PIF and RB Sports & Media

[duo]

5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

. It just doesn't stack up that PIF see us as an investment for profit.

Of course they do - they bought us for £300mil - Chelsea got sold for over £4billion - PIF absolutely want some of that. 

[Jackie Broon]

16 minutes ago, duo said:

Of course they do - they bought us for £300mil - Chelsea got sold for over £4billion - PIF absolutely want some of that. 

 

Chelsea were sold for £2.5bn. We're a very different proposition to an established big 6 club within the constraints of PSR. We're not going to be worth billions without billions of investment, that's if they can find a way to get those billions in around PSR.

 

 

[Pata]

12 hours ago, andycap said:

I noticed rubein doesn't sit with eales and Mitchell at our games anymore. 

Wonder if he's still missing mehrdad. 

 

We could do with another civil war to discuss here.

[duo]

7 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Chelsea were sold for £2.5bn. We're a very different proposition to an established big 6 club within the constraints of PSR. We're not going to be worth billions without billions of investment, that's if they can find a way to get those billions in around PSR.

 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/05/30/billionaire-todd-boehly-led-group-completes-54-billion-purchase-of-chelsea-fc/

 

We are a different proposition but it is what a club could be worth, with the right leadership/investment. PSR has just made it more difficult to achieve.

 

 

Edited September 25 by duo

[Keegans Export]

2 minutes ago, duo said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/05/30/billionaire-todd-boehly-led-group-completes-54-billion-purchase-of-chelsea-fc/

 

We are a different proposition but it is what a club could be worth, with the right leadership/investment. PSR has just made it more difficult to achieve.

 

 

 

Wasn't that £2.5b for the sale price then £2.5b (or so) in guaranteed investment? 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, duo said:

Have PIF ever come out and said plans are afoot for a new Training Ground? Or has this just become an expectation of fans?

In one of Staveley’s first interviews after the takeover she said they would be building a brand new state of the art facility to encompass all of the teams and that it would take around 3 years (Mehrdad said that bit and added about finding a location, getting approval etc)

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

In one of Staveley’s first interviews after the takeover she said they would be building a brand new state of the art facility to encompass all of the teams and that it would take around 3 years (Mehrdad said that bit and added about finding a location, getting approval etc)

This was from February 2022:

 

Quote

When Staveley was in Saudi with Howe and the team, Ghodoussi was on Tyneside modifying Newcastle’s training ground, “with carpets, new paint, signs, just so that when they came back there’d be a change. We’ll do what we can with what we have, we’ll look at refurbishment and extension so we can bring it up to standard and then at the same time we’ll look at a new training facility, something on a par with Leicester City or one of the big ones.

“We’re currently looking at sites. That will probably take three years, maybe a little bit more, because we have to do designs, planning, all of those things. We want to develop an all-encompassing facility that includes the academy, the women’s team, the first team, sports science, everything you’d see at one of the top six clubs. That’s what helps drive the football.”

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3149808/2022/02/26/amanda-staveley-and-mehrdad-ghodoussi-interview-we-would-love-eddie-howe-to-be-the-next-alex-ferguson/?source=user_shared_article

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

This was from February 2022:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3149808/2022/02/26/amanda-staveley-and-mehrdad-ghodoussi-interview-we-would-love-eddie-howe-to-be-the-next-alex-ferguson/?source=user_shared_article

#wait. 

[Jackie Broon]

4 hours ago, duo said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/05/30/billionaire-todd-boehly-led-group-completes-54-billion-purchase-of-chelsea-fc/

 

We are a different proposition but it is what a club could be worth, with the right leadership/investment. PSR has just made it more difficult to achieve.

 

 

 

 

The sale price was £2.5bn, the higher figure includes investment they committed to make.

 

PIF/RB have essentially spent 1.7bn on us already, plus whatever they have put in with associated party sponsorships.

 

We're just not going to get to big 6 levels of revenue and value on good leadership alone. They will have to funnel money into the club through associated party sponsorships and massive infrastructure investments, that will be expensive and not guaranteed to work.

 

We are an incredibly high risk / low reward as an investment, it just does not add up that they see us that way.

 

 

Edited September 25 by Jackie Broon

[500bhp]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The sale price was £2.5bn, the higher figure includes investment they committed to make.

 

PIF/RB have essentially spent 1.7bn on us already, plus whatever they have put in with associated party sponsorships.

 

We're just not going to get to big 6 levels of revenue and value on good leadership alone. They will have to funnle money into the club through associated party sponsorships and massive infrastructure investments, that will be expensive and not guaranteed to work.

