Reason No. 398,285 why it's not good to have your club owned by a Petro-Oligarch

[Insidious]

Which pond Sid? Owners from which nation own all or part of more than half of every premier league club?

The Pond of Football and indeed Sport itself.

Yes - wealthy Americans own multiple clubs here. But the sort of deals being conducted by the likes of, say, the Saudis - are rather troublesome.

They've practically bought Golf for example. Then you've situations like Saudi state oil company Aramco making an insane $161.1 billion in profit in 2022, up 47% from 2021 - with prices controlled in such a way that the larger "West" (not a huge fan of that geographical term but hey) is struggling for Oil, meanwhile they're buying off Putin to help fund the War.

Then on a purely sporting level with Boxing we have heavyweights avoiding fights until they get their big Saudi pay-day, even though to many fans a fight like Joshua v Fury or Fury v Usyk at Wembley would appeal to thousands of fans.

Admittedly I don't follow Geopolitics toooo closely, largely as it takes too drastic a toll on my mental health once I go down the Rabbit-hole, but there's certainly enough to say "hold on, Sport is in trouble here".

But these regimes buying up sport left and right is very troublesome.

[Steveo]

My knickers are not twisted in the slightest. You were the one launching into your usual defence of the Middle East and slagging off the Yanks.

I am complaining about the clubs driving transfer fees and wages ever upwards to unsustainable levels. So of course, I mentioned the clubs who are responsible for doing that.

If it was Welsh money I would be every bit as much again.

I can’t help it if you want to twist everything to suit your ongoing arguments re the West v The Middle East and who’s the most corrupt.

Not my argument, not the point I was making.

Deary me.. Seems you are suffering from the heat and unable to think clearly.


I have to ask.. where exactly have I defended anyone? I am simply suggesting that you and a whole raft of others on here (Shock horror) seem determined to stop at the owners of these clubs before questioning IF what they do should be tolerated. WHY it is allowed to begin with and WHO is facilitating it all? IMO it should never be allowed in the first place BUT as with business IF someone wants to outbid you - they can in a free market.

And as for "slagging off" the Yanks.. I am reading back and I can't find anything.. Are you confused? Sid mentioned fish and ponds and owning them - I simply made a joke about the number of US owned clubs in the Premier league.

I think you are struggling today mate. Have a lie down maybe

[Steveo]

The Pond of Football and indeed Sport itself.

Yes - wealthy Americans own multiple clubs here. But the sort of deals being conducted by the likes of, say, the Saudis - are rather troublesome.

They've practically bought Golf for example. Then you've situations like Saudi state oil company Aramco making an insane $161.1 billion in profit in 2022, up 47% from 2021 - with prices controlled in such a way that the larger "West" (not a huge fan of that geographical term but hey) is struggling for Oil, meanwhile they're buying off Putin to help fund the War.

Then on a purely sporting level with Boxing we have heavyweights avoiding fights until they get their big Saudi pay-day, even though to many fans a fight like Joshua v Fury or Fury v Usyk at Wembley would appeal to thousands of fans.

Admittedly I don't follow Geopolitics toooo closely, largely as it takes too drastic a toll on my mental health once I go down the Rabbit-hole, but there's certainly enough to say "hold on, Sport is in trouble here".

But these regimes buying up sport left and right is very troublesome.

Yes - it's more than troublesome in truth. It's sickening, it is disgusting. But WHAT is allowing it? What do we think could be stopping this from being exposed and dealt with? Is there no law here? We can force Roman to sell a club in an instant when Washington says so - but we can't stop a petrodollar owners buying 2nd tier clubs (and this is important to remember it is the lower tier clubs NOT the true giants) in our league? We then have some loose European rules - and even when they are broken the guilty seem to get away Scott free? WHY?

[Steveo]

True. It's just there's one club who don't play by the rules and there's no getting away from it.
They bought their place at the top table, it wasn't earned.

Yep they did - but some would ask..was it different for Blackburn or Leicester City? Surely it is just degrees of wealth? If Blackburn had the kind of money that City have access to back at the start of the Premier league - they are very likely to be winning in a similar fashion. There is a level of funding that elevates any club. A point at which you can do very well with any competent manager. At that point you don't even need the very best. Look at City under Pelegrini and Mancini.. The Foxes under Ranieri.. Managers that would have struggled win much with Klopp's lot.

Are we saying it would be ok for a petrodollar owner to do similar if they bought United or Us but not when the club they buy isn't at the top level - or hasn't been for decades?

[Steveo]

The FA/premiership and UEFA have both attempted to introduce "restraint" on transfers and wages by attempting to enforce FFP. Unfortunately some clubs have chosen to "circumvent" FFP by cheating. Without this cheating, the European model would in fact be similar to the USA. Alas, money, cheating and greed has won the day.

Similar to the US which has 2 Sports leagues NBA and NFL - count them - with higher salaries than the Premier league. And the FA have done literally ZERO - at least anything tangible - in trying to stop state ownership. Nada - zip - zilch.

It is easy to say cheating is at play. ALL clubs cheat, just like all players try to con referees. The question is HOW do they get away with it.

