On the first day of January...............

[Steveo]

Are you really sure the artcle on Roman does anything other than back up what I am saying?

"However, as the loans are from the owner himself, Chelsea are effectively debt free as Abramovich would have to repay himself from the proceeds if he were to sell the club. "


and

"The latest cash injection has helped the club overtake Premier League rivals Manchester United and Liverpool in terms of their wage bill - despite recording a £155.9m loss last season."

[Steveo]

There is nowhere to hide on this. Lord Sugar and Rupert Murdoch got in bed to use the American subscription TV model to sell the sport to the globe. Sugar had his satellite boxes to shift and Sky needed a platform to broadcast, clubs like Spurs and United floated. The rest is history and the owners with the deepest pockets came in.

Those who do or don't have the deepest pockets must either LOVE the sport? OR be looking to make a profit from a football club!

And rewinding to the start...putting a focus on the premier league's inception: that con Rick Parry who I NEVER trusted was in bed from the start too. Never ever trusted him. Sold the club to Hicks & Gillett in a heartbeat, just as he sold the league to Sky instead of ITV.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadc...Premier_League

The deeper one looks, the more obvious it all becomes.

[CCTV]

I ONLY did so because legs brought them into a discussion that had nothing at all to do with them.

The Saudi wealth fund has nothing to do with the state of the English game.

Just stop

You've brought this up before this thread existed.

You've said you'd much rather roman as an owner, showed a degree of disgust at cities owners and outright revulsion at the thought of Saudi owners.

This has been your stance for a good while.

Not talking about the impact Saudi ownership has had on British football, can talk of the expectations of course, just your stated preferences and prejudices.

[Steveo]

Yes... because I do not believe ANY STATE (do you hear that?) should own a football club full stop .
. What is so hard for you to comprehend CC?

Also in this case, the state is actively involved in sponsoring insurgencies in other lands AND a sicking war waged on its poor neighbor AND done so with many of the weapons supplied by the very nation they have just bought a football club in.

Again - one thing has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

This thread is about this January - Russians and Arabs have been accused of ruining the league, The Saudi's have not - YET.


Read my points - look at the ownership of City - I notice NOBODY is interested that they are part US owned 'Silver Lake' - a deal that happened in the midst of their FFP trial! Hmm.

Come on people wakey wakey

[CCTV]

Yes... because I do not believe ANY STATE (do you hear that?) should own a football club full stop .
. What is hard you to comprehend CC?

Also in this case, the state is actively involved in sponsoring insurgencies in other lands AND a sicking war waged on its poor neighbor AND done so with many of the weapons supplied by the very nation they have just bought a football club in.

Again - one thing has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

You've declared a far greater revulsion at the thought of Saudi owners because of Saudi Arabia.

Same way people can declare a dislike for Chinese billionaire ownership because of China. S

You have your reasons for your prejudice, others have theirs too.

[Steveo]

I would not want to be owned by any state and the Saudi state is one I detest. If a billionaire from Saudi Arabia wanted to own Liverpool Fc I would judge him on him - not what Salman has done

This is getting desperate dude

I have no prejudice you seem to have a problem in understanding what it means

[Steveo]

You've declared a far greater revulsion at the thought of Saudi owners because of Saudi Arabia.

This 100% a figment of your imagination. I stated the last time the Saudi’s tried for Newcastle - That I would not want them to own us. And I would not still.

That is, the Saudi state, administration, regime, calls it what you will.

Please try get your facts straight before making false claims about what I have said based purely on your own misunderstanding.

You need to go back and read all of what has been said. Stop skimming and getting the wrong end of the stick

[Steveo]

Not interested in Cities protective “insurance policy” US part owners?

Still focussed on the Saudi Arabian state ownership of Newcastle?


Oh yes, seems so.

I can’t say I am surprised

[Steveo]

And on it goes..

https://www.si.com/soccer/manchestercity/news/man-city-shareholder-buys-33-stake-in-australian-professional-league-other-club-executives-now-involved


Monopolizing the sport, but who exactly is facilitating it all?

[CCTV]

I would not want to be owned by any state and the Saudi state is one I detest. If a billionaire from Saudi Arabia wanted to own Liverpool Fc I would judge him on him - not what Salman has done

This is getting desperate dude

I have no prejudice you seem to have a problem in understanding what it means

You claim so, but you continue to use other American owners against an individual American owner.
So your assurance you will never do what you have done to date, is a little weak imo.

Most people are expecting the new Arab owners to spend a fortune like recent Arab owners, inflating the market.
The expectation follow from the previous similar owners.

Maybe if the Saudis run newcastle like a business the racists or anti-Saudi folk will be surprised and re-evaluate their prejudices.

Chinese billionaires are not exactly separate from the state. So not wanting Chinese billionaires is perfectly acceptable in the view of not wanting state owned clubs.
As is the case with the Arab owners.