 

We are an incredibly high risk / low reward as an investment, it just does not add up that they see us that way.

 

 

 

£1.7bn? I'm not completely disagreeing as I haven't seen the detailed figures but off the top of my head, £305m purchase price, about £140m to clear the loan to MA, capital invested via new equity must be about £400m or so? Maybe it's more than £400m but to say it's £1,700m all in is a bit of a stretch. 

 

As I said I've not seen the accounts for a while so maybe it is more than I thought. 

[TheBrownBottle]

8 minutes ago, 500bhp said:

£1.7bn? I'm not completely disagreeing as I haven't seen the detailed figures but off the top of my head, £305m purchase price, about £140m to clear the loan to MA, capital invested via new equity must be about £400m or so? Maybe it's more than £400m but to say it's £1,700m all in is a bit of a stretch. 

 

As I said I've not seen the accounts for a while so maybe it is more than I thought. 

They didn’t pay the £140m loan - that was in the sale price.

 

The £1bn comes from paying Qatar for pirating BeIN.

 

Purchasing price for the club isn’t ‘investment’.  Unless Mike Ashley ‘invested’ £250m in NUFC through purchasing and loans - but I don’t remember that ever being stated?

 

Capital equity is the sole investment so far.  

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, 500bhp said:

£1.7bn? I'm not completely disagreeing as I haven't seen the detailed figures but off the top of my head, £305m purchase price, about £140m to clear the loan to MA, capital invested via new equity must be about £400m or so? Maybe it's more than £400m but to say it's £1,700m all in is a bit of a stretch. 

 

As I said I've not seen the accounts for a while so maybe it is more than I thought. 

 

That includes the £1bn that was paid to settle the BeoutQ dispute and allow the takeover to go through.

 

Discounting that my point still stands, any potential profit will be eaten up by the cost of bridging the gap to the big 6.

[500bhp]

10 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They didn’t pay the £140m loan - that was in the sale price.

 

The £1bn comes from paying Qatar for pirating BeIN.

 

Purchasing price for the club isn’t ‘investment’.  Unless Mike Ashley ‘invested’ £250m in NUFC through purchasing and loans - but I don’t remember that ever being stated?

 

Capital equity is the sole investment so far.  

Did they not pay £305m to acquire the shares of the company, which includes all it's assets and liabilities? One of those liabilities was a £140m loan to MA which they could either choose to repay or keep on the BS, subject to any conditions in the sale and purchase agreement regarding repayment of the loan due to change in ownership. Same way MA had 90 days to repay the £55m securitisation loan on acquisition from Hall and Shepherd. 

 

Anyway it's old news now and not relevant going forward 😀

[Jackie Broon]

Case in point, Moshiri is selling Everton for £400m, after he put in £750m trying and failing to bridge the gap to the big 6. There is no profit in owning an ambitious club outside of the big 6.

[TheBrownBottle]

13 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

Case in point, Moshiri is selling Everton for £400m, after he put in £750m trying and failing to bridge the gap to the big 6. There is no profit in owning an ambitious club outside of the big 6.

Abramovich’s forced sale of Chelsea was for more than all the money he’d spent buying and investing.  If Man City was sold tomorrow, it would reap a serious profit.

 

Neither of those clubs were anything like what they are today before vastly wealthy owners poured money in.  Everton’s sugar daddy didn’t have anything like that wealth, and made some absolute howlers.

 

NUFC would turn a profit currently - excluding the £1bn that they paid to Qatar, which was also part of regional cold war denouement.  There is nothing to suggest that the ‘big six’ is a natural block - that six is a limit to the number of clubs that can enter.  It was the ‘big five’ when I was a kid - and that included Everton (Man City and Chelsea were nowhere).  Later there was a ‘big four’.

 

There absolutely is a profit available in taking Newcastle up in standing - and Newcastle’s ceiling is higher than Everton’s, ultimately (and they are a big club).  But there is nothing in any of PIF’s investments outside of KSA which suggests that they do vanity projects outside of the country.  Everything else is counting every penny - which is why the ‘process’ (every signing etc requiring Byzantine processes to get approval from PIF) is so slow.  

[TheBrownBottle]

32 minutes ago, 500bhp said:

Did they not pay £305m to acquire the shares of the company, which includes all it's assets and liabilities? One of those liabilities was a £140m loan to MA which they could either choose to repay or keep on the BS, subject to any conditions in the sale and purchase agreement regarding repayment of the loan due to change in ownership. Same way MA had 90 days to repay the £55m securitisation loan on acquisition from Hall and Shepherd. 

