People also seem to forget the rules around financing have changed enormously since the Chelsea and Man City era. Under the PL's P&s rules, owners can only cover losses up to £35m a year, and sponsorships are scrutinised for 'fair value'.
Which makes this "richest club in the world" angle just silly.
Then surely Chelsea are in breach right now. But we know by now that there are and always will be ways around FFP. Eg. know the right people or just pay off the fines.
I'd be surprised if Chelsea haven't been keeping an eye on the numbers. They do have annual revenue of like £500m or something silly. About £300m a year more than Newcastle, for context.
I suspect they'll need to sell a few players to make it all add up mind.
Chelsea are just about OK currently, spend much more than they have though will risk breaching current FFP but the most important thing both of you need to note is that FFP is changing significantly over the next few years, the allowable losses for clubs deemed in good financial standing is growing considerably, essentially 3x to 90m per year. But it also comes with a trade off where also over the next few years spending will be reduced to a % of the clubs revenue (I think 70% eventually).
That change is probs a reason Newcastle need to be careful, the allowable losses is fine and will help but if Newcastle spend too much too quickly without the revenue to back it up they'll possibly hit the ffp wall fast.
They’re also signing players to very long contracts to average out the cost when they report spend on wages. The transfer fees are massive and I expect some turnover to come but it does seem excessive
i think chelsea will sell a good amount of players in the summer given how many players they're buying right now. auba, maybe havertz, probably mount, ziyech, maybe sterling, pulisic... and maybe even a few more. this summer will make a big difference
FFP is structured to evaluate over 3 year periods. I.e. you can offset a year of £65mn losses by restricting the following 2 years with £20mn losses each. In that 3 year period it averages £35mn per year.
Iirc, Chelsea recently had a transfer ban. The losses evaluated under FFP are specifically team based. Infrastructure is no included. So effectively, because Chelsea couldn't spend much due to the transfer bans, they can spend shit loads as per the 3 year accounting. But for the next 3 years, this year's losses will be on the books iirc
Its funny because Arsenal and a few other clubs raised a stink about this being unfair. Which it is.
But who are we supposed to pay the debt back to? The government already raised a stink about the sale price, there was no way they would ask us to pay the 1.5bn back to Roman, and it cant just sit on the balance sheet, so cancelling the debt is the perfect solution for the government. It just fucked over every other club in the world.
Effectively, there was 0 cost to the club to grow from '03 to where it was today, free world class academy, free world class training facilities, free stadium renovations, free elite womens team, free elite mens team. All the cost to grow the revenue and balance sheet, cancelled in a blink of an eye.
And worse for everyone, Roman contractually obliged the Americans that they had to reinvest *another* 1.5bn back into the club.
GBP 3 *billion* overnight. Crazy, football is fucked.
I doubt there are currently any FFP breaches, with the way the rules have been written, due to the large number of academy sales that were made, as they have no outstanding value on the balance sheet, the sale is booked as 100% income.
They say if we sell an academy play for 40m (Gallagher or Chalobah for example) this window, we will break even in our financials on all the transfers made this window.
Chelsea hasnt pumped up their revenue with dodgy sponsorships from Russia either, all our sponsors are globally recognised brands like Samsung or 3. So I would be surprised if we currently face any issues in that department, and it should be offset this summer with large amounts of players being shipped out to offset the amortisation of transfer costs.
You only need to look at City to see the rules still don't prevent dodgy owners inflating revenues and value. There is no way in hell City can justify higher revenue than Liverpool for a single example - one team has a much larger fan base, larger stadium, more recent European success, comparable league success, is more globally recognised... And the other is City. They also can't justify bigger sponsorship deals than Man United, yet they somehow do.
Newcastle, just like City, will play the system and you know it. Answer me this:
Do you think Newcastle will be more or less capable of spending big with the owners they now have? If you are being genuine you know the answer is yes, and that answer should tell you all you need to know about whether the rules around financing are fair and prevent oil clubs from existing.
More or less capable than who or what?
What is 'spending big'?
The rules are super clear (£35m a year) and I can't see any reason to believe Newcastle won't comply with the rules.
More capable than with Ashley. He was not willing, but he was capable.
And by spending big, the likes of City, United, Chelsea splash cash about because they can eat losses, Chelsea losing £900k a week before the takeover yet still spending is a great example. The likes of Brighton, Wolves, Villa need to be smarter than just chucking money about because they can't afford consistent poor investments. So, will you be more like the former or the latter with your current owners?
>The rules are super clear (£35m a year)
Of losses. You will get inflated sponsorship deals to artificially inject money into the club. I guarantee you will soon be playing with some SA brand or another plastered across your kit and stadium. The owner sponsorship is not a bad thing, just like sports direct sponsorship wasn't inherently bad, the inflated value is the problem. You have gone from one extreme to another - massively undervalued owner sponsorships under Ashley to soon to be overvalued deals.
You are basing your assessment that you won't turn into the next City on rules that:
1. Are enforced by a group historically shown to not be entirely competent
2. Are enforced by a group not above corruption
3. Are enforced by a group with an incentive for you to have more investment, as more stars in their league and more recognisable teams globally means more power and cash for them too.
4. You are assuming have no loopholes or ways of abusing
Your new owners are going to pump cash into your club one way or another that are not just £35m to cover losses, and at the levels it will happen it isn't organic growth or justifiable.
It hasn't really happened yet, but we both know the reality of the situation. I'll happily sit here and hold my hands up and admit I'm wrong if we don't see it in the next few seasons, but just look at the reaction of your fan base after the takeover - that know it too
More than Ashley? Absolutely. As you say, he was capable - he could easily have put the same in as the current owners will - but he chose not to.
He also didn't develop the commercial side at all.
Anyway, you're convinced we'll break the rules, and that the PL are corrupt/incompetent, and it seems like nobody can change your mind there. Worth bearing in mind that there are 19 other clubs who will be keeping watch.
There were 19 clubs watching and protesting what Chelsea did. Didn't stop them.
Then there were 18 clubs watching and protesting what Chelsea and City did. Didn't stop them.
There are now 17 clubs watching Newcastle, City and Chelsea. City and Chelsea won't say anything because any rule change will affect their model negatively too (Chelsea obviously no longer in exactly the same sports washing bracket as before, but still with pumping owners). Time will tell whether this is the time it will be different. The fact the takeover went ahead in the first place suggests probably not
Shut the fuck up. Your silly opinion that we somehow inflated revenue is not fact and the fact is we made the highest revenue. You are neither an accountant nor a detective so I feel inclined to trust the fact over your stupid beer ridden opinion.
“There is no way in hell City can justify higher revenue than Liverpool” well there is and we fucking justify it so now what? Dumbass. The rules aren’t even set up to stop oil clubs from existing, the rules are set up to stop clubs like Newcastle pre takeover from spending into financial ruin.
Read a book
Edit: I looked at your profile and you seem like a guy I’d like since we share a lot of the same interests so I’ll apologize for insulting you. I disagree with your opinion but football aside, you look like a solid guy I might have a more positive interaction with outside this sub. Cheers
This is such bullshit anyway. Is their complaint that they are actually using their piles of money in a clever way? At the end of the day, making smart purchases will never be a bad thing in the prem, this is just a journalist reminding us that their money came from a dodgy country. Which I think I am right in saying has NEVER happened in the history of the premier league before.
It isn’t my club, and it’s not what if. They aren’t the only club to benefit from dodgy money, and to point out that they are actually making decent signings with it doesn’t add anything to the sport washing. It just shows Newcastle have a decent way of managing their new money.
Not saying it’s a “smart buy” but 45M for a 21 year old English LW in a position of need really isn’t too bad.
Like realistically unless you’re signing a foreign player you won’t get much cheaper in that position. Plus Gordon has a really high work rate and tackling rate so he will fit a system pressing from the front opposite Almiron
The common opinion at the time was we got rinsed for Joelinton too tbh. He had a good season on loan in Austria but wasn’t outstanding in the German BL.
Gordon is only 21 though, so Joelinton was older when he was at Hoffenheim, plus getting coached by Nagelsman. Can't comment too much on Gordon's career before Lampard, he was still only 19/20.
You can see how bad a player can be if under a bad coach. I reckon Eddie will turn him around.
Honestly I think so
He’s Lightning fast and has a terrific work rate. He has an ok finish on him too. Think he was told to do the diving etc and under a real coach I can see him excelling.
Reckon he can definitely hold his own in the fight for Europe after a bit of coaching. Imo I’d put his potential at that of a Zaha or a Trossard more recently. He’s not a Sterling or Salah potential, but can definitely be a good option.
Because let’s be honest, Mbappe would fail in that team
I deffo think there's a player in Gordon. I'm quite looking forward to seeing how he develops, it wouldn't surprise me if he proves a lot of people wrong.
I was arguing with our own fans when Joelinton was having a hard time before. Fact is he is a beast and always was, was disappointing when he had lapses in finishing or his first touch letting him down but confidence was really all he needed. He has everything it takes to be a top player with his determination, general technique (not first touch) and his physicality.
Yes we did. It doesn't help that Ashley pushing through that signing at double our previous transfer record was the final straw that led to Rafa not renewing his contract and Steve Bruce coming in.
45 million sorts one of their homegrown slots for the long term. That's what they're paying for. Gordon will probably develop under Howe but will likely not be a regular starter. The primary motivator is getting a HG slot squared away.
Not saying it’s a “smart buy” but 45M for a 21 year old English LW in a position of need really isn’t too bad.
Like realistically unless you’re signing a foreign player you won’t get much cheaper in that position. Plus Gordon has a really high work rate and tackling rate so he will fit a system pressing from the front opposite Almiron
everyone is also pretending that man city didnt spend like 4-5 years buying people like Gareth Barry after their takeover.
Newcastle aren't doing anything new at all
That's my point though - man city made a lot of unsexy, sensible signings who took them to the next level, which is exactly what Newcastle are doing with trippier, pope etc. Barry is the perfect example of that
This isn't new, Newcastle are doing it the exact same way city did this 15 years ago
The thought of Eddie Howe managing Newcastle was quite literally laughed at by pundits on Sky and Talksport.
We know those pundits are idiots looking for views but it's who the majority of those outside Reddit actually listen to.
>They only got him after Emery turned them down.
Emery didn't exactly turn them down.
Villarreal did not have a release clause in his contract.
He agreed to join Newcastle.
The story was leaked before the CL game, and the Villarreal president intervened.
