Would you be happy if Mohammed Bin Salman was bankrolling our club?

[Ian]

2 hours ago, markg said:

I guess for some it is because they have a connection to their club because they feel it represents their city and values. Probably in the same way that some wouldn't be happy if a player that had a dubious past signed, they would find it hard to get behind them etc. 

What like say Bannan?

[markg]

1 minute ago, Ian said:

What like say Bannan?

Yes, some people would be against us signing him, some wouldn’t. 
 

That’s exactly what I’m saying, people have their own values and levels of what they would accept 

[Ian]

Just now, markg said:

Yes, some people would be against us signing him, some wouldn’t. 
 

That’s exactly what I’m saying, people have their own values and levels of what they would accept 

Id hope there isn't a person on here who would want us to sign a player with a crime sheet like Bannan's

 

And yet when he pulls on a blue and white shirt all is forgotten.

 

It would be the same with any owner

[WalworthOwl]

I think this piece from The Economist magazine is good:

 

NEWCASTLE UNITED holds a tragi-comic place in the minds of English football fans. The club can seemingly make a mess out of any situation. Despite a large and passionate supporter base, it has not won the top division in nearly a century. The last time it came close, in 1996, it blew a 12-point lead and its manager, Kevin Keegan, had a public meltdown following some gentle taunting by Alex Ferguson, his rival at Manchester United. Despite its hapless history, on October 7th a consortium backed by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign-wealth fund, which is chaired by Muhammad bin Salman, the kingdom’s crown prince, announced it had bought the club for £305m ($415m) . It promises to bring some longed-for glory, paid for from its vast reserves of cash. Newcastle thus joins Chelsea and Manchester City as the latest Premier League team whose owners are linked to an autocratic government (not to mention others that have drawn up lucrative sponsorship deals with thuggish states, such as with Arsenal and Rwanda). Why are authoritarian regimes keen on English football clubs?

 

One reason is to project soft power. In her book, “Putin’s People”, Catherine Belton claims that Russia’s president directed Roman Abramovich, an oligarch who had become rich under his patronage, to buy Chelsea, a moderately successful west London team. (Mr Abramovich denies this.) The Kremlin, says Ms Belton, had decided that the way to gain acceptance in British society was via the country’s greatest love: football. “From the start the acquisition had been aimed at building a beach-head for Russian influence in the UK,” she writes. Owning a high-profile European club also gives regimes more clout within FIFA, the global game’s governing body. That may have proved useful when Russia successfully bid for the 2018 World Cup. The same goes for Qatar, which in 2011 bought Paris St Germain, France’s highest-profile side, and which will host the competition next year—despite many people arguing that a tiny, desert state with a questionable human-rights record is an unsuitable beneficiary of the event.

 

Amnesty International calls the Newcastle deal “a clear attempt by the Saudi authorities to sportswash their appalling human-rights record with the glamour of top-flight football”. The NGO cites the country’s penchant for locking up and harassing critics, its repression of women and the brutal state-backed murder in 2018 of Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist. All of which may be true. But there is, still, a business case that can be advanced. England is home to the most-watched and richest domestic football league in the world. The Premier League’s latest deal with broadcasters—clubs’ biggest source of revenue—is worth an estimated £3.2bn ($4.4bn) a season, nearly double the €2.1bn ($2.4bn) that Spain’s top league brings in. Add in gate receipts, replica-kit sales and the like, and a football team can be a lucrative venture. In 2008 Sheikh Mansour, a member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family, is believed to have paid around £150m for Manchester City. The £2bn-plus he is estimated to have since spent on world-class players, coaches and facilities has brought the club five Premier League trophies. In 2019 he sold a smallish stake to a private-equity fund, which valued the whole club at £3.7bn.

As Newcastle is added to the growing list of super-wealthy English clubs, buying success will become harder. Clubs are also now somewhat limited by “financial fair play” rules which mean that, in general, they may not spend much more than they earn (although some wealthy owners have found inventive, so-far legal ways around this). The Premier League also bars states from being overly influential within its football clubs. It was this concern that stymied the Saudis’ previous bid for Newcastle in 2020. This time the league was assuaged by “legally binding” assurances that the kingdom will not interfere in the running of the club. Who says sport and politics shouldn’t mix?