 

Anyway it's old news now and not relevant going forward 😀

Yes, the purchase price included yhe £140m loan - meaning they didn’t give Ashley £305m + £140m.  Ashley wasn’t aware of the 90 day payoff for the Barclays loan upon change of ownership.  

[Jackie Broon]

16 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Abramovich’s forced sale of Chelsea was for more than all the money he’d spent buying and investing.  If Man City was sold tomorrow, it would reap a serious profit.

 

Neither of those clubs were anything like what they are today before vastly wealthy owners poured money in.  Everton’s sugar daddy didn’t have anything like that wealth, and made some absolute howlers.

 

NUFC would turn a profit currently - excluding the £1bn that they paid to Qatar, which was also part of regional cold war denouement.  There is nothing to suggest that the ‘big six’ is a natural block - that six is a limit to the number of clubs that can enter.  It was the ‘big five’ when I was a kid - and that included Everton (Man City and Chelsea were nowhere).  Later there was a ‘big four’.

 

There absolutely is a profit available in taking Newcastle up in standing - and Newcastle’s ceiling is higher than Everton’s, ultimately (and they are a big club).  But there is nothing in any of PIF’s investments outside of KSA which suggests that they do vanity projects outside of the country.  Everything else is counting every penny - which is why the ‘process’ (every signing etc requiring Byzantine processes to get approval from PIF) is so slow.  

 

Current big 6 clubs are a different beast, they are very valuable because they are in a de facto monopoly position.

 

It is virtually impossible for any club outside of the big 6 to bridge the gap with the limitations of PSR, even with the backing of a state it's not clear we're going to be able to do that, and if we are it's probably going to take a decade and billions more in direct and indirect investment.

 

We would not turn a profit currently, we have been running at a loss of £70m per season and would not have got the Sela/Adidas deals etc. without the influence of PIF.

 

 

Edited September 25 by Jackie Broon

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Current big 6 clubs are a different beast, they are very valuable because they are in a de facto monopoly position.

 

It is virtually impossible for any club outside of the big 6 to bridge the gap with the limitations of PSR, even with the backing of a state it's not clear we're going to be able to do that, and if we are it's probably going to take a decade and billions more in direct and indirect investment.

 

We would not turn a profit currently, we have been running at a loss of £70m per season and would not have got the Sela/Adidas deals etc. without the influence of PIF.

 

 

 

The club has been valued at £1bn.  The Sela deal wasn’t exactly a long way above market value; neither was the adidas deal. 
 

Football clubs values are also not linked to income in any real sense - yield isn’t a key factor in sale value.  Chelsea ran up consistent losses.

 

I also don’t think we’re likely to break into the top six in terms of income at this point, though this is because I see little evidence that what would be needed to give us a chance of doing so is going to happen.  We’re moving far too slow, and doing far too little.  It would not take multiple billions of direct investment without return to do so.  

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The club has been valued at £1bn.  The Sela deal wasn’t exactly a long way above market value; neither was the adidas deal. 
 

Football clubs values are also not linked to income in any real sense - yield isn’t a key factor in sale value.  Chelsea ran up consistent losses.

 

I also don’t think we’re likely to break into the top six in terms of income at this point, though this is because I see little evidence that what would be needed to give us a chance of doing so is going to happen.  We’re moving far too slow, and doing far too little.  It would not take multiple billions of direct investment without return to do so.  

 

The 1bn figure that has been widely reported was arrived at by Bloomberg multiplying the amount Staveley received for her shares from PIF, that was picked up and circulated around every media outlet as a valuation of the club. Forbes estimate our value at £595m https://www.forbes.com/lists/soccer-valuations/

[TRon]

15 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Newcastle are the perfect investment - we’ve already trebled in value.  Much higher risk to investment would have been buying one of the big clubs.

 

I don’t think this looks anything like a vanity project at the moment - so far this looks like an investment; there is a clear reluctance to throw real money around, and three years is a long time.  I’ll come back to them until the evidence changes - where are the sponsors?  Where is the training ground?  Where is the academy?  Where is the plans for a super stadium?  To date, we’ve seen a level of investment which pretty much any new owner of a PL club with potential would have made.  There’s nothing so far to suggest vanity purchase / sportswashing. 

 

 

That's because without a winning team, where's the vanity potential? We are specifically barred from investing in a squad which would drive us into the Champions League, that leaves us with the investment angle. Are training grounds or new stadiums an investment which are likely to see much return in the forseeable future? Even sponsorships would be much bigger and give more returns if we are a CL club and rising.

