway.
The Christians Ronaldo’s of the world are always going to move on from Sporting. BUT, if Sporting had serious backing as part of a larger ownership group maybe they wouldnt have sell what seems like their entire best 11 every two years. There would actually be less pressure for them to be a “selling club”.
So do I. I think private ownership of football clubs in itself is a gigantic mistake. The clubs should be owned by the people.
That's just one of the models that can work. Private ownership can work too with proper controls in place. It's what helped grow the league and I'm not gonna shit on that. State owned and multi-club ownerships are absolutely terrible though.
2 players can still have a massive effect on passing FFP requirements or not, but I'm sure you know that.
The bizarre thing about all this is that it's come from a fictionalised link between Newcastle and Ruben Nevez, which pretty much every credible local journalist has said is nonsense.
By all accounts we aren't even targeting any players from Saudi. If we were exploiting ownership like that, why not just sign the player for a quid, since, as far as I'm aware, there's no requirement to show "fair market value" for incoming transfers, just outgoing?
We seem to have gone out of our way so far to keep things above board with FFP, including selling Saint Max for less than we could have got for him (IMO), and keeping sponsorship deals within their fair commercial value requirement. It's clear that we've looked at the Everton, City and potentially Chelsea and Spurs situations and are being very careful to keep ourselves clean, busting all that to loan a few has-beens from Saudi seems completely adrift from the strategy our owners have taken so far.
By all accounts we aren't even targeting any players from Saudi. If we were exploiting ownership like that, why not just sign the player for a quid, since, as far as I'm aware, there's no requirement to show "fair market value" for incoming transfers, just outgoing?
We seem to have gone out of our way so far to keep things above board with FFP, including selling Saint Max for less than we could have got for him (IMO), and keeping sponsorship deals within their fair commercial value requirement. It's clear that we've looked at the Everton, City and potentially Chelsea and Spurs situations and are being very careful to keep ourselves clean, busting all that to loan a few has-beens from Saudi seems completely adrift from the strategy our owners have taken so far.
The Dodgers have an affiliation with 7 minor league teams. The owners (Chelsea’s owners) own 3 of those 7 outright. The Dodgers buy tons of youth prospects and put them at these clubs. The kids that progress the fastest get called up to the Dodgers. The others are sold when they think they will get the most for their sale. The kids sold pay for big name trades and purchases. It looks like Boehly and Eghbali’s long term plan for Chelsea seems to be along these lines.
I wouldn't really qualify Ruben Neves as a has been and Eddie Howe was all but openly flirting with the idea in a press conference a few weeks ago. The idea may have been deaded now, but it did seem like it could be a possibility at the time given the Tonali situation, which is why other clubs hastened to forestall that option. Howe also suggested that Newcastle would fight these restrictions, suggesting that, at the very least, the club would like to leave themselves the maneuverability to pull off such a move in the future should the need or desire arise.
It does seem like Newcastle have been a bit more judicious in approaching the line with regard to FFP, but they also seem intent on leaving every competitive advantage possible open to them. If Saudi continues on the same type of spending spree, the players eventually available from that league might be closer to prime age and of higher quality, even if they had to start with the has beens to kick off the process. Who knows where it will go. The Prem is super competitive. Being able to plug in gaps in your squad by harvesting from a ready made pool of exorbitantly paid talent the burden of which can be borne by the Saudi government through a cheeky loan deal seems like a nice advantage to have.
All MLB teams operate this way, they don't really buy prospects, they draft them and trade with other teams if they don't fit a need at the major league level, there are a zillion complicated rules and regulations around it, it's nothing like football
I'm from Texas, I know all about how prospect development works.
They already have rules for domestic loans.
They don't need to ban it. Maybe the thing do is put tighter constraints on international loan deals from all clubs and put in terms that make it unfavourable to loan those players from SA who are on half a million a week for both teams.
Lets just say they limit teams to 2 international loans per year and put guidelines on it with regard to terms and wages. So say that if Newcastle want to sign Neves on loan, well then it must be for a minimum of 12 months and they must pay all his wages.
I wouldn't necessarily say Howe was flirting with the idea, he was asked about it and basically said it's an option, which it is. Doesn't mean the club will actually do it.
Players who have gone to Saudi seeking a pay check seem to me to be the polar opposite of the character-profiles we've signed to date. Our recruitment has been laser-focused around young talent mixed with a blend of experienced English players; attitude and character is Howe's most important requirement. I don't think Nevez is past it, but the link still seems like a bit of a red herring.
It makes sense for the club to fight restrictions and leave all avenues open of course, if not just out of principle; I don't see why we should be restricted from loaning players from what could become a huge league, as long as it's kept above board, wages are covered fully, and competing loan offers aren't rejected so the player ultimately has a choice.
I think what's rubbed me up the wrong way with this is that other clubs have been doing it for years. The media narrative of making it about Newcastle seems disingenuous considering we are one of the clubs that haven't ever actually done this.
Thanks. On that last piece, if you like the ownership and think they are a net positive for the club, that might just be something you have to charge to the game and consider part of the package of having such an ownership group.
You mean the PL has domestic loan rules?
Even if it sounds hypocritical, I don't see why clubs would foreclose or limit their options for doing such business with Saudi, while at the same time blocking the option for Newcastle given they share the same ownership.
As far as I'm aware the PL has domestic loan rules, but there's a different set of loan rules for players outside of England.
State-owned and multi-club ownerships can also operate with the right rules and controls.
The issue is whether we want the clubs to belong to the fans or not, as the other user told you.
I believe that from a philosophical perspective, those things are not possible.