And perhaps there is also one reason that some people were very keen on making sure the UK was dis-entangled from the EU, to keep (arguably) stronger and more effective EU regulation of the financial sector out of London which is regarded by many as the money-laundering capital of the world.
Perhaps, after all, we shouldn't be amazed that this particular deal was given the green light in the end
Please don't temp me into straying into the subject of Brexit - I promised myself I'd try to keep to general politics. Though the ordinary UK tax payer would certainly benefit from complete transparency with regard to who is using offshore banking to avoid paying their fair share.
mea maxima culpa
I didn't mean to introduce it as a debating point ... I think Brexit motivations were many and varied.... just meant that this was likely one of those legion of motivations
No problem, at least you were trying to find a possible benefit of Brexit for someone...
No problem, at least you were trying to find a possible benefit of Brexit for someone...
positive to some people, negative to others ..... simply a reason with no particular sense of value to it.....
Bruce will be offered £8M to go. He will be asked to check into the Saudi Embassy in London to collect it. I am sure it will be fine 🤣
Bruce will be offered £8M to go. He will be asked to check into the Saudi Embassy in London to collect it. I am sure it will be fine 🤣
....... whichever way you slice and dice it ....... only sayin' like
Depends if you would be equally happy if members of the UK government set up a fund using the proceeds from state assets to invest in a football club in another country instead of putting those proceeds into improving the UK.
@werdermouth I listened to that too. If any of what’s going on had been in an African continent state, then our Govt and press would be condemning it on a weekly basis. Instead, because it benefits these people, it’s all swept under the carpet.
Never mind Denmark, there’s something rotten in the state of England, and it starts at the very top. And I include Brenda and Brian in that.
@powmillnaemore Well balanced, although I’m still struggling to see any benefits, and no one has yet enlightened me.
Moving away from Politics for a moment, there is a programme at 9.00pm on BBC One tonight on Paul Merson and his demons which may be of interest.
I forgot to mention that the programme concluded that the main downside to all this acquiring of assets from these external 'investors' was that it essential pushes up prices, particularly property, above what the local people can afford to pay. Indeed, the same could be said of football, where it's really no longer possible for local businessmen to compete with the wallets of states or the billionaires of Russia, China and Asia. Soon the PL will consist of only clubs owned by the super-rich - it's essentially a Super League by stealth and clubs like Boro can forget about joining the party!
The Club have just announced that Saturday's match against Peterborough has been chosen for international broadcast and will therefore not be live video streamed on Riverside Live.
The upcoming matches against Cardiff and Luton have been chosen for live broadcast on Sky.
My annual Riverside Live pass is becoming more expensive by the day after I have purchased it!
Lucky for me I have Sky so will be able to still watch two of the games and back to good old radio commentary only for the Posh game, unless someone comes up with an unofficial stream! 😎
Fans of David Squires cartoon strips in the Guardian will no doubt be unsurprised that he's gone with the Newcastle takeover this week. Here's the link to the full strip but here's one of my favourite frames below...
It would be nice to hear Steve Gibson's comments on foreign owners like at Newcastle etc.
And also I would like to know more about finacial fair play rules in Spain. I think the rules made Barcelona to sell Messi.
Do the rules differ to the ones in the Premier league? Or is the TV money so big that the big clubs can keep on spending more and more?
Just asking, like. Up the Boro!
@selwynozo: As Selwynoz suggests, this is not an easy issue question with an easy answer.
@werdermouth: Werder (your post 1.46pm on 11th October) .... you really have done your research. Yes, prominent, very wealthy and powerful people and organisations tend to mix with other prominent, very wealthy and powerful people and organisations. The odd back may get scratched, the odd path made easier. I suppose, being a cynic, the situation now is in some ways the same as the situation centuries ago.
1n 1215, when prominent nobles forced King John to sign/seal Magna Carta, it was to promote and protect the interests of those prominent nobles. They weren't, I venture to suggest, terribly concerned about the wealth and life-opportunities of the typical serf living his hard life in rural England. That was over 800 years ago. I can't comment with any close scholarship about the situation in current-day Russia, China or Saudi Arabia - from which many of the richest and most powerful multi-billionaires hail - but those countries don't strike me as being a beacon for decency and Human Rights. So I guess a serf in early 13th Century England (if he could read) would see many similarities between his position before the Law and those of his modern counterparts in Russia, China or Saudi Arabia, with the same "protections" guaranteed by the Courts there, to protect his or her position from those in power there, who would seek to oppress.
Spot on Dormo - having lived here for 40 years you are 100% correct.
I watched a very interesting series on the history of nobility in UK and it had many parallels with life today in the middle east.