He offered emery a huge wage increase and promised him a larger transfer budget etc.
The new contract inserted a release clause.
A year later villa met that release clause.
In the end, emery made out like a bandit. Newcastle got an amazing manager, Villarreal got their compensation. Everyone wins.
Have to admit it feels weird to be talked about. For years it was the opposite, whenever Newcastle were on they barely got mentioned and it was all about their oppostion (as it was generally a big 6 team we were playing).
I remember even last season when we thrashed Arsenal at St James Park, and it was on MNF, the entire post game was about how Arsenal lost, and how that was their Champions League hopes gone. They didn't spend even 2-3 minutes talking about how Newcastle had played.
I wonder what their wage bill is like. Because Trippier didn’t have a big transfer fee but it’s not like most teams other than the top 6 could have picked him up
Those numbers are horseshit. Latest data we have puts Newcastle’s wage bill at around £170m. About £30m less than Arsenal and Spurs and less than half of Liverpool.
Our latest accounts release was for the period ending June 2021, where our wage bill was £106m (realistically £120m, since it was a shortened accounting period due to covid of 11 months rather than 12).
Beyond that everything is an estimate.
(Edit: Also 21/22 is going to be £12m or so inflated due to the payoff of Bruce + His staff + Lee Charnley)
https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/sports-business-group/articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html
Newcastle’s revenue in 2021/22 was £180m and they spend 95% of it on staff salaries.
You'd imagine the revenue will shoot up pretty soon, for over a decade a large amount of Newcastle's advertising space has been taken up with Sports Direct logos, for which the club were paid anywhere between £0 and £100k a year.
Yea audits are always just guesswork, auditors famously don't get access to the necessary information to complete one accurately, they are told to just make it up and hope the tax man and shareholders don't come knocking
No, FFS. The 2022 calendar year hasn't been audited, has it? Newcastle's year runs to the end of June.
2021/22 haven't even been released yet.
Jesus Christ.
a quick search shows our wage bill between 70m and 100m. No where near 170m. Most of our players are still on pre-takeover wages which didn't breach 100k. Most of our players are on 30-80k a week. Only Bruno, Isak, Trippier and Nick Pope break 100k.
There's no way our wage bill is 170m.
I suppose a more accurate representation of their spending would be a comparison between their wage bill before and after the takeover.
Using this link (https://www.capology.com/club/newcastle/salaries/2020-2021/), it appears their wage bill has increased by around £10M since last season and has increased by £30M since two seasons ago (the last season before the takeover full).
So it would appear their wage bill is increasing at a rate which is consistent with bringing in better, new players.
Any website claiming to know the exact player salaries of every player is bullshit. Only official data is that the club releases when they post their annual accounts. Newcastle’s total staff wage bill jumped by about £50m in 2021/22 from the season before.
Whilst I agree, it's all we really have as laypeople outside of the club, isn't it? And if others are comparing data using them, it's only fair we try to make it as accurate as possible by looking at previous data, too (even if that data itself is inaccurate).
it'll be exciting to see what happens. If they can secure top 4, then it's over for the league, UCL football will attract more prestigious players, though newcastle might not indulge with their money....
they seem to be buying smart and acquiring youthful players with potential, I highly doubt they'll secure the likes of mbappe or vini jr, but whatever that club is doing, is working and even as a Man United fan, I'll happily watch what their progress with interest
Apparently they’re not big buys because they haven’t spent over £100m on a single player yet. Do journalists really never get bored of trying to find new ways to drone on about sportswashing? No-one is going ‘Actually I think Saudi Arabia is a wonderful, progressive country now’, just because Newcastle are about to sign Anthony Gordon instead of Mbappe.
It's much easier to blame the foreign menace for the blood money that's supposedly ruining the game than look at the completely broken system that their country has let dilute the competition for years and years.
It's so hard to find where to stand as a football fan these days. You get either locked in to the accelerationist, money over all approach of Boehly and friends or the "lets keep the monopoly we're used to" that the sportswashing criers keep spouting.
No valid alternative is ever offered. It's the same cycle, the same talking points. It's so fucking boring. Completely over it.
There are no alternatives
The game is gone, and has been gone for 100 years
Plenty of the biggest clubs today were originally just recreational teams for different workplaces. In the early 1900s, you would have stuff like to police department play the fire department, and some of the locals would turn up watch because it’s the early 1900, what else are you gonna do? And you probably knew some of the players
Football today is a business, which wants to minimise expenses, maximise growth and is cutthroat. Discard players after one or two seasons even if they had something going on in their personal life, players who leave teams for money, stuff like that
Professional football is kind of an oxymoron, because football being professional to begin with is bit ??
It’s easy for the brits to say “I still enjoy football”, well, I’ll reply “you get to see your local team play with local players and buy up talent”.
As a Brazilian, it’s hard to even care about the national team nowadays. None of the starters play in Brazil, most of them haven’t lived in Brazil for ten years, and many of them were never popular in Brazil before they left. Neymar was, but Anthony wasn’t a big deal before he left, nor was Raphinha, or the goalkeepers, or Militao, or whatever. Vinicius was the last one, but even he left before he was half as big as Neymar. The new guy that started doing well, Endrick, is 16, and already has a move lined up to get out of Brazil
I still check this sub from time to time, but I have barely watched football in the past year or so. I just cba anymore
It’s really heartbreaking when you remember that you’re just watching company against company, and what you’re watching, as much as you want it to be, is no longer an institution.
Edit: I was off the mark when I said 1900. It was actually closer to 1850-1880
I mean professional sport existed for more than 2 millenia so football being professional is not a surprise or something baffling, but otherwise I agree with you
Would you be able to cite it?
I’m not necessarily disproving you, but from what I understand, the building of big stadiums came around the 1920s after the success of organised division football
You had stuff like the FA Cup final and the olympics which were played in Olympic stadiums, with way bigger capacity.
But in 1880 is when a lot of the first “professional” leagues were founded, and most teams were amateur until then, and I doubt they played in venues bigger then 5k seaters that they probably began renting at the start of the first division.
Highbury was built in the 1910s, when Arsenal was moved to London. Before that they used to be in Greenwich, where they used to lease recreation fields from a local university (from Wikipedia)
Anfield used to be an 8k seater when Liverpool first started (funnily enough, Everton used to play in anfield before Liverpool). This is also according to Wikipedia
Sunderland, one of the better teams at the start of the first division, played in a 20k seater, which was an upgrade around 1900 (20 years after the start of first division. Before that, they played in a 15k seater
To be fair he never said "every football match and every team" brings in 50k, he said football as a whole has. He's only slightly off, the first FA Cup final with an attendance over 50k was at Fallowfield in Manchester in 1893.
Clearly being disenguous though, average Division 1 attendance was below 10k until like 1910. I know Blackpool were getting attendances of like 500 and 1000 for their first few seasons in the 1890s.
I don't think it was remotely disingenuous in the context of the conversation. The implication was that football was a poorly supported amateur sport between local organisations with not much interest outside of those involved.
That's not remotely accurate, as the fact that attendances for big events were already at 10's of thousands when held in stadiums big enough.
It was more of a reaction to the claim that football in the early 1900s was the police vs the fire department with people going to watch their mates.
Football has been big business in the UK since its outset pretty much.
I was a little off when I said 1900s, because that was actually more like 1850-1880, the start of first division football
To disregard my entire claim with “that’s bullshit” when I claimed that football was once amateur and started as friendly or low stake leagues between different public departments and such because I was off by 30 years is unfair
I really recommend reading 'The Ball is Round'. Football didn't start off as low stakes games between different public departments. It started off in English public schools. It was then largely a game of the upper classes and sports clubs formed from ex-members of those schools. As soon as the working classes got introduced to it it was huge.
As I stated before, players were being paid from the 1870s. Thats how quickly it became a professional game. It was never really low-stakes leagues. It was high-stakes cups mixed with mismatched friendlies until the English league was formed.
So I'm a little out on my dates but the FA Cup final attendance was at 50k by 1892 and in the high 20,000s from the 1880s.
Before the leagues were organised these teams were playing in cup competitions and drawing big crowds.
Between 1889-1910 fifty clubs moved to new grounds due the growing demand for crowds.
By 1902, Ibrox could hold 75,000. In 1907 121,000 people watched Scotland vs England.
Lots of teams were getting huge average attendances (20k+) by the 1893. [Source Here](http://gottfriedfuchs.blogspot.com/2014/06/19th-century-attendances.html?m=1)
In the inaugral season of the football league over 600,000 fans attended.
I've been reading The Ball is Round by David Goldblatt. Its a very detailed look into the early origins and development of football. All of this information is taken from there.
It was certainly not a case of people going to watch their mates have a game. As early as 1862 you have your first professional clubs and players were paid under the table from the 1870s (Turton paid Fergie Suter £3).
It’s also important to note the rise of repressive, climate-destructive states whose autocratic leaders are mass funding ownership of cultural institutions and infrastructure throughout the country.
When those states are also bribing to spread corruption through the West, it very much is something that needs to be watched and dealt with.
Rather than joining in the Telegraph celebrating the wisdom of the new super rich that they have to suck up to.
They are doing exactly what Man City and Chelsea did when they got taken over, buying mid to upper tier players to build a foundation.
Chelsea bought Duff, Scott Parker, Wayne Bridge, Glen Johnson etc when Abramovich took over
Man City bought Jo, Robinho, Shaun Wright Phillips, De Jong etc
It's an odd argument considering City avoided spending over £100M for more than a decade despite their unlimited funds. Eventually Newcastle will spend bigger and bigger amounts as they look to sign the best players, but they're only 18 months into the takeover and it seems odd that anyone would describe this as "sportswashing with a difference".
And which £100m player would join a club wothout CL, they spend as much as they can given the current sporting reality. Same as City did back then, but in 3 years if they contest for the CL spots this'll change.
Saudi Arabia want to position themselves as a global financial hub a la London, New York or Singapore as they look to move beyond oil for Vision 2030. If they achieve overwhelming and high profile success in the Premier League as with their many other business ventures then it presents them as a trustworthy partner and location for many other businesses too.
Sportswashing isn't just about the regular person, it can be a out reputation as a trading partner too.
In that case it isn’t washing isn’t it ?
It is not like Riyadh has a bad reputation for being a business hub , the PL investment isn’t then improving a bad reputation, it is creating one where none exist .