[Guest]

I don’t know how to feel after reading this

[timeEd32]

Seems good to me, especially this part:

 

Quote

Indeed, i can reveal that the club will shortly confirm a new appointment to the board connected to minority owners the Reuben Brothers who has extensive experience of managing their commercial property portfolio.

 

If everything needs to provide a return on investment then there's a nagging worry that it may be difficult to make the math work on the stadium, but it probably starts to look a lot better if you tie it to other commercial development plus the sponsorships it would bring. More influence from the Reuben's side of the house on infrastructure related things is very good news IMO.

[SUPERTOON]

14 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

I don’t know how to feel after reading this

Can you sum up ?

[timeEd32]

Incognito window should get you past the paywall. Aside from the Reuben related board member incoming that I mentioned above, these are probably the key sections:

Quote

 

i understands that a re-drafting of the club’s long-term plan, aims and ambitions is also underway, although the internal goal to be “best in class” at everything they do remains.

 

The board have set Howe a target of qualifying for Europe this season – an ambitious goal given how competitive the Premier League is this term. Bigger questions over the club’s direction do hang over PIF, though. Uncertainty surrounds the next steps on Newcastle’s burning stadium question, a huge infrastructure project which could cost billions but is viewed internally as crucial to their off-the-field ambitions.

 

The problem was, they explain, many misunderstood what PIF were in town to do and many of those in football believed the inaccurate portrayal that Newcastle were suddenly “the richest club in the world” and would be following the Manchester City or Roman Abramovich route to success. “This is a real investment, not a vanity project,” a source close to PIF tells i emphatically. And, it should be pointed out, it does not feel to many of those operating behind-the-scenes as if interest has waned.

 

Sela are the front of shirt sponsors and Noon, an online retailer, is also a partner, but i has been told that there is no edict from PIF to solely target companies within their umbrella.

By the same token, there have been curiously few transfers between Newcastle and any of the four Saudi Pro League clubs majority owned by PIF.

 

“There’s been no favours whatsoever,” said one source. Indeed, when Newcastle needed outgoing deals to satisfy PSR in the summer, it was to Brighton and Nottingham Forest they turned rather than the SPL. Instead, Newcastle are expected to build and thrive by building a modern infrastructure, hiring smart people and finding a good strategy.

 

 

[Kid Icarus]

Newcastle, Al-Rumayyan and the ‘patient’ plan to conquer English football

 

Yasir Al-Rumayyan is making his presence felt at Newcastle – and the ‘super ambitious’ chairman is only just getting started

Where Newcastle go from here under owners PIF (Photo: i)

By Mark Douglas

Northern Football Correspondent

September 25, 2024 4:19 pm(Updated 4:37 pm)

 

When Yasir Al-Rumayyan boarded a private jet headed for Newcastle at the start of the month there was a theory the club’s chairman was arriving to read the riot act to senior staff after a fractious summer.

 

Sources tell i nothing could be further from the truth. It was, club insiders insist, a move to show support for the club’s new management structure, which has been put together with the backing and input of majority investors the Public Investment Fund (PIF) of Saudi Arabia.

 

Al-Rumayyan’s presence felt significant. Under the skilful management of Eddie Howe Newcastle raced ahead of their internal targets by qualifying for the Champions League in 2023, but a bruising subsequent campaign brought home truths and lessons to learn.

 

“It hasn’t just been thrown together,” one source tells i of the summer changes behind-the-scenes.

 

Director of football Paul Mitchell – a direct, energetic, “typical Mancunian” with big ideas to recalibrate recruitment – is the most high-profile addition, but James Bunce’s appointment as performance director was also critical.

 

It was done with a view to mitigating the injury issues that crippled them in 2023-24, while Brad Miller, another smart addition, also joined as chief operating officer.

 

PIF had a hand in all of this, with board advisor Jacobo Solis one of two representatives from the fund who were part of the final round of director of football interviews in the summer.

 

It therefore makes sense that when Al-Rumayyan met with Mitchell and head coach Howe in the St James’ Park boardroom, they were characterised as “positive” meetings. “He’s super ambitious and wants us to perform at the number one level,” Mitchell says.

 

“He’s a very intelligent owner. I think he can see the club is growing but he’s smart enough to know it’s moved very quickly over a very short period of time. He knows infrastructure is important. “He knows people are important. He knows a higher over-arching framework and strategy is crucial to get to where we want to get to.”

 

For all the talk of problems behind the scenes – and there has clearly been tension between Howe and Mitchell at points over a problematic summer – a clear-the-air meeting this week, as reported by i on Tuesday, appears to have reset relations.

Eddie Howe has cleared the air with Paul Mitchell (Photo: Getty)

 

Alignment ahead of some big decisions on recruitment strategy and planned investment in the January transfer window has to rate as a good thing.