Here we are in the 15th Century - literally [Arabic calender]
The thing about not looking into the Blog as often as I should, is that topics like "Fit and Proper" have had many posts left. It takes a while to read them all (if you are up to the end of page three) and you want to comment on some of the posts but don't want to find, ten replies later down the list, that someone else has made the same point before you.
Anyway - the purchase of Newcastle United is not easy to deal with in a short paragraph or two.
Obviously big English clubs can now only be bought by fabulously wealthy individuals, or by countries/sovereign wealth funds. "Fabulous wealth" in this context doesn't mean a millionaire or even a multi-millionaire of the Steve Gibson type (for all that his wealth is unimaginably unattainable for most people), but it means a billionaire or multi-billionaire amongst whom Mike Ashley only just qualifies on the bottom rung.
Not very many fabulously wealthy individuals have come about their fabulous wealth by kindness and generosity of spirit, and few will have been governed by a concern for the benefit of others. If you are a multi billionaire in Russia or in China, you MUST have been involved in making difficult decisions early on in your career even if you HAD been well-meaning. Putin and Xi came to power in a time where following the Party line would have been essential. Pay-offs will have been made, other peoples' rights trampled over (especially if they DIDN'T make the pay-offs or strayed from the Party line) and any suggestion that "business ethics" had any relevance would be scoffed at. Mr Abramovich and others were able to "buy" stakes in companies/state businesses for a nominal fee and, soon afterwards were world-class plutocrats. However those who challenged power in China or Russia would find themselves in prison or surprisingly and suddenly "missing".
To be charitable, if you were a squeaky clean ethical businessman in China or Russia (and no doubt many other countries), you would be regarded as the prey on which those who become the wealthy business owners of those countries feed, on their way up to the top. Maybe in some countries, people who achieve great wealth may come to the view that there is little point piling up mountains of cash (the interest on which, let alone the capital, could never be spent in a lifetime), and those people begin a course of philanthropy and charitable giving. That seems particularly the case now in the USA, just as it used to be in Victoria Britain. Some people want to do good, want to leave a legacy which their wealth allows them to do.
Paying towards the building of hospitals, endowment of schools and universities or public libraries is one way to do that, or donating millions (and more) for medical research. But buying a football club is a vanity project. A hospital, a university, libraries etc may last centuries. The football clubs? Who knows whether there will even BE football clubs in 200 years time? The oldest football league in the world was only established in 1888 (a "mere" 133 years ago). There have been some very popular pastimes which have disappeared as well-followed sports over the centuries and who is to say football will not follow in their wake? Jousting, archery, chariot-racing anybody...?
One problem with multi-billionaires being required to bankroll successful football clubs is that there is a limited number of them in each locality. London will have a few but there aren't any in Middlesbrough or Hartlepool (by way of example). So supporters of some clubs will never be able to dream that their club, with some astute signings or a good young manager, can improve their lot, earn promotion and hopefully climb the ladder. The days of an Ipswich winning promotion from 4th to 1st Divisions and then winning the League title under Sir Alf Ramsey (wonder where his career later led?) will not be repeated. It would just take TOO much money to break through the barriers. Another problem is, of course, that the multi-billionaires are EXTREMELY unilkely to be supporters of the clubs they buy into, in the way local supporters or Steve Gibson are. We may not agree every decision that Steve Gibson has taken but we can't dispute the fact that he has the club's interests (and those of the area generally) at heart rather than seeking personal glory or profit.
I heard a clip of a radio phone-in a few days ago. It gave pause for thought. Acknowledging that Saudi Arabia has Human Rights deficits which make one wonder whether anyone could say that the owner would be "fit and proper" he raised the hypocrisy issue. We say that football supporters should forego the potential benefits (in Newcastle's case) of Saudi investment yet, yet - we are OK with having that country as one of the West's key allies in a dangerous part of the world; we sell billions of pounds worth of arms to that country (some of which are ebing used now in Aden); we have no issue with inviting the leaders of the country here with full diplomatic welcome; we have no issue with the person behind the investment in NUFC being one of the biggest investors (and no doubt employers) in the English horseracing and bloodstock industries.... I think that is a summary of the points he raised. In short, if everyone else can look the other way when their economic/diplomatic/financial interests benefit, why should football supporters be different? Is it for them to be the conscience holders of the world?
Selecting countries/sovereign wealth funds as ethical investors or owners is no easier. Who decides which countriess? Democracies only? What about Poland, or Hungary, Bulgaria or even countries like Italy where, it has been suggested, organised crime still exercises its will? Or are we saying only Anglophone countries or only liberal democracies (in which case, which ones are allowed - France, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland)?