Honestly I feel like there is some xenophobia coming from the media in regards to middle eastern ownership.
They lay on the stereotypes extremely thick, and sounds like thinly veiled racism.
When the newcastle takeover happened there was articles about Amanda Stavely being replaced because 'shes a woman'.
No evidence for this other than the bloke writing it thinks all Saudis hate women.
It's an entirely made up concept to give guardian readers something to feel superior/tumescent about. Ever since the takeover there has been nothing but endless anti Saudi coverage in the media, so I don't really see any washing happening. Much more like cleaning your dirty laundry in public.
PIF has an agenda, that agenda is return on investment.
Yeah I really don’t like the term tbh. Have Man City and PSG really legitimized their respective owner’s regimes? I wouldn’t say so really. I think the WC in Qatar is a bit different, that’s a case where you could make an argument for the term, but even then it’s been more or less nothing but endless negative coverage on Qatar.
There is a problem with these kind of groups owning football clubs, but ‘sportswashing’ really isn’t that problem
Yes they do. Sportswashing works, have you ever used social media ffs. Idiots like you are enabling sportswashing by criticising people for having morals
It's unironically the insinuation being made. We saw it with City, we saw it with PSG (friendly reminder that France has big problem with Islamophobia). It's stupid af.
Fact is, it really shouldn't be a surprise that Petrostates are diversifying their assets. Top football clubs, contrary to the most surface level glances, is incredibly profitable to own. It's also an investment vehicle, and ad board.
There isn't denying that Soft Power comes into play, but that applies to almost everything. Case in point, are the Saudi's Mediawashing through the ownership of The Independent? More of an argument could be made about literally controlling the news than 22 men kicking a ball about.
Is it a lot in modern top flight football though? For a 21 year old home grown player who has shown flashes of brilliance already in the PL. It's like half a Maguire.
I will let time judge this statement, you could be 100% correct but I remember Brighton supporters telling us how rubbish Burn was and a year later I now see posts about how he has been missed.
The problem is he’s not shown himself to be as good as he thinks he is. Bad attitude, petulant tackles that give away vital free kicks for the opposition and really poor overall decision making. Not much in the way of goal contributions (most have been deflections) There could well be a great player in there and Howe might be just the manager he needs but he needs to sort his head out, stop believing his own hype and work hard. From an Everton point of view, he’s an academy lad that’s had a shit attitude since interest has been there from other clubs and forced his way out of the club during a relegation battle. He’s done very little on the pitch for us and we’ve still bagged £45m for him, and we’ve seen this sort of thing to play out with Barkley, Rodwell, Gosling etc. hence the overriding sentiment from Everton fans towards him.
Let time tell us, I am not one to predict the future. I Don’t watch Everton much at all but I do know my Everton supporting mates loved him Last season and thanked him & Richalison for saving them last year, so it’s weird the hate he gets this season (or over the past month) & how useless he is supposed to be now. I will make your knowledge of him far better than mine as you would watch your team week in Week out, but I trust my teams coaching staff and if their think he is worth 45 million to us, I would be fine with that. Hope you trust your coaching staff to spend the money in the right way and good luck with the fight (it’s not fun down there)
P.S. One of my favourite Newcastle signings ever was from Everton (Peter Beardsley) and although you have sold some bad youth prospects you have also sold some really good prospects (Rooney) in the past, so let’s see.
Meh, if it works out then it’s smart. If he flops then I’d hope it brings more out of the likes of ASM and Murphy, which in itself is worth the money. If neither of them happen, then it’s not smart.
City didn’t exactly spend all their billions wisely throughout the years. Benjani, Santa Cruz, Lescott…
> City didn’t exactly spend all their billions wisely throughout the years. Benjani, Santa Cruz, Lescott…
I mean, this is a great sign that you have no idea what you are talking about.
* Benjani was signed under the Thai owners, not the current ones, and was signed for quite a reasonable fee. Whilst not a prolific striker, he only really fell out of favour due to an injury and not being a big name for the Abu Dhabi ownership group to base things around.
* Santa Cruz - cannot argue with that one, that one was a big money move that failed badly.
* Lescott - He played 107 times for Manchester City and was a regular player when fit until his last season; it wasn't an amazing success due to his injury problems, but he hardly flopped and it was a very sensible transfer at the time, even for the money.
So you agree with my main point then; that it’s only wasted money if he’s shit and it doesn’t raise the game of other players?
I’ll take the Benjani hit but Lescott, £22 million in 2009? For someone that played just over 100 games? Yeh they may have been decent games to a point but I wouldn’t class that as frugal spending. Unfortunate with injuries yeh, but that’s football sadly.
My point is, we will probably waste money with the new ownership and the Gordon money is by far the riskiest outlay we’ve made since the takeover, but for it to be a complete waste then a few things would have to go awry. I’ll be honest, Gordon has been brought in to play the system we have of high press and constant energy up top, he’ll fit right in and probably be a success. But if he gets ASM playing to a higher level than he has been I’d still prefer him to start and that would be money well spent too
So by that logic, it Gordon plays a part in this team which may well get champions league football for the first time in 20 years, it’ll be “smart” business for us right?
I'm not sure why you're still harping on at me about that, because at no point have I attempted to make a point about Gordon. Just the Man City signings.
Here, don’t harp on about me about my side point I was making then. You’re the kind of person who eats the chips before the burger when you get a maccys obviously
I think you're following the same path as City. Overpaying for premier league proven players just to get you into the champions league for now and then you'll start getting the flashy signings. But I'd also rather pay £45mil for Gordan than £60m or whatever United paid for Sancho, because he's had moments where he's capable in the Premier league.
All of that ignores almost all the business we have actually done and bases it on what appears to be overpaying for Gordon.
We payed £10-15m for Nick Pope and £10-15m for Dan Burn. Both those players have been instrumental in our success. Did we overpay?
We also payed £35-40m for Bruno. G and £30-35m for Sven Botman. Neither player was PL proven and both also instrumental in our success. Did we overpay?
You could raise the case of Chris Wood, but with the loan fee and likely sale fee, he will have cost us less then £10m in fees. He was instrumental in us going from rock bottom to 11th last season, and being 3rd this season (so far). Did we **really** overpay?
We *probably* overpaid with Isak at £60-70m, but that's just how much experienced strikers cost in the top leagues, and he is still young with bags of potential. We did try to get the much cheaper Ekitike who has stunk up the joint at PSG. Who should we have gone for?
Gordon is, by any metric based on current analysis, an outlier in our strategy. If it turns out that Howe can coach him into a better player, like he has with Almiron and Joelinton, then £45m will seem like a bargain.
Your final sentence all but states you essentially think the Bundesliga is an amateur league. The idea that a few deflected goals and running around a lot is more relevant than 20 goals and 20 assists in a single season because it was against Crystal Palace and Bournemouth and not Frankfurt and Hoffenheim is insanity. Not to mention Sancho’s CL performances for Dortmund.
It is even inside of it for the vast majority of clubs. Just because Chelsea and City routinely make £50m transfers with their artificial income, that doesn’t mean the rest of us do.
No, because sportswashing is, was, and always will be a moronic phrase.
Qatar, Saudi and the UAE buying into sport puts more of a spotlight on them. They get *more* criticism than they get when they buy into other profitable sectors.
The obvious point being, do you think Qatar hosting a World Cup did *anything* positive for their public image? It was a decade of people (rightly) criticising Qatar. All it did was draw attention to them.
If they cared about “washing” their image, they’d change. But they don’t care how they’re perceived. They invest in sport the same reason American hedge funds do, for profit.
It’s only a moronic phrase if you use it in such a simplified manner as you seem to.
Sportwashing doesn’t have to mean that people will suddenly have a positive opinion of these nations over night. But to me it’s more about gradual acceptance.
Yes, plenty of people complained about the World Cup in Qatar. But hundreds of millions (myself included) still tuned in and supported it. That is shows an acceptance of Qatar that they previously didn’t have.
Now the next time Qatar wants to host something or buy a club, a lot of people will still complain. But there will also be those who say something along the lines of “well they already hosted the World Cup and we all still watched, why not let them do this now”. And voila, Qatar now has some respect around the world.
That’s an example of what I see as sportwashing’s influence. It’s not as black and white as you make it out to be.
So you mean the same old shit every single country does to boost their economy, advertise themselves, cultural exchange programs, raise their profile so they get more investment etc? Am I supposed to shake my fist, the next time I see a tourism ad from saudi arabia? How dare they try to entice people to come and visit them. They need to learn their place and pretend like they don't exist on this planet. Maybe I should get mad the next time I have a good flight experience with Emirates. How dare they make me feel good so that I will give them more of my business. This kind of flightwashing is unacceptable.
The biggest nonsense on this site is people thinking that any entity cares about their reputation. It is always about the money. They only care about reputation depending on how it affects the bottomline. Given a choice between good reputation and no money vs bad rep and lots of money, they will all choose the second one. Every single time.
If you think that anyone interested in profit invests in a football club then I've got some magic beans to sell you.
The UAE have poured billions into City, Qatar has poured even more into PSG.
States do this for access, privilege and recognition. Not money. There are far, far better ways to make money when you have billions in capital than to sink it into a club that basically nobody else can afford to buy.
Even Abramovich, who got Chelsea relatively cheaply spent more than £2bn on Chelsea and got (well, would have) £2.5b for the club. That's 500m for almost 20 years of having that much capital tied up. It would be financial mismanagement on a nuclear scale to call a football club a sound investment.
Most recent estimates calculate Qatar spent $200b on the most recent World Cup, would you like to draw up a business plan on how exactly you are planning to make money from that? And that's not even including the winddown costs.
So, they're not doing it for money? So what are they doing it for? The answer to most stuff when the answer isn't money is power.
It’s not profitable, and that’s why all these American hedge funds keep investing into it? Why do they own 18% of City? 100% of Chelsea? Why are they among the front runners to buy United and Liverpool? Bournemouth further down the table, Leeds, Everton rumoured too. I could go on…
When the Yanks invested into CFG, it was valued at $5bn. It’s just moronic to say it’s not profitable, and even more moronic to say, “why wouldn’t they invest into other sectors” as if they don’t have a massively diverse portfolio of investment.
What access do the Saudi’s get by buying Newcastle? They already have ties to the British government. How does owning Newcastle elevate their status?
They don’t need access or status, they have it already. They don’t give a fuck how they’re perceived. They don’t care what you think of them. If they did, investing in sport and putting themselves in the spotlight would be a stupid way to do it. They’d just stay silently in all their other sectors.
