Newcastle allowed Saudi loans

Originally Posted by Ethers

Can understand those ‘big’ clubs voting for it, but the absolute state of little sides like Forest, Sheffield United, Everton etc voting for it. Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.

forest owners owns a few other clubs etc so no suprise there.

Everton are probably just sulking.

Originally Posted by Ethers

https://x.com/martynziegler/status/1...987807230?s=20

Burnley as well apparently. Something dodgy there in the inflated fee they paid for that keeper from city

Originally Posted by Ethers

Can understand those ‘big’ clubs voting for it, but the absolute state of little sides like Forest, Sheffield United, Everton etc voting for it. Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind.

Hmmm i wonder why

Originally Posted by marlo

forest owners owns a few other clubs etc so no suprise there.

Everton are probably just sulking.

So in theory any of those top four Saudi clubs that are owned by the PIF and which aren't subject to fair play restrictions could hoover up any players at any prices and just loan them to Newcastle.

Doesn't seem fair unless I'm missing something ?

Originally Posted by Surfers do Charlie

So in theory any of those top four Saudi clubs that are owned by the PIF and which aren't subject to fair play restrictions could hoover up any players at any prices and just loan them to Newcastle.

Doesn't seem fair unless I'm missing something ?

That was always the idea tbf, and now it's come to fruition after minority of clubs voted through rules which are just clearly a way to circumnavigate financial rules for clubs owned by oil states with bottomless pockets, ushered through by a Premier League that are feeling under threat by the prospect of a breakaway Super League backed by the same oil states that own the clubs that voted through these rules. It's rank.

Honestly think the best thing that could happen to English football is for a Super League to happen, let any clubs that want to play in it £#%&! off and play their poxy shite around the world to accommodate the new generation of plastics and 'influencers' tiktokking themselves at the games to their braindead followers. The teams that don't go can play and compete in a proper football league fairly.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

That was always the idea tbf, and now it's come to fruition after minority of clubs voted through rules which are just clearly a way to circumnavigate financial rules for clubs owned by oil states with bottomless pockets, ushered through by a Premier League that are feeling under threat by the prospect of a breakaway Super League backed by the same oil states that own the clubs that voted through these rules. It's rank.

Honestly think the best thing that could happen to English football is for a Super League to happen, let any clubs that want to play in it £#%&! off and play their poxy shite around the world to accommodate the new generation of plastics and 'influencers' tiktokking themselves at the games to their braindead followers. The teams that don't go can play and compete in a proper football league fairly.

Which one do you think United would opt for?

Originally Posted by believe

Which one do you think United would opt for?

Unfortunately it's the best thing for English football, not United


Ownership would obviously favour one over the other, but fans shutting down games would be inevitable if it was to happen again. I honestly think if came down to it most big English clubs that would stay in the Premier League because of the fans. I couldn't see Liverpool or United going to a Super League without fans willing to tear down the grounds in protest, which shouldn't take too long tbf.

The issue for the Premier League is just money, they know that even if no big English clubs go into a hypothetical Super League that it'd still eat into it's overall value, so they're happy to bend over backwards and rewrite the rule book to appease the people that could set one up to avoid any competition that would hit them in their pockets.

Originally Posted by Patty_b

Unfortunately it's the best thing for English football, not United


Ownership would obviously favour one over the other, but fans shutting down games would be inevitable if it was to happen again. I honestly think if came down to it most big English clubs that would stay in the Premier League because of the fans. I couldn't see Liverpool or United going to a Super League without fans willing to tear down the grounds in protest, which shouldn't take too long tbf.

The issue for the Premier League is just money, they know that even if no big English clubs go into a hypothetical Super League that it'd still eat into it's overall value, so they're happy to bend over backwards and rewrite the rule book to appease the people that could set one up to avoid any competition that would hit them in their pockets.

I may be way off the mark but I just don’t see a super league ever existing without United being part of it. Although saying that, if it takes about ten years to come to fruition we might not be missed.

Originally Posted by believe

I may be way off the mark but I just don’t see a super league ever existing without United being part of it. Although saying that, if it takes about ten years to come to fruition we might not be missed.

Not sure about that, LIV golf has done alright by snapping up as many of the big names in the sport while a few of the biggest names shit all over it.