“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.“

Geography not a strong point…?

This league is quickly turning into a quick sand where competition is seen less competitive and exclusive to Saudi Arbia owned clubs.

—
What happens when you build the league around money, then a richer one comes along…

Saudi football league, formally known as the PL. Sad days for the fans of the other 80 or so clubs. I think they own a few lower tier clubs too.

Merge the clubs into one and call them Mancastlesea, relegate them to the lowest division and throw away the key.

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.

Financially doped and sports washed clubs have all but ruined competitive football. I shall attend WHL this coming season, but football as a sport is pretty well done.

Clearlake Capital own Chelsea. Based in Santa Monica.

Can you provide evidence they are owned by PIF please?

comment by LukaBrasi Postecoglou on the lefthand side (U22178)
posted 42 minutes ago
Clearlake Capital own Chelsea. Based in Santa Monica.

Can you provide evidence they are owned by PIF please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11085283/Newcastles-Saudi-owners-major-investors-Chelseas-new-majority-shareholder.html

I apologise for the source but it's the main one that comes up.

City are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group or to use is formal name United Arab Emirates, Newcastle are owned by PIF which is part of the Saudi Government, United if bought will be owned by a Qatari Sheik, but in reality the Qatar Government.

So basically we will have four of our PL clubs owned by Middle Eastern countries, countries which have very different views on human rights than we do🤔

Also Saudi clubs do not appear to come under any regulations regarding FFP, judging by the amount of money they are paying Ronaldo and company to go there. Money does really rule the roost!🤬

Sorry, that should be three clubs owned by Middle Eastern countries!

City are owned by the Abu Dhabi Group, based in UAE. Not Saudi Arabia

comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi Postecoglou on the lefthand side (U22178)
posted 42 minutes ago
Clearlake Capital own Chelsea. Based in Santa Monica.

Can you provide evidence they are owned by PIF please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11085283/Newcastles-Saudi-owners-major-investors-Chelseas-new-majority-shareholder.html

I apologise for the source but it's the main one that comes up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. So have Clearlake have failed to disclose their source of funds. Surely their is an ownership crossover here which is against the rules?

Was it the government who managed the take over? This needs a major enquiry.

comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 3 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi Postecoglou on the lefthand side (U22178)
posted 42 minutes ago
Clearlake Capital own Chelsea. Based in Santa Monica.

Can you provide evidence they are owned by PIF please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11085283/Newcastles-Saudi-owners-major-investors-Chelseas-new-majority-shareholder.html

I apologise for the source but it's the main one that comes up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.sportingnews.com/uk/football/news/are-chelsea-owned-saudi-arabia-pif-clearlake-capital-boehly/npbfqj9f4kuw1gskjr6gutgl?fbclid=IwAR30zVJ8Ma5PVqM7AHtVrjSNLKGPqstEV5d6vFdJWtpxMpGhsmlAuU0ms9w

Well here is another one. In your one it claims they are s major investor, that may be the case but it does not make them an owner. I would think the government would look very foolish if the team they appointed to ensure the sale of our club hadn't taken care to cover who the owners were and who was behind them else how would they ensure that a Russian wasn't benefitting somewhere along the line.

comment by LukaBrasi Postecoglou on the lefthand side (U22178)
posted 9 hours, 55 minutes ago
Clearlake Capital own Chelsea. Based in Santa Monica.

Can you provide evidence they are owned by PIF please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well....You've really muddied the waters with facts now haven't you...i hope you're pleased with yourself

City have no connection whatsoever to Saudi Arabia.

Sharticle.

comment by Baz tard (U19119)
posted 11 hours, 32 minutes ago
This league is quickly turning into a quick sand where competition is seen less competitive and exclusive to Saudi Arbia owned clubs.

—
What happens when you build the league around money, then a richer one comes along…
----------------------------------------------------------------------

All leagues are built around money!

But ownership like PIF is nothing to do with money. They aint in this to turn a profit.

All fans should be very worried about the impact this sort of ownership and the exploitation of loopholes will have on football.

It will kill it for the genuine fan

I would think the government would look very foolish if the team they appointed to ensure the sale of our club hadn't taken care to cover who the owners were and who was behind them else how would they ensure that a Russian wasn't benefitting somewhere along the line.
=========

If there is one thing the Tories HATE, it's corrupti.... oh

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

comment by JFDI (U1657)
posted 6 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by PhilspursFGR (U3278)
posted 3 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by LukaBrasi Postecoglou on the lefthand side (U22178)
posted 42 minutes ago
Clearlake Capital own Chelsea. Based in Santa Monica.

Can you provide evidence they are owned by PIF please?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-11085283/Newcastles-Saudi-owners-major-investors-Chelseas-new-majority-shareholder.html

I apologise for the source but it's the main one that comes up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.sportingnews.com/uk/football/news/are-chelsea-owned-saudi-arabia-pif-clearlake-capital-boehly/npbfqj9f4kuw1gskjr6gutgl?fbclid=IwAR30zVJ8Ma5PVqM7AHtVrjSNLKGPqstEV5d6vFdJWtpxMpGhsmlAuU0ms9w

Well here is another one. In your one it claims they are s major investor, that may be the case but it does not make them an owner. I would think the government would look very foolish if the team they appointed to ensure the sale of our club hadn't taken care to cover who the owners were and who was behind them else how would they ensure that a Russian wasn't benefitting somewhere along the line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Football fans should not stick their head in the sand.