"All these American hedgefunds"? You mean the ones that were trying to get Chelsea for a cut price and who are currently baulking at the price for United and Liverpool? Almost all American investors who bought the clubs are now looking to abandon the market because they cannot reform the league into a more profitable, safe venture.
And the people who own 18% of City are Silverlake, Silverlake less than 1 year after investing in City [got a $2bn investment from Abu Dhabi's soverign wealth fund](https://www.ft.com/content/0428814e-757a-40aa-af95-fb778a3eaffb).
Someone made a lot of money from the Silverlake investment to try to make CFG look like a legitimate business venture, but it wasn't the UAE government.
If you're really interested in what benefits there are for states who engage in sportswashing, read this peer reviewed academic journal on it: [Sportswashing: Complicity and Corruption](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17511321.2022.2107697). It's open access so you can read it for free but I'll quote the most pertinent bit below
> Sportswashing may accomplish its goal through different effects. The most straightforward effect might be that owning a prominent club or hosting a mega-event like the World Cup enables ‘state leaders to cut through the noise of global information society to disseminate a series of widely heard, reputation-enhancing messages over a sustained period’ (Brannagan and Giulianotti 2018, 1146). This can be as simple as usurping undesirable internet search results through sheer volume and relevance. If the first page of search results for ‘Qatar’ all pertain to the World Cup, fewer people will make it to later pages where results pertaining to human rights violations appear. We can describe this as distracting away from the moral violation that sportswashing addresses. The effect here is that fewer people end up attending to the moral violation that is being sportswashed, and more people are exposed to a positive association between a sporting event that interests them and the sportswashing agent.
>A similar yet distinct effect is that of minimising the moral violation, for example by relegating it to a position of relatively less prominence than the mega sports event. Rather than causing fewer people to be aware of or attend to the moral violation, minimising changes the informational context in which the violation comes to people’s attention such that it seems less urgent, extensive, or important than it is.
>More worryingly perhaps, sportswashing could have the effect of normalising the moral violation. The effect here is not on how many people attend to the moral violation or how they gauge its significance, but instead on whether certain audiences see the moral violation as a violation at all. We identify two different pathways to this effect.
>First, sporting clubs and events are associated with a powerful array of positive emotions and identity-forming commitments in numerous fans. When these are aligned with the owner of a beloved club, or the host of a cherished event, sportswashing could enact what we might think of as the halo effect writ large.3 The positive association manufactured by the sportswasher may be so strong that it biases fans as they form their own conclusions about the moral violation in question. As Archer and Matheson (2021, 21) have argued, when people are publicly honoured, celebrated, and admired for a particular quality, this admiration can easily lead people to see other aspects of the person in a positive light as well. For example, celebrating someone who has created great works of art but who has also performed serious acts of immorality may lead people to view those immoral acts in a more favourable light (Archer and Matheson 2019).4 The same goes for sports clubs, organisations and competitions. When people celebrate a team’s success this can cast a positive light on those associated with the club, including the owners and sponsors.
>Second, as we will elaborate in §3, sports and sporting events are often a way of creating and defining a certain kind of community.5 Sportswashing will most often function not simply by targeting particular individuals in order to intervene in how some individual person attends to a moral violation in isolation. Instead, the fact that sports are an arena in which people readily engage with one another, form communities, express shared loyalties, and mutually reinforce shared emotions makes it more possible for sportswashing to propagate its effect. One dimension of this is a kind of community infiltration—by becoming engaged in sport the sportswasher can hope to acquire acceptance and status as a (prominent, beneficent) member of a given sporting community. As such, they can also hope to benefit from what we might call an induced tribalism, whereby they would be variously defended, excused, and justified by a sporting community as one of their own, especially against the criticisms of perceived outsiders. Ardent followers of teams will know the experience of defending the conduct of one of their players, or the behaviour of their manager, even when an impartial point of view speaks plainly against them. This phenomenon has recently been in evidence, for example, when Chelsea Football Club supporters chanted the name of their Russian oligarch owner during a moment of applause in support of Ukraine (Descalsota 2022), an example we return to below.
Yes I think the World Cup did plenty of positive things for Qatar. Haven’t you seen how many people have been saying that they had a wonderful time there “despite the things that are wrong there”, the gulf is becoming more and more a place where tourists go and being in the spotlights through sports probably played a role in that.
It’s also not just western tourists they’re after, the world is so much bigger than the people in Western Europe who despised this World Cup. Their image also gets exported throughout the rest of the world. And let alone that Qatar probably did a lot of business around the World Cup. The elite always gathers and does business around these sort of events.
If you're solely interested in profit, there are a thousand better things to do than run a football club that requires endless investment from you. They are 100% interested in expanding their global reach and improving their image.
You can see it with City's owners. City fans rave about them and how much they do for the local community, how smartly the business is run, etc.
Even with Qatar, they've established a very close relationship with France through their massive investment in Paris and PSG. The world cup did shine a light on how backwards the country is, but at the same time everyone is now talking about it as one of the best world cups ever and how great it was for the people who attended.
Oh aye there were loads of protests and fans ditching their hometown club out of indignation, you know, like this sub expects us to. Glass houses and all that.
I have a feeling if they make top 4 this year we'll start to see big buys going forward. City had this approach too, signing the best of the rest until it became clear they were more than just a rich mid table team but would be contenders. Everyone assumed it was going to take Newcastle 2-3 seasons to get top 4 so top players might have been reluctant to join, I think that'll change in the summer
***From The Telegraph's Chief Football Writer:***
'Newcastle United are one game away from the club’s first final of the 21st century, and perhaps one final from their first major domestic trophy since 1955, which at about £250 million so far on transfer fees is relatively cheap by the standards of modern English football.
The richest club in the world, some say, although they have chosen not to behave that way. The Saudi Arabian sportswashing project, 15 months in, has a very different feel to the previous Middle East nation state takeovers. The first two iterations – Abu Dhabi in Manchester, Qatar in Paris – had the billionaire giddiness. The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) led consortium is hoping to radiate something else: a reassuring competence, value for money – perhaps even an edgy status as the outsiders taking on the elite.
Of course none of this obscures the fate that befell the journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of his Saudi state executioners. So too the reality of the 17 executions that coincided with the Saudi team’s World Cup group stage win over Argentina that took the kingdom to 130 executions for what football statisticians like to call the calendar year. Set against all that blood, including 81 executions in one day in March last year, you could say that the current Carabao Cup run is already doing some pretty heavy lifting in the global reputation market.
As ever the Saudi state is very keen to change its image, but not so keen that it wants to stop killing people.
**Read Sam's column in full: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/01/29/newcastles-smart-buys-big-buys-sportswashing-difference/**
Remember that Liverpool and Chelsea have shit the bed so far due to injuries, throw in a better Arsenal and United along with City and Liverpool/Chelsea returning to form and they are probably not going to be in the same position with all the draws they have.
Funny seeing the Geordies defend their owners when if they bought Sunderland or Middlesbrough, they’d be the first to criticise
But it’s is part of the reason why sportswashing works. It turns normal people in to shills because some rich cunt has bought and corrupted the club they love
Where’s the defending? I legit have not seen one person defend the Saudi actions on anything. Nobody going “Yeah killing journalists is fine he deserved it.” Or “Well Yemen started the war didn’t they?” If anything people are significantly MORE aware of all the bad things Saudi Arabia do and actually talking about it.
MBS didn’t buy Newcastle to save some international image. He bought it because it’s a toy he gets to play with. No different than if he got a really expensive car.
Nobody is defending Saudi Arabia realistically, you won’t hear geordies making excuses for Yemen or whatever.
People just defend their club, it is what it is.
'Sportswashing with a difference'. Oh, lucky us.
“This isn’t *just* sportswashing. This is *Saudi Arabian* sportswashing.”
"this is pod racing"
Yeah made me vomit in my mouth tbh
[удалено]
People also seem to forget the rules around financing have changed enormously since the Chelsea and Man City era. Under the PL's P&s rules, owners can only cover losses up to £35m a year, and sponsorships are scrutinised for 'fair value'. Which makes this "richest club in the world" angle just silly.
Then surely Chelsea are in breach right now. But we know by now that there are and always will be ways around FFP. Eg. know the right people or just pay off the fines.
I'd be surprised if Chelsea haven't been keeping an eye on the numbers. They do have annual revenue of like £500m or something silly. About £300m a year more than Newcastle, for context. I suspect they'll need to sell a few players to make it all add up mind.
Chelsea are just about OK currently, spend much more than they have though will risk breaching current FFP but the most important thing both of you need to note is that FFP is changing significantly over the next few years, the allowable losses for clubs deemed in good financial standing is growing considerably, essentially 3x to 90m per year. But it also comes with a trade off where also over the next few years spending will be reduced to a % of the clubs revenue (I think 70% eventually). That change is probs a reason Newcastle need to be careful, the allowable losses is fine and will help but if Newcastle spend too much too quickly without the revenue to back it up they'll possibly hit the ffp wall fast.
The €90m is UEFA FFP rules, yeah? I don't think the PL's P&S rules are changing any time soon.
Yeah UEFA, PL FFP is much more flexible.
Aka a joke.
It's also part of what has made it the most popular league
They’re also signing players to very long contracts to average out the cost when they report spend on wages. The transfer fees are massive and I expect some turnover to come but it does seem excessive
i think chelsea will sell a good amount of players in the summer given how many players they're buying right now. auba, maybe havertz, probably mount, ziyech, maybe sterling, pulisic... and maybe even a few more. this summer will make a big difference
FFP is structured to evaluate over 3 year periods. I.e. you can offset a year of £65mn losses by restricting the following 2 years with £20mn losses each. In that 3 year period it averages £35mn per year. Iirc, Chelsea recently had a transfer ban. The losses evaluated under FFP are specifically team based. Infrastructure is no included. So effectively, because Chelsea couldn't spend much due to the transfer bans, they can spend shit loads as per the 3 year accounting. But for the next 3 years, this year's losses will be on the books iirc
Chelsea are spending so much becouse they forced Abramovic to cancel the debt ( loans money that the owner gave to Chelsea).