[teesred]

Yep they did - but some would ask..was it different for Blackburn or Leicester City? Surely it is just degrees of wealth? If Blackburn had the kind of money that City have access to back at the start of the Premier league - they are very likely to be winning in a similar fashion. There is a level of funding that elevates any club. A point at which you can do very well with any competent manager. At that point you don't even need the very best. Look at City under Pelegrini and Mancini.. The Foxes under Ranieri.. Managers that would have struggled win much with Klopp's lot.

Are we saying it would be ok for a petrodollar owner to do similar if they bought United or Us but not when the club they buy isn't at the top level - or hasn't been for decades?

Fair points.
The only way anyone was breaking into the top four was by ploughing in the money, it's just the way they act like no rules have been broken and that it's an underdog story. Most clubs have financial consequence but not them, they can afford mistakes with high transfer fees. I also think Ian makes a good point when saying they've taken it up another level.

[Steveo]

Fair points.
The only way anyone was breaking into the top four was by ploughing in the money, it's just the way they act like no rules have been broken and that it's an underdog story. Most clubs have financial consequence but not them, they can afford mistakes with high transfer fees. I also think Ian makes a good point when saying they've taken it up another level.

Ian's point is absolutely true BUT it isn't just those 4 clubs miller mentioned. Newcastle have only just started but make the list - Chelsea were in 10th spot for the decade until Boehly stepped in... look who is top of the pile?

https://khelnow.com/football/top-10-clubs-with-highest-net-spend-in-last-decade

Net spend table last 10 years September 2022

1. Manchester United – £1.1b
2. Manchester City – £985m
3. Paris Saint-Germain – £940m
4. FC Barcelona – £650m
5. Arsenal – £583m
6. Juventus – £560m
7. AC Milan – £432m
8. Everton – £430m
9. Aston Villa – £424m
10. Chelsea – £413m



Yet for some it's exclusively these 4 clubs including one in Chelsea who were "previously" "Absolutely abhorrent" when spending less under the 'evil Russian Roman' than they are now in spending £500 million in a single hit - Spending more in one go than the previous decade!!!

Just so we can see what's really going on like..

[Insidious]

I know it's not the wider discussion necessarily - so sincere apologies if it details things (I don't mind if you want it discussed in its own thread at some stage rather than here?) but I think Chelsea's net spend is precisely the sort of thing that is subject to scrutiny.

They spent years hoarding youth players and loaning them out so they could sell at a profit - this hoarding of talent shouldn't have been allowed in the first place and thus I feel could skew the data a bit.

The other area for them is fees - they were getting fees I would describe as "suspiciously high" at times (I remember them selling Oscar for what seemed like huge money at the time, £53m or something, despite him being on the periphery of the squad when sold) and I have always suspected foul play in terms of creative accounting - maybe money being funneled through Roman to the buying club so they could purchase for an inflated fee to make Chelsea's books look better, sort of thing.

[Steveo]

..."maybe" Roman eats his babies too Sid. .

I think it's actually good to see the real underlying belief systems at play here. Clearly I am in the minority. Most of you see no harm from the US invasion on our league. Happy in the knowledge that more than half of all our clubs are fully or part owned by investors seeking a return from a nation where this sport doesn't even rank in the top 4! It seems the bulk of you only see the harm in the modern game stemming from the gulf and a certain former owner of Chelsea FC...


I would ask this though and it's not aimed at anyone in particular... ...Maybe if we can take our cloth-head fearing, Ruskie loathing, Anglo/US centric jingoistic hats off for one second and ask ourselves.. What IF United were winning at the rate City have been..? What if they were doing the same now as they were under Fergy? With the mahusive spend and salaries they have put down this last 10 years.. What would people be saying about them and the ownership model they possess?

We all know PSG warped the game with £200 million for Neymar.. Sickening... BUT who benefitted the most? Surely it was us? For that is the only way we sell Coutinho for £142 million and afford Klopp the means to capture the key players needed.. Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for..?

United have spent and spent and kept spending - the fact that they have been chasing the legacy of Fergy allied to the employ of some questionable managers (unable to escape his shadow) - the likely reason it has come to so little. Why is their spending seen as so much more benign? City have done a far better job on that front and have become supremely successful after finally landing their main man - Pep. As for what is allowed and what should not be - well personally - I loathe City and and the entire Petrodollar charade... but Saudi Arabia only buy Newcastle and UAE only own City -- ditto Qatar PSG, because of the hegemonic system rooted in the US dollar. A system that DIRECTLY enriched each and every US owner operating inside the Premier league!... Any legal framework is clearly 100% political (see Roman) and a total sham - the bodies involved obviously under the auspices of the global hegemon.

Only one club has spent more than £1 Billion net in this last decade - United. and Chelsea Under Boehly have just spend half of that in 6 months..

But to call it....what it is - is to be labelled anti American.. In here at least. Good luck people

[Nineteenx]

I don't see the point in whining about this, FFP not being enforced and new rules to close any and all loopholes is fair enough to whine about

We live in a country that's been absolutely ruined by making our public services and housing market being opened up to overseas investors to milk, that affects everyone who lives here, the low earners doing the essential jobs more than most, why does anyone expect sporting teams to be any different? It's the price we all pay for globilisation and embracing the American way and model and continually electing people implementing and further expanding it into other areas