These Arab nations have unlimited wealth. A deal for PIF to investment massively through Clearwater as part of a deal for PIF owned clubs to take ex-players will may be hard to prove and almost impossible to govern and that is why it is why it will be happening. These nations where money is no issue can operate in this manner and can very easily cover their tracks.

While Chelsea fans probably legitimately say that the Saudis don't own Clearwater, any true fan who has the interest of the wider game at their heart and not just the success of their own club must acknowledge that this sort of arrangement is a real likelihood, is circumventing the rules, goes against the spirit of fair competition and is a threat to the wider game

I don’t see the problem, football became a ‘business’ in 1982 when Spurs became a PLC and the game was monetised along corporate lines.

comment by AmAngeda Postecogginkiss (U11574)
posted 1 minute 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly right !

Big historical clubs like Liverpool, Arsenal Spurs will be left behind unless they embrace this sort of ownership and outside influence.

It has already happened to a degree in PL vs European League, albeit it that much of the grwoing domination of the PL has come from the more organic success of the PL. That success is increasingly being primed by the unlimited wealth of these oil nations, and the distortion is being felt in a increasing way domestically and across the european game.

Its funny the amount of outrage that the ESL was met with. This sort of ownership and influence is a much greater threat to the game and its traditions and we are sleep walking into the demise of our national game as we know it.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 6 minutes ago
I don’t see the problem, football became a ‘business’ in 1982 when Spurs became a PLC and the game was monetised along corporate lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Idiotic, petty point!

This is not about football being a business. DO you think the value of City of Newcastle, the return on their investment is of any interest to these owners. If you do you are either naïve, stupid or in denial.

This is about the spirit of fair competition, playing within the rules that the majority operate within. Not surprised this point is lost on you!

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 19 minutes ago
I don’t see the problem, football became a ‘business’ in 1982 when Spurs became a PLC and the game was monetised along corporate lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Boris in 'I'll say anything to defend City' shocker

There is an article in the Athletic today about this theory. Can anyone post it?

Is Saudi Arabia funding Chelsea?
Matt Slater
Jun 21, 2023

It has been in my emails, my direct messages, the comments below my stories, the virtual newspapers on my metaphorical breakfast table, my Father’s Day card, a note on my pillow, inside a fortune cookie at a Chinese restaurant on Friday and, eventually, my editor’s head.

“When are you going to explore the links between Chelsea, their majority owner Clearlake Capital and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF)?”


The idea that Chelsea may be “cheating” football’s financial fair play (FFP) rules by selling their surplus stars for inflated fees to PIF-controlled Saudi Pro League (SPL) clubs — and that PIF is happy to pay those fees because it “protects” its investment in Clearlake — appears to have taken hold among a broad constituency of fans and rival teams.

The evidence submitted is as follows:

Chelsea posted a pre-tax loss of £121million ($154m today) for the 2021-22 season, having lost £153m the previous season
Since being bought last year by a group led by US billionaire Todd Boehly but mainly funded by Clearlake, a California-based private-equity firm, Chelsea have spent £600m on new players
PIF, Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, has invested with Clearlake and has also teamed up with one of Boehly’s businesses to put money into a hotel chain
PIF has recently bought majority stakes in the four biggest clubs in the Saudi Pro League, as well as pouring millions into other sports-related projects
N’Golo Kante has signed for one of those Saudi clubs, Al-Ittihad, and Chelsea are in talks about the possible transfers to the league of six more high-earners in their squad they no longer want: Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, Callum Hudson-Odoi, Kalidou Koulibaly, Romelu Lukaku, Edouard Mendy and Hakim Ziyech.

So, we have a club who badly need to move on some of their well-remunerated reserves and potential buyers who seem to share a deep-pocketed backer with the aforementioned club.

One hand washes the other, right?

“It’s an interesting one, indeed, and that is part of the issue with investment funds,” says Christina Philippou, a principal lecturer in accounting, economics and finance at the University of Portsmouth and an expert on the business of football.

“In most industries, conflicts of interest relate to both actual and perceived issues, and that is why there are often declarations required in such circumstances. This is why the requirement for football clubs to declare their ultimate beneficial owners made its way into the recent White Paper on football governance.”

For what it’s worth, Chelsea have declared their ultimate owners. As you climb the corporate structure on the Companies House website, you find Boehly, the other individual investors in the consortium and Clearlake’s co-founders and managing directors Behdad Eghbali and Jose Feliciano all present and correct.

The company at the top of the tree is Blues Partners Limited, a joint venture between Boehly and the Clearlake duo. The latter have provided about 60 per cent of the £2.5billion it cost to buy the club last year and fund the subsequent splurge on players. There is no dispute, then, that Clearlake has gone big on Chelsea.