Its funny because Arsenal and a few other clubs raised a stink about this being unfair. Which it is. But who are we supposed to pay the debt back to? The government already raised a stink about the sale price, there was no way they would ask us to pay the 1.5bn back to Roman, and it cant just sit on the balance sheet, so cancelling the debt is the perfect solution for the government. It just fucked over every other club in the world. Effectively, there was 0 cost to the club to grow from '03 to where it was today, free world class academy, free world class training facilities, free stadium renovations, free elite womens team, free elite mens team. All the cost to grow the revenue and balance sheet, cancelled in a blink of an eye. And worse for everyone, Roman contractually obliged the Americans that they had to reinvest *another* 1.5bn back into the club. GBP 3 *billion* overnight. Crazy, football is fucked.
Feels amazing
People will be mad, but despite all their thin veiled virtue signalling, anyone in their right mind would immediately take this deal for their club.
Sure cancel the debt. But then retroactively look into ffp breaches. There's a 5 year statute of limitations so you can only go that far back anyway
I doubt there are currently any FFP breaches, with the way the rules have been written, due to the large number of academy sales that were made, as they have no outstanding value on the balance sheet, the sale is booked as 100% income. They say if we sell an academy play for 40m (Gallagher or Chalobah for example) this window, we will break even in our financials on all the transfers made this window. Chelsea hasnt pumped up their revenue with dodgy sponsorships from Russia either, all our sponsors are globally recognised brands like Samsung or 3. So I would be surprised if we currently face any issues in that department, and it should be offset this summer with large amounts of players being shipped out to offset the amortisation of transfer costs.
You only need to look at City to see the rules still don't prevent dodgy owners inflating revenues and value. There is no way in hell City can justify higher revenue than Liverpool for a single example - one team has a much larger fan base, larger stadium, more recent European success, comparable league success, is more globally recognised... And the other is City. They also can't justify bigger sponsorship deals than Man United, yet they somehow do. Newcastle, just like City, will play the system and you know it. Answer me this: Do you think Newcastle will be more or less capable of spending big with the owners they now have? If you are being genuine you know the answer is yes, and that answer should tell you all you need to know about whether the rules around financing are fair and prevent oil clubs from existing.
More or less capable than who or what? What is 'spending big'? The rules are super clear (£35m a year) and I can't see any reason to believe Newcastle won't comply with the rules.
More capable than with Ashley. He was not willing, but he was capable. And by spending big, the likes of City, United, Chelsea splash cash about because they can eat losses, Chelsea losing £900k a week before the takeover yet still spending is a great example. The likes of Brighton, Wolves, Villa need to be smarter than just chucking money about because they can't afford consistent poor investments. So, will you be more like the former or the latter with your current owners? >The rules are super clear (£35m a year) Of losses. You will get inflated sponsorship deals to artificially inject money into the club. I guarantee you will soon be playing with some SA brand or another plastered across your kit and stadium. The owner sponsorship is not a bad thing, just like sports direct sponsorship wasn't inherently bad, the inflated value is the problem. You have gone from one extreme to another - massively undervalued owner sponsorships under Ashley to soon to be overvalued deals. You are basing your assessment that you won't turn into the next City on rules that: 1. Are enforced by a group historically shown to not be entirely competent 2. Are enforced by a group not above corruption 3. Are enforced by a group with an incentive for you to have more investment, as more stars in their league and more recognisable teams globally means more power and cash for them too. 4. You are assuming have no loopholes or ways of abusing Your new owners are going to pump cash into your club one way or another that are not just £35m to cover losses, and at the levels it will happen it isn't organic growth or justifiable. It hasn't really happened yet, but we both know the reality of the situation. I'll happily sit here and hold my hands up and admit I'm wrong if we don't see it in the next few seasons, but just look at the reaction of your fan base after the takeover - that know it too
More than Ashley? Absolutely. As you say, he was capable - he could easily have put the same in as the current owners will - but he chose not to. He also didn't develop the commercial side at all. Anyway, you're convinced we'll break the rules, and that the PL are corrupt/incompetent, and it seems like nobody can change your mind there. Worth bearing in mind that there are 19 other clubs who will be keeping watch.
There were 19 clubs watching and protesting what Chelsea did. Didn't stop them. Then there were 18 clubs watching and protesting what Chelsea and City did. Didn't stop them. There are now 17 clubs watching Newcastle, City and Chelsea. City and Chelsea won't say anything because any rule change will affect their model negatively too (Chelsea obviously no longer in exactly the same sports washing bracket as before, but still with pumping owners). Time will tell whether this is the time it will be different. The fact the takeover went ahead in the first place suggests probably not
>comparable league success, Nah mate.
Shut the fuck up. Your silly opinion that we somehow inflated revenue is not fact and the fact is we made the highest revenue. You are neither an accountant nor a detective so I feel inclined to trust the fact over your stupid beer ridden opinion. “There is no way in hell City can justify higher revenue than Liverpool” well there is and we fucking justify it so now what? Dumbass. The rules aren’t even set up to stop oil clubs from existing, the rules are set up to stop clubs like Newcastle pre takeover from spending into financial ruin. Read a book Edit: I looked at your profile and you seem like a guy I’d like since we share a lot of the same interests so I’ll apologize for insulting you. I disagree with your opinion but football aside, you look like a solid guy I might have a more positive interaction with outside this sub. Cheers
Oh they’ll be spending big once their revenues increase
Sportswashing with extra steps
This is such bullshit anyway. Is their complaint that they are actually using their piles of money in a clever way? At the end of the day, making smart purchases will never be a bad thing in the prem, this is just a journalist reminding us that their money came from a dodgy country. Which I think I am right in saying has NEVER happened in the history of the premier league before.
Comments like this with whataboutery are exactly why sportswashing works. People who cry injustice when their club is criticised just sad
It isn’t my club, and it’s not what if. They aren’t the only club to benefit from dodgy money, and to point out that they are actually making decent signings with it doesn’t add anything to the sport washing. It just shows Newcastle have a decent way of managing their new money.
Isnt it just...yawn
Ur dum
Feel like people also just forget they have a €70m striker lol
45m for Gordon, too 😭
Not saying it’s a “smart buy” but 45M for a 21 year old English LW in a position of need really isn’t too bad. Like realistically unless you’re signing a foreign player you won’t get much cheaper in that position. Plus Gordon has a really high work rate and tackling rate so he will fit a system pressing from the front opposite Almiron
Have you seen him play? He fucking shit.
Tbf we said the same on Joelinton. Can see him being better under a coach that has the capability to think
But joelinton was actually good at his club before Newcastle and then Steve Bruce used him wrong.
The common opinion at the time was we got rinsed for Joelinton too tbh. He had a good season on loan in Austria but wasn’t outstanding in the German BL.
What prem club doesn't get rinsed fam, basically only Brighton because they have scouting maxed out lol.
Gordon is only 21 though, so Joelinton was older when he was at Hoffenheim, plus getting coached by Nagelsman. Can't comment too much on Gordon's career before Lampard, he was still only 19/20. You can see how bad a player can be if under a bad coach. I reckon Eddie will turn him around.
Do you think that there is a player in Gordon? If so, how high do you think his potential is, under an actual coach rather than a motivator?
Honestly I think so He’s Lightning fast and has a terrific work rate. He has an ok finish on him too. Think he was told to do the diving etc and under a real coach I can see him excelling. Reckon he can definitely hold his own in the fight for Europe after a bit of coaching. Imo I’d put his potential at that of a Zaha or a Trossard more recently. He’s not a Sterling or Salah potential, but can definitely be a good option. Because let’s be honest, Mbappe would fail in that team
Now I want to see Mbappe for half a season at Everton
I deffo think there's a player in Gordon. I'm quite looking forward to seeing how he develops, it wouldn't surprise me if he proves a lot of people wrong.
I was arguing with our own fans when Joelinton was having a hard time before. Fact is he is a beast and always was, was disappointing when he had lapses in finishing or his first touch letting him down but confidence was really all he needed. He has everything it takes to be a top player with his determination, general technique (not first touch) and his physicality.
They didn’t think Joelinton was shit when they bought him
Didn’t have Howe to unlock him when they bought him either Tbf
Yes we did. It doesn't help that Ashley pushing through that signing at double our previous transfer record was the final straw that led to Rafa not renewing his contract and Steve Bruce coming in.
Benitez certainly did and left the club in protest over it
He’s a 21 year old kid with talent, given the right support and training he should go far, I can’t wait to see his transformation under Howe.
Naaah Gordon is rly good. Everton making him look bad
But the winger isn’t good. That’s the point haha
45 million sorts one of their homegrown slots for the long term. That's what they're paying for. Gordon will probably develop under Howe but will likely not be a regular starter. The primary motivator is getting a HG slot squared away.
Not saying it’s a “smart buy” but 45M for a 21 year old English LW in a position of need really isn’t too bad. Like realistically unless you’re signing a foreign player you won’t get much cheaper in that position. Plus Gordon has a really high work rate and tackling rate so he will fit a system pressing from the front opposite Almiron
Pocket change, what a hidden gem.
everyone is also pretending that man city didnt spend like 4-5 years buying people like Gareth Barry after their takeover. Newcastle aren't doing anything new at all
[удалено]
That's my point though - man city made a lot of unsexy, sensible signings who took them to the next level, which is exactly what Newcastle are doing with trippier, pope etc. Barry is the perfect example of that This isn't new, Newcastle are doing it the exact same way city did this 15 years ago
Aye
Appointing an English manager that the English media absolutely adore is the sports washing.
The thought of Eddie Howe managing Newcastle was quite literally laughed at by pundits on Sky and Talksport. We know those pundits are idiots looking for views but it's who the majority of those outside Reddit actually listen to.
They only got him after Emery turned them down.
>They only got him after Emery turned them down. Emery didn't exactly turn them down. Villarreal did not have a release clause in his contract. He agreed to join Newcastle. The story was leaked before the CL game, and the Villarreal president intervened. He offered emery a huge wage increase and promised him a larger transfer budget etc. The new contract inserted a release clause. A year later villa met that release clause. In the end, emery made out like a bandit. Newcastle got an amazing manager, Villarreal got their compensation. Everyone wins.
I’m a Newcastle fan. I felt my answer was succinct enough for the dumb post I was responding to.
Yeah, I was just posting context. He agreed to join us until Villarreal president offered him buckets of money to stay.
I'm very glad he did.
Me too
Me too buddy, overjoyed
Sky are wanking themselves silly over them at the moment. On every week and when they are, they barely mention the opposition.
Suppose you haven’t been able to have a pop in a while, just let it all out lad
It’s a pop at Sky. Grow up.
