Chelsea and Newcastle both owned by a roundabout way by P.I.F -- The Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia. PIF own Newcastle outright and according to rules, no single entity can own more than 1 company in the PL, but PIF also technically own Chelsea, via a secretive Fund where PIF are the majority investors.
This is one way Chelsea are getting rid off their unwanted players. You may have noticed the likes of Kante, Lukaku, and on going talks of the likes of Koulibaly, Ziyech, and Mendy.
Funnily enough these players are going to clubs that the P.IF. own in Saudi Arabia!
Saudi clubs Al Nassr, Al Ittihad, Al Ahli and Al Hilal are owned by the PIF with a 75 percent ownership.
This is how Chelsea are balancing their books these days. They have splashed out £585.5 million on 16 new players, fully aware they can recoup this money through P.I.F
Against this backdrop, clubs like Spurs should feel unfairly disadvantaged as Levy tries his best to raise the money through the legal means of concerts, go-karting, US football etc...
Now that Utd are being looked at by the Saudi group, there is a feeling that Saudi Arabia will end up owning City, Chelsea, Newcastle and Utd.
4 of the top 6 of last year.
This league is quickly turning into a quick sand where competition is seen less competitive and exclusive to Saudi Arabia owned clubs.
Circumventing the rules
posted on 21/6/23
comment by bomdia (U13941)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by AmAngeda Postecogginkiss (U11574)
posted 13 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 11 hours, 10 minutes ago
I honestly think a super league is the answer. Let all the state owned clubs join the league, it can even be a completely global league. The only requirement to join is based on the owners net worth or something. Have no salary caps, spending limits, FFP etc. They'll have the pick of more or less any player in the world, they'll have some truly epic games and the football will be entertaining.
The rest of the clubs stay in their domestic leagues with appropriate financial restrictions etc and it's far more competitive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't like it, but it's clearly the direction of travel and I think it's inevitable at this point.
Others can nitpick about the geographical errors in the OP but the principle is accurate - there will soon be a subset of clubs to whom the financial rules effectively don't apply, which makes a mockery of those clubs who have attempted to be self-sustaining within FFP parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP was written for 1 reason only, to enable those that had their nose in the trough to exclude everybody else. Anybody believing otherwise is kidding themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Na. That's definitely a benefit for them clubs but 1. FFP has other benefits to others. And 2. It hasn't worked anyway. Spurs have increased their revenues organically so we're nearly competing with the most spendingest clubs. Newcastle.
posted on 22/6/23
It's okay for the PL to be the biggest spenders taking from smaller leagues but when the predator becomes prey suddenly its unfair. Total joke that.
Anyway, Saudi League will probably never fully take off like the CSL didnt. If it does then fair play, ill tune in.
posted on 22/6/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 4 hours, 45 minutes ago
Do away with FFP rules and set a maximum spend limit at £300m, which includes wages and transfer fees. That would mean every club in the prem would have a fighting chance of winning something. Somehow, I don't see any of the top 7 wanting this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would business want restrictions like that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football is supposed to be a sport, where everyone/team is supposed to have a chance of competing. It clearly is not a level playing field with financially doped clubs distorting and cheating their way through the rules as they stand.
posted on 22/6/23
comment by Bãleš left bootecoglou (U22081)
posted 12 hours, 39 minutes ago
spendingest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate you
posted on 22/6/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 4 hours, 45 minutes ago
Do away with FFP rules and set a maximum spend limit at £300m, which includes wages and transfer fees. That would mean every club in the prem would have a fighting chance of winning something. Somehow, I don't see any of the top 7 wanting this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would business want restrictions like that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football is supposed to be a sport, where everyone/team is supposed to have a chance of competing. It clearly is not a level playing field with financially doped clubs distorting and cheating their way through the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s never been a time where there hasn’t been “financially doped” teams. What’s changed a lot now since the change in ownership rules in the eighties is there’s a lot of owners that believe they can reap the rewards of the humungous asset growth themselves with no risk.
I’m all for a change to pre eighties ownership and distribution model and a fit for purpose FFP that looks at the balance sheet as well as the P&L.
posted on 22/6/23
Fans of Tottenham Hotspur PLC saying football is a sport not a business
posted on 22/6/23
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 4 hours, 45 minutes ago
Do away with FFP rules and set a maximum spend limit at £300m, which includes wages and transfer fees. That would mean every club in the prem would have a fighting chance of winning something. Somehow, I don't see any of the top 7 wanting this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would business want restrictions like that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football is supposed to be a sport, where everyone/team is supposed to have a chance of competing. It clearly is not a level playing field with financially doped clubs distorting and cheating their way through the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s never been a time where there hasn’t been “financially doped” teams. What’s changed a lot now since the change in ownership rules in the eighties is there’s a lot of owners that believe they can reap the rewards of the humungous asset growth themselves with no risk.
I’m all for a change to pre eighties ownership and distribution model and a fit for purpose FFP that looks at the balance sheet as well as the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense. Financially doped clubs have sprung up in the 21st century, where oil states have been allowed to buy clubs, and circumnavigate the rules.
posted on 22/6/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
Fans of Tottenham Hotspur PLC saying football is a sport not a business
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Manchester City are not only financially doped, but they are also trying to circumnavigate all financial rules. 115 Prem Financial rules bent.
posted on 22/6/23
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 hours, 49 minutes ago
comment by sandy, golden boot winner fa cup 1901 (U20567)
posted 5 hours, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 11 hours, 44 minutes ago
comment by clapfreesince2003 (U22207)
posted 4 hours, 45 minutes ago
Do away with FFP rules and set a maximum spend limit at £300m, which includes wages and transfer fees. That would mean every club in the prem would have a fighting chance of winning something. Somehow, I don't see any of the top 7 wanting this rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why would business want restrictions like that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because football is supposed to be a sport, where everyone/team is supposed to have a chance of competing. It clearly is not a level playing field with financially doped clubs distorting and cheating their way through the rules as they stand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s never been a time where there hasn’t been “financially doped” teams. What’s changed a lot now since the change in ownership rules in the eighties is there’s a lot of owners that believe they can reap the rewards of the humungous asset growth themselves with no risk.
I’m all for a change to pre eighties ownership and distribution model and a fit for purpose FFP that looks at the balance sheet as well as the P&L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What a load of nonsense. Financially doped clubs have sprung up in the 21st century, where oil states have been allowed to buy clubs, and circumnavigate the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So just to check, what’s your definition of financial doping? I’d assumed it was the same as Wenger and it was just spending more than they earned, but now I’m assuming it’s circumnavigating the rules at the time, is that right?
posted on 22/6/23
Should Beyonce be forced to play gigs in Nottingham and Wolverhampton to make it more of a level playing field financially?