PL Clubs "Anyone But Newcastle" Proposed Transfer Policy
Discussion
Here's a Mail link but it's reported elsewhere too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/s...
If true this sets a dangerous precedent. 19 clubs ganging up on one by refusing to sell players to them in order to try to get them relegated is distasteful in the extreme...where will it end?
I don't like the Saudi regime but PIF have passed the Premier Leagues tests for ownership of a club.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/s...
If true this sets a dangerous precedent. 19 clubs ganging up on one by refusing to sell players to them in order to try to get them relegated is distasteful in the extreme...where will it end?
I don't like the Saudi regime but PIF have passed the Premier Leagues tests for ownership of a club.
No matter what agreements are in place, money talks. If Newcastle offer Daniel Levy £200m for Kane, Kane is off to Newcastle, and the agreement is ripped up and chucked in the THFC themed pedal bin (available for £49.99 from the club shop).
Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
Gadgetmac said:
Here's a Mail link but it's reported elsewhere too.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/s...
If true this sets a dangerous precedent. 19 clubs ganging up on one by refusing to sell players to them in order to try to get them relegated is distasteful in the extreme...where will it end?
I don't like the Saudi regime but PIF have passed the Premier Leagues tests for ownership of a club.
I get what you're saying. TBH I don't attach much weight to the PL tests for ownership. Shearer has been hiding behind those . The tests have failed in this instance. The idea that the regime can't control the investment fund at the wave of pen or sword is laughable. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/s...
If true this sets a dangerous precedent. 19 clubs ganging up on one by refusing to sell players to them in order to try to get them relegated is distasteful in the extreme...where will it end?
I don't like the Saudi regime but PIF have passed the Premier Leagues tests for ownership of a club.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No matter what agreements are in place, money talks. If Newcastle offer Daniel Levy £200m for Kane, Kane is off to Newcastle, and the agreement is ripped up and chucked in the THFC themed pedal bin (available for £49.99 from the club shop).
Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
Can't agree. What we have forming here is a cartel albeit of 19 clubs.Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
Newcastle today - who shall we freeze out tomorrow?
This also smacks more of jealousy of the wealth at their disposal now rather than any moral objections.
Lets not forget:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/g...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/g...
Yet nobody is suggesting we don't sell to City.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/g...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/g...
Yet nobody is suggesting we don't sell to City.
Gadgetmac said:
Lets not forget:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/g...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/g...
Yet nobody is suggesting we don't sell to City.
Perhaps they should then?https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/g...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/g...
Yet nobody is suggesting we don't sell to City.
I can see the "slippery slope" argument but sometimes it takes something outrageous to appreciate things need to change. The test for who can own a club is clearly not up to scratch.
Designing a better one isn't easy, but worth trying surely.
It's a great way to stop a Premier League club from competing in the league without actually having to stop them on a football pitch which is pretty much what the worried clubs want. Certainly one way for the so called top 6 to avoid the league becoming a top 1 club league anyway ;-)
Maybe it's a none story and just what one bitter person "hopes" happens or maybe there's more to it. Either way, the club needs to focus on trying to stay in the league and then take it from there. Perhaps it's an opportunity to buy players from outside the league, I'm sure there are some talented footballers outside England.
Maybe it's a none story and just what one bitter person "hopes" happens or maybe there's more to it. Either way, the club needs to focus on trying to stay in the league and then take it from there. Perhaps it's an opportunity to buy players from outside the league, I'm sure there are some talented footballers outside England.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No matter what agreements are in place, money talks. If Newcastle offer Daniel Levy £200m for Kane, Kane is off to Newcastle, and the agreement is ripped up and chucked in the THFC themed pedal bin (available for £49.99 from the club shop).
Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
No, it tells you that they are in a completely different league in terms of wealth.Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
No-one on here banging on about the owners has been saying the same about the other companies which they bought, this is only down to annoyance that Newcastle are going to be a wealthy club.
Had you or others bleated on so much about previous acquisitions then it might be believable that this was about anything but upset that another club got the money.
Northernboy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No matter what agreements are in place, money talks. If Newcastle offer Daniel Levy £200m for Kane, Kane is off to Newcastle, and the agreement is ripped up and chucked in the THFC themed pedal bin (available for £49.99 from the club shop).
Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
No, it tells you that they are in a completely different league in terms of wealth.Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
No-one on here banging on about the owners has been saying the same about the other companies which they bought, this is only down to annoyance that Newcastle are going to be a wealthy club.
Had you or others bleated on so much about previous acquisitions then it might be believable that this was about anything but upset that another club got the money.
They are the plaything of an oil rich murderous middle eastern state.