[markg]

1 minute ago, Ian said:

Id hope there isn't a person on here who would want us to sign a player with a crime sheet like Bannan's

 

And yet when he pulls on a blue and white shirt all is forgotten.

 

It would be the same with any owner

Course they would. Some would say it was a long time ago, he has learned his lesson. Others would say he shouldn’t be forgiven. Different people have different opinions.

[steelcityowlsfan]

Salman Rushdie once wrote a book. The words were offensive and blunt. 
 

The Satanic verse could have been worse, he could have called the Buddha a c**t! 

[Tewkesbury]

Lived and worked with Geordies for years. Now I don't, I'd love for them to win the EPL.

[daveyboy66]

1 hour ago, owlinexile said:

 

I would go back to the '90s in a heartbeat.

So would I...I'd be in my 40's   

[Devonstrix]

I’d rather we were bought out by one of the many altruistic  British billionaires, who care deeply about their employees and don’t just line their own pockets. 
 

 

 

Phil Green for instance. 
 

 

 

 

[ChinaOwl]

There would be quite a few on Owlstalk that would be defending Jeffrey Epstein even now had he bankrolled the club back to the Premier League. That's the sad reality behind the fake outrage.

[Pughies Jockstrap]

Whats the saying "The only thing I like about football is the football." While I get the sentiment whoever coined that hadn't watched us over the last few years.

[Morepork]

There’s a massive difference between an incompetent or foolhardy owner and regime that oppresses women and LGBTQ minorities, wages wars against its neighbours, supports terrorists and decapitates the occasional journalist.

 

No thank you, under any circumstances. 
 

The fact that football fans are having to have these discussions really hammers home the failings of the Premier Leagues self governance. Regulate the sh!t out of them……

Edited October 8, 2021 by Morepork

[sherlyegg]

2 hours ago, Spondon Owl said:

The investment in and around the area and the club itself would be valuable.

Philanthropy is not something the Saudis have good record for.

 

[AthensOwl]

Personally, I wish some genuine PoS would come and buy the club so I could finally put a stop to the emotional investment that has been a non-stop torture since 1993.

[Owling with laughter]

2 hours ago, FreshOwl said:

I mean, let’s look at it objectively. As soon as sky started and more games were televised across the world, this was always going to happen.

 

Football clubs are huge companies with worldwide appeal. Like any business with that size of market potential, investors are obviously going to want a piece of the pie 

 

Or we could go back to the 80s/90s with poor pitches, poor infrastructure and a generally poorer game overall 

I think the term ‘investors’ isn’t the right word. These mega rich people/states aren’t looking to get a financial return on their money. How can they be with the hundreds and hundreds of millions they’re pumping in to their chosen clubs?

 

It’s all about the prestige and pleasure of their club being the best. To them it doesn’t matter the cost.

[The only way is S6]

 100% yes, I'd still go and be happy with them owning it. The sooner the better.

 

There was a list of companies read out on breakfast tv, that the Saudi PIF are already invested in. Starbuck's, Facebook, Boeing, Disney, Bank of America etc etc.

 

I'll bet every moral guardian on here already uses some product they are involved or invested in.

 

And everyone also buys Chinese made goods in every walk of life. Uyghur muslims anybody? Communist state free speech?

 

Don't make me laugh with the feeble pseudo moral protests, were it to happen to us. 

[Guest mrbluesky]

I'd have Gary Glitter if it meant SPENDOGEDON!!!

 

Spoiler

Wanna be in my gang!?

 

[Devonstrix]

23 minutes ago, steelcityowlsfan said:

Salman Rushdie once wrote a book. The words were offensive and blunt. 
 

The Satanic verse could have been worse, he could have called the Buddha a c**t! 

Don’t bring Tango into this ffs. He’s not rich (allegedly)

[S36 OWL]

3 hours ago, davetherivelinowl said:

Personally I think this would rip out the emotional attachment I have for the club. I'd feel so conflicted I couldn't enjoy whatever success may come. It's a no from me.

 

BTW it's all gone quiet about the fact that United's Saudi prince was funded by a loan from the Bin Laden family. I couldn't have stomached that either.

 

 

 

Couldn't be any worse than Chansiri 

[OWLERTON GHOST]

3 hours ago, markg said:

No.i

It's a nightmare to get into a chant

 Mo Bin Salman he's one of their own ......