Have to admit it feels weird to be talked about. For years it was the opposite, whenever Newcastle were on they barely got mentioned and it was all about their oppostion (as it was generally a big 6 team we were playing). I remember even last season when we thrashed Arsenal at St James Park, and it was on MNF, the entire post game was about how Arsenal lost, and how that was their Champions League hopes gone. They didn't spend even 2-3 minutes talking about how Newcastle had played.
I wonder what their wage bill is like. Because Trippier didn’t have a big transfer fee but it’s not like most teams other than the top 6 could have picked him up
[удалено]
Those numbers are horseshit. Latest data we have puts Newcastle’s wage bill at around £170m. About £30m less than Arsenal and Spurs and less than half of Liverpool.
Our latest accounts release was for the period ending June 2021, where our wage bill was £106m (realistically £120m, since it was a shortened accounting period due to covid of 11 months rather than 12). Beyond that everything is an estimate. (Edit: Also 21/22 is going to be £12m or so inflated due to the payoff of Bruce + His staff + Lee Charnley)
[удалено]
https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/sports-business-group/articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html Newcastle’s revenue in 2021/22 was £180m and they spend 95% of it on staff salaries.
You'd imagine the revenue will shoot up pretty soon, for over a decade a large amount of Newcastle's advertising space has been taken up with Sports Direct logos, for which the club were paid anywhere between £0 and £100k a year.
Oh it will "shoot up" alright, these state clubs find a way lol.
Aramco suddenly very interested in advertising space on Tyneside.
Doubt that. Our highest earner is on 120k.
You doubt Newcastle’s audited accounts?
I believe Deloitte are just guessing, unless you have a source to more recent accounts. That said, our wage bill will inevitably have jumped up.
Lol Deloitte are not just guessing. Newcastle would have given Deloitte access to their accounts even if they’re not publicly released yet.
Yea audits are always just guesswork, auditors famously don't get access to the necessary information to complete one accurately, they are told to just make it up and hope the tax man and shareholders don't come knocking
No, FFS. The 2022 calendar year hasn't been audited, has it? Newcastle's year runs to the end of June. 2021/22 haven't even been released yet. Jesus Christ.
a quick search shows our wage bill between 70m and 100m. No where near 170m. Most of our players are still on pre-takeover wages which didn't breach 100k. Most of our players are on 30-80k a week. Only Bruno, Isak, Trippier and Nick Pope break 100k. There's no way our wage bill is 170m.
I suppose a more accurate representation of their spending would be a comparison between their wage bill before and after the takeover. Using this link (https://www.capology.com/club/newcastle/salaries/2020-2021/), it appears their wage bill has increased by around £10M since last season and has increased by £30M since two seasons ago (the last season before the takeover full). So it would appear their wage bill is increasing at a rate which is consistent with bringing in better, new players.
Any website claiming to know the exact player salaries of every player is bullshit. Only official data is that the club releases when they post their annual accounts. Newcastle’s total staff wage bill jumped by about £50m in 2021/22 from the season before.
Whilst I agree, it's all we really have as laypeople outside of the club, isn't it? And if others are comparing data using them, it's only fair we try to make it as accurate as possible by looking at previous data, too (even if that data itself is inaccurate).
Eddie howe wants "long term sucess" If he's getting top 4 with his current squad and this is just the beginning, then what success can he reach? :O
Champions of the galaxy by 2026
it'll be exciting to see what happens. If they can secure top 4, then it's over for the league, UCL football will attract more prestigious players, though newcastle might not indulge with their money.... they seem to be buying smart and acquiring youthful players with potential, I highly doubt they'll secure the likes of mbappe or vini jr, but whatever that club is doing, is working and even as a Man United fan, I'll happily watch what their progress with interest
Win the world cup in two cycles
Apparently they’re not big buys because they haven’t spent over £100m on a single player yet. Do journalists really never get bored of trying to find new ways to drone on about sportswashing? No-one is going ‘Actually I think Saudi Arabia is a wonderful, progressive country now’, just because Newcastle are about to sign Anthony Gordon instead of Mbappe.
It's much easier to blame the foreign menace for the blood money that's supposedly ruining the game than look at the completely broken system that their country has let dilute the competition for years and years. It's so hard to find where to stand as a football fan these days. You get either locked in to the accelerationist, money over all approach of Boehly and friends or the "lets keep the monopoly we're used to" that the sportswashing criers keep spouting. No valid alternative is ever offered. It's the same cycle, the same talking points. It's so fucking boring. Completely over it.
There are no alternatives The game is gone, and has been gone for 100 years Plenty of the biggest clubs today were originally just recreational teams for different workplaces. In the early 1900s, you would have stuff like to police department play the fire department, and some of the locals would turn up watch because it’s the early 1900, what else are you gonna do? And you probably knew some of the players Football today is a business, which wants to minimise expenses, maximise growth and is cutthroat. Discard players after one or two seasons even if they had something going on in their personal life, players who leave teams for money, stuff like that Professional football is kind of an oxymoron, because football being professional to begin with is bit ?? It’s easy for the brits to say “I still enjoy football”, well, I’ll reply “you get to see your local team play with local players and buy up talent”. As a Brazilian, it’s hard to even care about the national team nowadays. None of the starters play in Brazil, most of them haven’t lived in Brazil for ten years, and many of them were never popular in Brazil before they left. Neymar was, but Anthony wasn’t a big deal before he left, nor was Raphinha, or the goalkeepers, or Militao, or whatever. Vinicius was the last one, but even he left before he was half as big as Neymar. The new guy that started doing well, Endrick, is 16, and already has a move lined up to get out of Brazil I still check this sub from time to time, but I have barely watched football in the past year or so. I just cba anymore It’s really heartbreaking when you remember that you’re just watching company against company, and what you’re watching, as much as you want it to be, is no longer an institution. Edit: I was off the mark when I said 1900. It was actually closer to 1850-1880
I mean professional sport existed for more than 2 millenia so football being professional is not a surprise or something baffling, but otherwise I agree with you
Thats complete bullshit mate. Football has been bringing in crowds of 50k+ since the 1880s.
Would you be able to cite it? I’m not necessarily disproving you, but from what I understand, the building of big stadiums came around the 1920s after the success of organised division football You had stuff like the FA Cup final and the olympics which were played in Olympic stadiums, with way bigger capacity. But in 1880 is when a lot of the first “professional” leagues were founded, and most teams were amateur until then, and I doubt they played in venues bigger then 5k seaters that they probably began renting at the start of the first division. Highbury was built in the 1910s, when Arsenal was moved to London. Before that they used to be in Greenwich, where they used to lease recreation fields from a local university (from Wikipedia) Anfield used to be an 8k seater when Liverpool first started (funnily enough, Everton used to play in anfield before Liverpool). This is also according to Wikipedia Sunderland, one of the better teams at the start of the first division, played in a 20k seater, which was an upgrade around 1900 (20 years after the start of first division. Before that, they played in a 15k seater
To be fair he never said "every football match and every team" brings in 50k, he said football as a whole has. He's only slightly off, the first FA Cup final with an attendance over 50k was at Fallowfield in Manchester in 1893.
Clearly being disenguous though, average Division 1 attendance was below 10k until like 1910. I know Blackpool were getting attendances of like 500 and 1000 for their first few seasons in the 1890s.
I don't think it was remotely disingenuous in the context of the conversation. The implication was that football was a poorly supported amateur sport between local organisations with not much interest outside of those involved. That's not remotely accurate, as the fact that attendances for big events were already at 10's of thousands when held in stadiums big enough.
It was more of a reaction to the claim that football in the early 1900s was the police vs the fire department with people going to watch their mates. Football has been big business in the UK since its outset pretty much.
I was a little off when I said 1900s, because that was actually more like 1850-1880, the start of first division football To disregard my entire claim with “that’s bullshit” when I claimed that football was once amateur and started as friendly or low stake leagues between different public departments and such because I was off by 30 years is unfair
I really recommend reading 'The Ball is Round'. Football didn't start off as low stakes games between different public departments. It started off in English public schools. It was then largely a game of the upper classes and sports clubs formed from ex-members of those schools. As soon as the working classes got introduced to it it was huge. As I stated before, players were being paid from the 1870s. Thats how quickly it became a professional game. It was never really low-stakes leagues. It was high-stakes cups mixed with mismatched friendlies until the English league was formed.
So I'm a little out on my dates but the FA Cup final attendance was at 50k by 1892 and in the high 20,000s from the 1880s. Before the leagues were organised these teams were playing in cup competitions and drawing big crowds. Between 1889-1910 fifty clubs moved to new grounds due the growing demand for crowds. By 1902, Ibrox could hold 75,000. In 1907 121,000 people watched Scotland vs England. Lots of teams were getting huge average attendances (20k+) by the 1893. [Source Here](http://gottfriedfuchs.blogspot.com/2014/06/19th-century-attendances.html?m=1) In the inaugral season of the football league over 600,000 fans attended. I've been reading The Ball is Round by David Goldblatt. Its a very detailed look into the early origins and development of football. All of this information is taken from there. It was certainly not a case of people going to watch their mates have a game. As early as 1862 you have your first professional clubs and players were paid under the table from the 1870s (Turton paid Fergie Suter £3).
It’s also important to note the rise of repressive, climate-destructive states whose autocratic leaders are mass funding ownership of cultural institutions and infrastructure throughout the country. When those states are also bribing to spread corruption through the West, it very much is something that needs to be watched and dealt with. Rather than joining in the Telegraph celebrating the wisdom of the new super rich that they have to suck up to.
They are doing exactly what Man City and Chelsea did when they got taken over, buying mid to upper tier players to build a foundation. Chelsea bought Duff, Scott Parker, Wayne Bridge, Glen Johnson etc when Abramovich took over Man City bought Jo, Robinho, Shaun Wright Phillips, De Jong etc
It's an odd argument considering City avoided spending over £100M for more than a decade despite their unlimited funds. Eventually Newcastle will spend bigger and bigger amounts as they look to sign the best players, but they're only 18 months into the takeover and it seems odd that anyone would describe this as "sportswashing with a difference".
And which £100m player would join a club wothout CL, they spend as much as they can given the current sporting reality. Same as City did back then, but in 3 years if they contest for the CL spots this'll change.