The ROI in football is generally crap. So the ownership benefit attaches to the value of sportswashing to the Saudis. The more ugly noise about it, the less that benefit is.
Northernboy said:
No, it tells you that they are in a completely different league in terms of wealth.
No-one on here banging on about the owners has been saying the same about the other companies which they bought, this is only down to annoyance that Newcastle are going to be a wealthy club.
Had you or others bleated on so much about previous acquisitions then it might be believable that this was about anything but upset that another club got the money.
Which other companies have PIF bought?No-one on here banging on about the owners has been saying the same about the other companies which they bought, this is only down to annoyance that Newcastle are going to be a wealthy club.
Had you or others bleated on so much about previous acquisitions then it might be believable that this was about anything but upset that another club got the money.
Stepping back, most clubs ALREADY choose who they do/don’t sell to.
There are a variety of reasons, for example many clubs wont sell to a rival, e.g. Brighton sold Ben White to Arsenal who aren’t traditionally a rival (OK arguably a rival given league position currently
) but wouldn’t sell to a then relegation rival. At the other end, clubs would rather sell their star want away players to a club in another country rather than a direct PL rival.
Some won’t tell to historic rival (Arsenal to Spurs and vice versa etc.) as well as rivals competing for similar place in PL (whether that be competitor for trophies/CL quali as well as relegation dogfights….
Also, the price varies depending on who is buying. Brighton (I use as an example as I know a bit about them as a supporter) bought Lamptey from Chelsea a couple of years back for a small (in PL terms) fee - if that was Liverpool buying Lamptey you can bet your bottom dollar that would have been for a lot more than Brighton paid for him!
Many examples of both the above for loads of clubs.
This (stance on Newcastle’s owners) is simply another valid reason to not sell to a given club, just so happens that all the rest of the PL teams are also taking that same stance.
Good on them, hopefully that might also set a precedence to not selling to others with “arguably dubious” owners….
That all said, as others have mentioned, if Newcastle offer “enough” then that stance may crumble……. But then Newcastle will be paying way over the odds……
Be interesting to see how this plays out, and also if any foreign clubs take similar stance…..
There are a variety of reasons, for example many clubs wont sell to a rival, e.g. Brighton sold Ben White to Arsenal who aren’t traditionally a rival (OK arguably a rival given league position currently
) but wouldn’t sell to a then relegation rival. At the other end, clubs would rather sell their star want away players to a club in another country rather than a direct PL rival.Some won’t tell to historic rival (Arsenal to Spurs and vice versa etc.) as well as rivals competing for similar place in PL (whether that be competitor for trophies/CL quali as well as relegation dogfights….
Also, the price varies depending on who is buying. Brighton (I use as an example as I know a bit about them as a supporter) bought Lamptey from Chelsea a couple of years back for a small (in PL terms) fee - if that was Liverpool buying Lamptey you can bet your bottom dollar that would have been for a lot more than Brighton paid for him!
Many examples of both the above for loads of clubs.
This (stance on Newcastle’s owners) is simply another valid reason to not sell to a given club, just so happens that all the rest of the PL teams are also taking that same stance.
Good on them, hopefully that might also set a precedence to not selling to others with “arguably dubious” owners….
That all said, as others have mentioned, if Newcastle offer “enough” then that stance may crumble……. But then Newcastle will be paying way over the odds……
Be interesting to see how this plays out, and also if any foreign clubs take similar stance…..
Edited by Dracoro on Thursday 11th November 17:57
Gadgetmac said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
No matter what agreements are in place, money talks. If Newcastle offer Daniel Levy £200m for Kane, Kane is off to Newcastle, and the agreement is ripped up and chucked in the THFC themed pedal bin (available for £49.99 from the club shop).
Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
Can't agree. What we have forming here is a cartel albeit of 19 clubs.Having said that, the fact that the other 19 clubs feel so strongly over the ownership of NUFC, in a way that they didn't over the ownership of Man City, Chelsea and others, perhaps tells you that the owners of Newcastle are in a completely different stratosphere of undesirability than any of the others.
Newcastle today - who shall we freeze out tomorrow?
This also smacks more of jealousy of the wealth at their disposal now rather than any moral objections.
Newcastle fans seem to think everyone hates their club. They don't. the truth is worse, no one cared about you. If you'd been taken over by Amazon or Microsoft, and had squillions to spend, good for you. Genuinely not bothered. It makes no odds to me who wins the PL, if it's not Chelsea. Newcastle, Man City, Swindon, I don't care.
It's not jealously, it's the ownership. The new owners of NUFC are not comparable to anything that's gone before.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff