• CallumG_14@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Watch all this kick off about Newcastle and always mentioning our name yet we won’t loan a single player from Saudi, just to shut everyone up

    Bet some of the other few that voted against will though & nothing will be said about it

    We’ll get mentioned in every article for NOT doing it, than say Chelsea would if they actually used this to their advantage

  • pink_donut91@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Could this allow Newcastle to loan players on long term from Saudi clubs for a minimal fee thus avoiding FFP regulations?

    Long term thinking, could Saudi clubs buy big names (as they are doing) and loan to Newcastle for a pittance. Thus giving Newcastle a strong squad at minimal spend?

  • OhMy-Really@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ahh, so the plot thickens, just like oil…

    Oil money teams going brrrrrrrrrr

    All joking aside, this is will likely mess the league up.

  • PeIeus@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    God the premier league really is a cesspit. A circus that actually makes me laugh 🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • OG_tame@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why would Newcastle vote against it, couldn’t they potentially bring in Ronaldo because of this?

  • benc777@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Reports Newcastle, Sheff Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Forest voted against.

  • ConfidentEagle5887@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ahh, got it - Chelsea can’t be sponsored by Paramount but Newcastle’s owners can loan themselves players. Excellent.

  • BrickEnvironmental37@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    UEFA need to intervene and say you can’t loan players in from countries that do not adhere to FFP.

    The PIF could essentially sign Mbappe, Haaland, Bellingham et al, pay them 2 million a week and just loan them out to one of their European clubs.

  • Capable_Secret5000@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    How exactly is this a Newcastle issue when the majority of PL clubs voted against the rule changes? Yet another example that fans shouldnt sit on their high horses as the clubs know they are involved in shady shit

  • Argos74@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    a) Instead of football teams, there will be groups of clubs owned by the same Sovereign Investment Fund / plc / James Bond villain. The FFP limits will be ammortised for the group, and players transferred at will between group clubs, making a mockery of the FFP regulations.

    b) Probably the same clubs who were up for the European breakway league, plus a few who think they can join up at a later date.

    c) I give up. Everton thrown (and I’m not a blue) to the wolves over breaking the FFP reg while UK ambassadors emailing the PIF over the Newcastle takeover. Shenanigans with Chelsea, Manchester City, now Spurs. World Cups bought and sold like trinkets for the prestige and junkets for oligarchs, celebs and their hangers on. I give up. It’s not a sport. It’s not a business. It’s not even anything I recognise anymore. It’s just rotten to the core.

    I’ll pay a tenner to watch my local club, have a cup of boiling Bovril in the rain, and cheer on a bunch of lads working as joiners and call centre monkeys during the week. Because they’re still footballers, and that’s still football.