I reccognise the era of massive financial investment might be a short one. If, for example, the Chinese owner of AliBaba (the Chinese Amazon) for example, decided he quite liked the sound of Middlesbrough and that he wanted to invest billions to make it the biggest club in the world, what would happen if Chairman Xi took a dislike to the idea and, quite by chance access to the Chinese billions disappeared overnight, with the club unable to meet its financail obligations and therefore going spectacularly bust? Or if the billionaire becomes bored with his plaything because, after all, there will be many other activities to attract his interest...?
Obviously people will have their own views. Most Newcastle fans, aware of the "optics", will express some reservations about their club's ownership but will, at the same time, be excited by the possibilities. If it were Sunderland instead, THEIR fans would no doubt be criticised on Tyneside by supporters denouncing the deal. As Boro supporters we have the warm feeling that our club is owned by someone like us (albeit with more money than us) and the issue is quite academic ... unless some rich potentate offered to buy OUR club, at which time we might then re-think the position.
Newcastle and especially Leeds are big cities with only one club. If they do get proper investment and are given time to build properly rather than just having pots of money thrown at the job, they might well challenge the existing "big clubs". Yet even if all 20 teams in the Premier League were similarly owned, at the end of the season only ONE team can win the league, only THREE others (as things currently stand) will qualify for the Champions League, and there is only ONE FA Cup and ONE League Cup to aim at. Three fabulously wealthy clubs would still be relegated - until that trapdoor is raised - and most clubs would end up with nothing. How long would the interest of the billionaires last?
It's not a good look for Newcastle. But is it a good look for Chelsea, for PSG etc? I suppose the "optics" might change if, in the next 4 or 5 years, Newcastle actually won something after such a long drought, and if the club did pierce that glass ceiling at the top of the football world. But who knows how that will pan out? Certainly some of the "usual suspects" in the Champions League places over the last few years will now be looking over their shoulders at another team which might challenge their annual progress into Europe. That, at least, is a silver lining to the cloud.
Sorry about the length.
An excellent post FD, (I’d expect nothing less). I don’t think the issue is one that supporters can solve, although making their thoughts known may affect public opinion.
Unfortunately, despite our country being more democratic than many of the ones you mention, as individuals, we’re still unable to influence whether we sell arms to certain countries nor to stop corruption at a high level in our society.
As a football club I can’t see Boro ever being owned by a billionaire - our town doesn’t have the same caché and our population will never match London, Manchester or Newcastle. The chances of MFC winning the EPL title are close to zero and, as you say, SG doesn’t have the wealth to take us to that level. If we could secure our place as a mid-table team we should be very happy with that. We wouldn’t be, of course, because Typical Boro, we expect to be challenging for the top.
Thanks Dormo for those very good and thoughtful posts and I would agree that the rich and powerful tend to look after their own interests first with, like the Magna Carta, only the unintended secondary consequences seeming to benefit others.
We saw this with those recent plans by football's rich and powerful to form their own European super-league that protected them against relegation. However, I suspect as more and more clubs find themselves billionaire owners, these historic 'big clubs' will look at other measures to continue to keep them above the Hoi polloi.
Note how the Premier League clubs yesterday voted to stop Newcastle's new owners making lucrative sponsorship deals - i.e. inflated deals that would help Newcastle spend more money than the rest. All but one club voted in favour of the motion with Manchester City no doubt abstaining out of hypocritical embarrassment.
Incidentally, I made a quick check of the current ownership of Premier League clubs and you may be surprised that all but four clubs now have billionaire owners - Norwich, Brentford, Burnley and Watford. Indeed, seven Championship clubs are also owned by billionaires: Fulham, West Brom, Queens Park Rangers, Bristol City, Stoke, Preston and tomorrow's opponents Barnsley - with a few on the border of joining them.
Poor Steve Gibson is at best only the 15th wealthiest owner in the Championship so Boro are certainly no longer going to spend their way to glory. Though, whether all these rich owners pump as much into their clubs as Gibson has done on regular basis is unclear.
As to if Financial Fair Play actually keeps it a level playing field is something that appears to be edging into the grey murky world of accountancy and lucrative sponsorship deals. No wonder Steve Gibson is keen for the EFL to enforce their rules - without them Boro would struggle to compete even in the Championship let alone the billionaire's playground that the PL has become!
Thats what I like about your posts they are informative and also make one think. I enjoyed it and to be honest I don’t really blame the Newcastle fans for not looking behind the scenes of what’s involved in the new management structure. All they hunger for is success and quite frankly clubs like Newcastle and Leeds should break the LONLIVMAN monopoly and have some success. We saw Leicester achieve above their status and ranking in the pile and we know as Boro fans what success means to us. I will never forget winning the league cup at Cardiff or winning promotion at Ayresome Park and the Riverside. I never ever thought that Boro would get to a European Final and no one can take that away from us or our history.