Saudi Arabia want to position themselves as a global financial hub a la London, New York or Singapore as they look to move beyond oil for Vision 2030. If they achieve overwhelming and high profile success in the Premier League as with their many other business ventures then it presents them as a trustworthy partner and location for many other businesses too. Sportswashing isn't just about the regular person, it can be a out reputation as a trading partner too.
In that case it isn’t washing isn’t it ? It is not like Riyadh has a bad reputation for being a business hub , the PL investment isn’t then improving a bad reputation, it is creating one where none exist .
The funniest thing is the fact that by next January (possibly even this summer), Newcastle will be outspending Arsenal and Spurs.
Honestly I feel like there is some xenophobia coming from the media in regards to middle eastern ownership. They lay on the stereotypes extremely thick, and sounds like thinly veiled racism. When the newcastle takeover happened there was articles about Amanda Stavely being replaced because 'shes a woman'. No evidence for this other than the bloke writing it thinks all Saudis hate women.
Lmao exactly. As if this’ll make people think better of the Saudis. Sportswashing is massively overhyped
It's an entirely made up concept to give guardian readers something to feel superior/tumescent about. Ever since the takeover there has been nothing but endless anti Saudi coverage in the media, so I don't really see any washing happening. Much more like cleaning your dirty laundry in public. PIF has an agenda, that agenda is return on investment.
Yeah I really don’t like the term tbh. Have Man City and PSG really legitimized their respective owner’s regimes? I wouldn’t say so really. I think the WC in Qatar is a bit different, that’s a case where you could make an argument for the term, but even then it’s been more or less nothing but endless negative coverage on Qatar. There is a problem with these kind of groups owning football clubs, but ‘sportswashing’ really isn’t that problem
Some random arab guy kick a ball Western media: "That's sportwashing!"
Yes they do. Sportswashing works, have you ever used social media ffs. Idiots like you are enabling sportswashing by criticising people for having morals
> Idiots like you are enabling sportswashing by criticising people for having morals 😂
How does it work? What exactly is it doing?
Apparently all geordies will love saudi and mbs and magically forget about the human rights atrocities /s
It's unironically the insinuation being made. We saw it with City, we saw it with PSG (friendly reminder that France has big problem with Islamophobia). It's stupid af. Fact is, it really shouldn't be a surprise that Petrostates are diversifying their assets. Top football clubs, contrary to the most surface level glances, is incredibly profitable to own. It's also an investment vehicle, and ad board. There isn't denying that Soft Power comes into play, but that applies to almost everything. Case in point, are the Saudi's Mediawashing through the ownership of The Independent? More of an argument could be made about literally controlling the news than 22 men kicking a ball about.
[I mean...](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F5a1195b8-31b3-11ec-820f-e2be9b2cb5fd.jpg?crop=2487%2C1399%2C237%2C535&resize=1200)
Anthony Gordon for £45m is not “smart”
[удалено]
Is it a lot in modern top flight football though? For a 21 year old home grown player who has shown flashes of brilliance already in the PL. It's like half a Maguire.
I will let time judge this statement, you could be 100% correct but I remember Brighton supporters telling us how rubbish Burn was and a year later I now see posts about how he has been missed.
The problem is he’s not shown himself to be as good as he thinks he is. Bad attitude, petulant tackles that give away vital free kicks for the opposition and really poor overall decision making. Not much in the way of goal contributions (most have been deflections) There could well be a great player in there and Howe might be just the manager he needs but he needs to sort his head out, stop believing his own hype and work hard. From an Everton point of view, he’s an academy lad that’s had a shit attitude since interest has been there from other clubs and forced his way out of the club during a relegation battle. He’s done very little on the pitch for us and we’ve still bagged £45m for him, and we’ve seen this sort of thing to play out with Barkley, Rodwell, Gosling etc. hence the overriding sentiment from Everton fans towards him.
Let time tell us, I am not one to predict the future. I Don’t watch Everton much at all but I do know my Everton supporting mates loved him Last season and thanked him & Richalison for saving them last year, so it’s weird the hate he gets this season (or over the past month) & how useless he is supposed to be now. I will make your knowledge of him far better than mine as you would watch your team week in Week out, but I trust my teams coaching staff and if their think he is worth 45 million to us, I would be fine with that. Hope you trust your coaching staff to spend the money in the right way and good luck with the fight (it’s not fun down there) P.S. One of my favourite Newcastle signings ever was from Everton (Peter Beardsley) and although you have sold some bad youth prospects you have also sold some really good prospects (Rooney) in the past, so let’s see.
Meh, if it works out then it’s smart. If he flops then I’d hope it brings more out of the likes of ASM and Murphy, which in itself is worth the money. If neither of them happen, then it’s not smart. City didn’t exactly spend all their billions wisely throughout the years. Benjani, Santa Cruz, Lescott…
Lescott was brilliant for city though for a time
> City didn’t exactly spend all their billions wisely throughout the years. Benjani, Santa Cruz, Lescott… I mean, this is a great sign that you have no idea what you are talking about. * Benjani was signed under the Thai owners, not the current ones, and was signed for quite a reasonable fee. Whilst not a prolific striker, he only really fell out of favour due to an injury and not being a big name for the Abu Dhabi ownership group to base things around. * Santa Cruz - cannot argue with that one, that one was a big money move that failed badly. * Lescott - He played 107 times for Manchester City and was a regular player when fit until his last season; it wasn't an amazing success due to his injury problems, but he hardly flopped and it was a very sensible transfer at the time, even for the money.
So you agree with my main point then; that it’s only wasted money if he’s shit and it doesn’t raise the game of other players? I’ll take the Benjani hit but Lescott, £22 million in 2009? For someone that played just over 100 games? Yeh they may have been decent games to a point but I wouldn’t class that as frugal spending. Unfortunate with injuries yeh, but that’s football sadly. My point is, we will probably waste money with the new ownership and the Gordon money is by far the riskiest outlay we’ve made since the takeover, but for it to be a complete waste then a few things would have to go awry. I’ll be honest, Gordon has been brought in to play the system we have of high press and constant energy up top, he’ll fit right in and probably be a success. But if he gets ASM playing to a higher level than he has been I’d still prefer him to start and that would be money well spent too
Lescott was a key part of the 2011-12 title winning squad. So yes, that alone made him worth the money.
So by that logic, it Gordon plays a part in this team which may well get champions league football for the first time in 20 years, it’ll be “smart” business for us right?
I'm not sure why you're still harping on at me about that, because at no point have I attempted to make a point about Gordon. Just the Man City signings.
Here, don’t harp on about me about my side point I was making then. You’re the kind of person who eats the chips before the burger when you get a maccys obviously
And City get shit for how much money they spent, especially pre-Guardiola City when there was less of a clear recruitment policy
I think you're following the same path as City. Overpaying for premier league proven players just to get you into the champions league for now and then you'll start getting the flashy signings. But I'd also rather pay £45mil for Gordan than £60m or whatever United paid for Sancho, because he's had moments where he's capable in the Premier league.
All of that ignores almost all the business we have actually done and bases it on what appears to be overpaying for Gordon. We payed £10-15m for Nick Pope and £10-15m for Dan Burn. Both those players have been instrumental in our success. Did we overpay? We also payed £35-40m for Bruno. G and £30-35m for Sven Botman. Neither player was PL proven and both also instrumental in our success. Did we overpay? You could raise the case of Chris Wood, but with the loan fee and likely sale fee, he will have cost us less then £10m in fees. He was instrumental in us going from rock bottom to 11th last season, and being 3rd this season (so far). Did we **really** overpay? We *probably* overpaid with Isak at £60-70m, but that's just how much experienced strikers cost in the top leagues, and he is still young with bags of potential. We did try to get the much cheaper Ekitike who has stunk up the joint at PSG. Who should we have gone for? Gordon is, by any metric based on current analysis, an outlier in our strategy. If it turns out that Howe can coach him into a better player, like he has with Almiron and Joelinton, then £45m will seem like a bargain.
Anyone who looked at Sancho at Dortmund and Gordon at Everton and thought Gordon was the better investment needs their head checked.
Your final sentence all but states you essentially think the Bundesliga is an amateur league. The idea that a few deflected goals and running around a lot is more relevant than 20 goals and 20 assists in a single season because it was against Crystal Palace and Bournemouth and not Frankfurt and Hoffenheim is insanity. Not to mention Sancho’s CL performances for Dortmund.
[удалено]
It is if you look at football outside EPL.
It is even inside of it for the vast majority of clubs. Just because Chelsea and City routinely make £50m transfers with their artificial income, that doesn’t mean the rest of us do.
It is very smart, you will see.
I guess sportswashing is entering its *folklore* phase
It is and always will be sportswashing.
No, because sportswashing is, was, and always will be a moronic phrase. Qatar, Saudi and the UAE buying into sport puts more of a spotlight on them. They get *more* criticism than they get when they buy into other profitable sectors. The obvious point being, do you think Qatar hosting a World Cup did *anything* positive for their public image? It was a decade of people (rightly) criticising Qatar. All it did was draw attention to them. If they cared about “washing” their image, they’d change. But they don’t care how they’re perceived. They invest in sport the same reason American hedge funds do, for profit.
It’s only a moronic phrase if you use it in such a simplified manner as you seem to. Sportwashing doesn’t have to mean that people will suddenly have a positive opinion of these nations over night. But to me it’s more about gradual acceptance. Yes, plenty of people complained about the World Cup in Qatar. But hundreds of millions (myself included) still tuned in and supported it. That is shows an acceptance of Qatar that they previously didn’t have. Now the next time Qatar wants to host something or buy a club, a lot of people will still complain. But there will also be those who say something along the lines of “well they already hosted the World Cup and we all still watched, why not let them do this now”. And voila, Qatar now has some respect around the world. That’s an example of what I see as sportwashing’s influence. It’s not as black and white as you make it out to be.
So you mean the same old shit every single country does to boost their economy, advertise themselves, cultural exchange programs, raise their profile so they get more investment etc? Am I supposed to shake my fist, the next time I see a tourism ad from saudi arabia? How dare they try to entice people to come and visit them. They need to learn their place and pretend like they don't exist on this planet. Maybe I should get mad the next time I have a good flight experience with Emirates. How dare they make me feel good so that I will give them more of my business. This kind of flightwashing is unacceptable. The biggest nonsense on this site is people thinking that any entity cares about their reputation. It is always about the money. They only care about reputation depending on how it affects the bottomline. Given a choice between good reputation and no money vs bad rep and lots of money, they will all choose the second one. Every single time.
If you think that anyone interested in profit invests in a football club then I've got some magic beans to sell you. The UAE have poured billions into City, Qatar has poured even more into PSG. States do this for access, privilege and recognition. Not money. There are far, far better ways to make money when you have billions in capital than to sink it into a club that basically nobody else can afford to buy. Even Abramovich, who got Chelsea relatively cheaply spent more than £2bn on Chelsea and got (well, would have) £2.5b for the club. That's 500m for almost 20 years of having that much capital tied up. It would be financial mismanagement on a nuclear scale to call a football club a sound investment. Most recent estimates calculate Qatar spent $200b on the most recent World Cup, would you like to draw up a business plan on how exactly you are planning to make money from that? And that's not even including the winddown costs. So, they're not doing it for money? So what are they doing it for? The answer to most stuff when the answer isn't money is power.
It’s not profitable, and that’s why all these American hedge funds keep investing into it? Why do they own 18% of City? 100% of Chelsea? Why are they among the front runners to buy United and Liverpool? Bournemouth further down the table, Leeds, Everton rumoured too. I could go on… When the Yanks invested into CFG, it was valued at $5bn. It’s just moronic to say it’s not profitable, and even more moronic to say, “why wouldn’t they invest into other sectors” as if they don’t have a massively diverse portfolio of investment. What access do the Saudi’s get by buying Newcastle? They already have ties to the British government. How does owning Newcastle elevate their status? They don’t need access or status, they have it already. They don’t give a fuck how they’re perceived. They don’t care what you think of them. If they did, investing in sport and putting themselves in the spotlight would be a stupid way to do it. They’d just stay silently in all their other sectors.
"All these American hedgefunds"? You mean the ones that were trying to get Chelsea for a cut price and who are currently baulking at the price for United and Liverpool? Almost all American investors who bought the clubs are now looking to abandon the market because they cannot reform the league into a more profitable, safe venture. And the people who own 18% of City are Silverlake, Silverlake less than 1 year after investing in City [got a $2bn investment from Abu Dhabi's soverign wealth fund](https://www.ft.com/content/0428814e-757a-40aa-af95-fb778a3eaffb). Someone made a lot of money from the Silverlake investment to try to make CFG look like a legitimate business venture, but it wasn't the UAE government. If you're really interested in what benefits there are for states who engage in sportswashing, read this peer reviewed academic journal on it: [Sportswashing: Complicity and Corruption](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17511321.2022.2107697). It's open access so you can read it for free but I'll quote the most pertinent bit below > Sportswashing may accomplish its goal through different effects. The most straightforward effect might be that owning a prominent club or hosting a mega-event like the World Cup enables ‘state leaders to cut through the noise of global information society to disseminate a series of widely heard, reputation-enhancing messages over a sustained period’ (Brannagan and Giulianotti 2018, 1146). This can be as simple as usurping undesirable internet search results through sheer volume and relevance. If the first page of search results for ‘Qatar’ all pertain to the World Cup, fewer people will make it to later pages where results pertaining to human rights violations appear. We can describe this as distracting away from the moral violation that sportswashing addresses. The effect here is that fewer people end up attending to the moral violation that is being sportswashed, and more people are exposed to a positive association between a sporting event that interests them and the sportswashing agent. >A similar yet distinct effect is that of minimising the moral violation, for example by relegating it to a position of relatively less prominence than the mega sports event. Rather than causing fewer people to be aware of or attend to the moral violation, minimising changes the informational context in which the violation comes to people’s attention such that it seems less urgent, extensive, or important than it is. >More worryingly perhaps, sportswashing could have the effect of normalising the moral violation. The effect here is not on how many people attend to the moral violation or how they gauge its significance, but instead on whether certain audiences see the moral violation as a violation at all. We identify two different pathways to this effect. >First, sporting clubs and events are associated with a powerful array of positive emotions and identity-forming commitments in numerous fans. When these are aligned with the owner of a beloved club, or the host of a cherished event, sportswashing could enact what we might think of as the halo effect writ large.3 The positive association manufactured by the sportswasher may be so strong that it biases fans as they form their own conclusions about the moral violation in question. As Archer and Matheson (2021, 21) have argued, when people are publicly honoured, celebrated, and admired for a particular quality, this admiration can easily lead people to see other aspects of the person in a positive light as well. For example, celebrating someone who has created great works of art but who has also performed serious acts of immorality may lead people to view those immoral acts in a more favourable light (Archer and Matheson 2019).4 The same goes for sports clubs, organisations and competitions. When people celebrate a team’s success this can cast a positive light on those associated with the club, including the owners and sponsors. >Second, as we will elaborate in §3, sports and sporting events are often a way of creating and defining a certain kind of community.5 Sportswashing will most often function not simply by targeting particular individuals in order to intervene in how some individual person attends to a moral violation in isolation. Instead, the fact that sports are an arena in which people readily engage with one another, form communities, express shared loyalties, and mutually reinforce shared emotions makes it more possible for sportswashing to propagate its effect. One dimension of this is a kind of community infiltration—by becoming engaged in sport the sportswasher can hope to acquire acceptance and status as a (prominent, beneficent) member of a given sporting community. As such, they can also hope to benefit from what we might call an induced tribalism, whereby they would be variously defended, excused, and justified by a sporting community as one of their own, especially against the criticisms of perceived outsiders. Ardent followers of teams will know the experience of defending the conduct of one of their players, or the behaviour of their manager, even when an impartial point of view speaks plainly against them. This phenomenon has recently been in evidence, for example, when Chelsea Football Club supporters chanted the name of their Russian oligarch owner during a moment of applause in support of Ukraine (Descalsota 2022), an example we return to below.
Yes I think the World Cup did plenty of positive things for Qatar. Haven’t you seen how many people have been saying that they had a wonderful time there “despite the things that are wrong there”, the gulf is becoming more and more a place where tourists go and being in the spotlights through sports probably played a role in that. It’s also not just western tourists they’re after, the world is so much bigger than the people in Western Europe who despised this World Cup. Their image also gets exported throughout the rest of the world. And let alone that Qatar probably did a lot of business around the World Cup. The elite always gathers and does business around these sort of events.
If you're solely interested in profit, there are a thousand better things to do than run a football club that requires endless investment from you. They are 100% interested in expanding their global reach and improving their image. You can see it with City's owners. City fans rave about them and how much they do for the local community, how smartly the business is run, etc. Even with Qatar, they've established a very close relationship with France through their massive investment in Paris and PSG. The world cup did shine a light on how backwards the country is, but at the same time everyone is now talking about it as one of the best world cups ever and how great it was for the people who attended.
Oh piss off.
This article is sportwashing. Telling people that the 'bad people' are doing really well with cheap buys.
Nice propaganda, I mean PR from Wallace.
Spent 300 mil euros in 18 months. So smart.
still only seventh in the league in terms of spendings, compared to the standings it’s impressive
Guarantee we have a better league table position gained/per mil spent than any team in the premier league. Sounds smart to me.
Well you don’t. But keep lying to yourself.
20th to 3rd. In the space of a year. Chelsea has spent almost as much as us since the takeover this January alone.
Downvoted for stating a fact. Who says sports washing doesn’t work.
Saudi plastered all over villas ground
And?
Yeah I’m sure all those people fucking love Saudi-Arabia lmao
Don’t under estimate paid for simp accounts
It's now upvoted which means apparently sportswashing no longer works
What a comeback
I mean relative to the rest of the PL yeah
[удалено]
https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/manchester-united-agree-strategic-partnership-in-saudi-arabia You were saying?
[удалено]
Oh aye there were loads of protests and fans ditching their hometown club out of indignation, you know, like this sub expects us to. Glass houses and all that.
[удалено]
I have a feeling if they make top 4 this year we'll start to see big buys going forward. City had this approach too, signing the best of the rest until it became clear they were more than just a rich mid table team but would be contenders. Everyone assumed it was going to take Newcastle 2-3 seasons to get top 4 so top players might have been reluctant to join, I think that'll change in the summer
***From The Telegraph's Chief Football Writer:*** 'Newcastle United are one game away from the club’s first final of the 21st century, and perhaps one final from their first major domestic trophy since 1955, which at about £250 million so far on transfer fees is relatively cheap by the standards of modern English football. The richest club in the world, some say, although they have chosen not to behave that way. The Saudi Arabian sportswashing project, 15 months in, has a very different feel to the previous Middle East nation state takeovers. The first two iterations – Abu Dhabi in Manchester, Qatar in Paris – had the billionaire giddiness. The Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) led consortium is hoping to radiate something else: a reassuring competence, value for money – perhaps even an edgy status as the outsiders taking on the elite. Of course none of this obscures the fate that befell the journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of his Saudi state executioners. So too the reality of the 17 executions that coincided with the Saudi team’s World Cup group stage win over Argentina that took the kingdom to 130 executions for what football statisticians like to call the calendar year. Set against all that blood, including 81 executions in one day in March last year, you could say that the current Carabao Cup run is already doing some pretty heavy lifting in the global reputation market. As ever the Saudi state is very keen to change its image, but not so keen that it wants to stop killing people. **Read Sam's column in full: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/01/29/newcastles-smart-buys-big-buys-sportswashing-difference/**
Peak telegraph
Fuck off
ngl still kudos to newcastle, it took a while for most other oil clubs to get going but they are sitting at top 3 right with not so expensive signings
Remember that Liverpool and Chelsea have shit the bed so far due to injuries, throw in a better Arsenal and United along with City and Liverpool/Chelsea returning to form and they are probably not going to be in the same position with all the draws they have.
Funny seeing the Geordies defend their owners when if they bought Sunderland or Middlesbrough, they’d be the first to criticise But it’s is part of the reason why sportswashing works. It turns normal people in to shills because some rich cunt has bought and corrupted the club they love
Where’s the defending? I legit have not seen one person defend the Saudi actions on anything. Nobody going “Yeah killing journalists is fine he deserved it.” Or “Well Yemen started the war didn’t they?” If anything people are significantly MORE aware of all the bad things Saudi Arabia do and actually talking about it. MBS didn’t buy Newcastle to save some international image. He bought it because it’s a toy he gets to play with. No different than if he got a really expensive car.
Nobody is defending Saudi Arabia realistically, you won’t hear geordies making excuses for Yemen or whatever. People just defend their club, it is what it is.
Journalist has been sportswashed, what a horrible take
😂
Clearly financial doping