Steve Gibson has ploughed a lone furrow since 1986 and yes he’s made mistakes but he’s also ensures that we still have a football team to follow.
Who knows, the Saudi element may spread to Teesside as Sabic flex their muscles to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on the Wilton cracker and convert it to run on Hydrogen.
I have enclosed the press release for those who haven’t read the report on the Wilton development.
Many thanks for the post it’s appreciated.
OFB
Sorry, these people are investing like crazy in sports and anything else that takes their fancy. To take one football club and throw a fit is pointless. It's happening at Newcastle, has happened at Man city, and will happen at Arsenal very shortly. Jut as an afterthought, Man Utd are on the wrong page of this particular song sheet, so they will be going Arab pretty soon.
Thank you (particulary MartinB, Werder and OFB for your kind comments). I thought it particularly amusing that City abstained on the vote despite claiming to have "strong legal advice" that the proposed ban would be illegal. If that is correct, surely City should have voted against - quite apart from the hypocrisy aspect.
Nobody was complaining when SportDirect was advertised all around St James's Park but maybe that is because Mike Ashley's lack of investment in the club was seen to be unthreatening by the "Big Clubs". And I assume Manchester United to be at risk from situations arising in clubs like Newcastle because MU's owners are NOT ploughing unlimited finds into the club but actually taking money out of the club in interest payments/directors' fees - in other words seeking to make money from the club rather than putting money IN. ManU is one of the clubs which would undoubtedly attract interest from Japan, China and Russia, so maybe the BIG payday for the Glasers will be a sell-out to a sovereign wealth fund or someone much higher-up in the billionaires food chain than the current owners.
Incidentally, a few days ago, Jan-Age Fjortoft tweeted that maybe the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, pumped full from oil & natural gas revenues salted away in the last few decades, might be interested in Middlesbrough. I think his tongue was firmly in his cheek but for all apart from close followers of Greta Thunberg, that would at least be a fairy godmother with clean hands.
Well it's probably more an inflation of asset prices rather than investing in the traditional sense - a bit when someone pays over $100m for a Van Gogh or £180m for a Picasso - it doesn't make it a better painting, it just makes it a more expensive one. Much like the cost of a half-decent striker has reached £100m - though they're not suddenly a better player because you have to pay more for them.
These Middle East states are just in the process of transferring their oil wealth and stashing it into acquiring western assets - where the previous owners are only too happy to cash in.
They will circumnavigate Financial Fair Play rules by manufacturing huge sponsorship deals with the aim of pricing out the competition from affording the best (or most marketable) players so they can sell even more merchandise and increase their spending power further.
These owners will no doubt be hiring even more expensive teams of lawyers to fight and win any legal challenges in the court. The problem of FFP is that it's a misnomer as it doesn't set any fair limits on spending, it really only gives an accountancy framework that ultimately becomes harder to enforce - or even undesirable by a sport that is really now a business where the object is to sell the rights to the highest bidder and divide the loot.
I suspect it won't be long before the entry price to PL ownership moves from £1bn to £10bn and beyond - plus having a home-owned club in any of the first two tiers of English football will be extremely rare. The hyped-up better players will no doubt shortly start at an asking price of over £100m with £500k a week wages as the bubble continues to inflate.
So you're probably right that the likes of Arsenal and Man Utd will soon be viewed as under-performing assets in need of a takeover. Although clubs like Middlesbrough who under-perform are seemingly destined to be plucky third-tier outfits. I'm sure Football used to be a sport before it became the domain of 'investors' who took advantage of the poorly regulated game that decided greed was good.
Anyway, don't complain when Boro can't afford even a third-rate striker - that's the price of allowing hyper-inflation into the game!
As to if Financial Fair Play actually keeps it a level playing field is something that appears to be edging into the grey murky world of accountancy and lucrative sponsorship deals. No wonder Steve Gibson is keen for the EFL to enforce their rules - without them Boro would struggle to compete even in the Championship let alone the billionaire's playground that the PL has become!
I understand you concerns. In Germany and in Spain (?) I think the clubs must be owned by members - e.g. supporters - in some form.
Haven't Financial Fair Play rules worked better over those countries as shown by the sale of Messi to the Arabs in Paris? Of course France have similar issues to the Premier League that money rules. PSG have won the league for ages now.
We all love Steve Gibson. Up the Boro!
Breaking News
Steve Bruce sacked with £8m payoff
OFB
Steve's a very lucky man.
When that lot give you the chop it's not normally money that they stuff into a suitcase.