 

But Newcastle remain a club in a curious place and Al-Rumayyan’s visit came with PIF’s ownership of Newcastle at something of a crossroads as we approach the third anniversary of the controversial takeover.

 

Suffocating Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) meant tough choices in the transfer market in the summer while a change in the club’s ownership structure – with minority investor Amanda Staveley selling her stake this summer and a new management structure with Mitchell appointed with PIF’s blessing to revamp football operations – has proved unsettling.

 

i understands that a re-drafting of the club’s long-term plan, aims and ambitions is also underway, although the internal goal to be “best in class” at everything they do remains.

 

The board have set Howe a target of qualifying for Europe this season – an ambitious goal given how competitive the Premier League is this term.

 

Bigger questions over the club’s direction do hang over PIF, though. Uncertainty surrounds the next steps on Newcastle’s burning stadium question, a huge infrastructure project which could cost billions but is viewed internally as crucial to their off-the-field ambitions. A new, bespoke training ground appears no closer to fruition either.

 

At a time when PIF appear to be tightening the belts on some of their overseas investments, is the same happening at Newcastle?

 

Speak to those with knowledge of PIF’s plans and they dismiss that talk. “The ambition remains but it’s exactly what was said at the start – they are long-term, patient investors,” an insider tells i.

 

The problem was, they explain, many misunderstood what PIF were in town to do and many of those in football believed the inaccurate portrayal that Newcastle were suddenly “the richest club in the world” and would be following the Manchester City or Roman Abramovich route to success.

 

“This is a real investment, not a vanity project,” a source close to PIF tells i emphatically.

 

And, it should be pointed out, it does not feel to many of those operating behind-the-scenes as if interest has waned.

 

Indeed, i can reveal that the club will shortly confirm a new appointment to the board connected to minority owners the Reuben Brothers who has extensive experience of managing their commercial property portfolio.

 

With the appointment of Miller, whose CV includes extensive experience of delivering on huge infrastructure schemes, it does start to feel like the club are getting their ducks in a row to commit to some big projects.

 

How PIF works

It would be understandable if Newcastle fans felt frustration given Manchester United’s stadium project appears to be going at warp speed compared to theirs.

 

An ambitious plan by Leeds United’s owners 49ers Enterprises to expand Elland Road to 53,000 was also announced at the start of this week.

 

But those who have worked with PIF on investment projects are not surprised that due diligence on the stadium project has gone on for so long. If they are to write a “big cheque” for a once-in-a-generation projects – those were Miller’s words last month – they will need to see it is worth it.

 

This is a fund that deals in details and “process”. Sign off on projects can take time, which has also been the case on occasion at Newcastle, i understands.

 

“What I found was the level of detail and level of getting into the minutiae of words and specifics was pretty high,” a source who has worked with the fund tells i.

 

“Also – and you’d expect this – everything is focused on the person or maybe people who are the small number at the top. How are they going to react and respond?

 

“That’s not surprising given the culture of the Middle East and Yasir Al-Rumayyan is also a very, very senior figure in Saudi society. A lot of the big public things Saudi are doing to progress their nation, he’s at the front of it.

 

“What was interesting was he had to sign everything off. There doesn’t seem to be a structure of other people being able to sign things off – he has to give everything the green light. I didn’t think that was a big thing but I would imagine sometimes that creates some challenges.”

 

Yasir Al-Rumayyan will not rush the big Newcastle decisions (Photo: Getty)

 

At Newcastle it’s slightly different. CEO Darren Eales has day-to-day responsibility for club matters – “delivering the vision,” as one insider put it – although PIF are “across everything” at Newcastle.

 

For example, Solis, who held senior roles in investment banking before joining PIF, is one “important” figure who has been at the club “since day one” of the takeover.

 

His official role is “executive committee member” and viewers of the club’s Amazon documentary will remember him as heavily involved in the signing of Anthony Gordon, giving his view on Everton’s possible price tag.

 

Described by those who have worked with him as a “nice guy” and “sharp”, he’s a keen runner who has also worked on PIF’s LIV Golf and formula E series investments.

 

As the head of PIF’s European investments, he is likely to be heavily involved when a final call is made on how to answer the club’s big stadium question.

 

Stadium investment

PIF are certainly no strangers to pushing the button on big infrastructure projects. Alex Thomas, a principal at HKS, the firm who designed the breathtaking £4.8bn So-Fi stadium in California, is working with the fund on a $1.2bn indoor arena that is being constructed in the Saudi city of Diriyah.

 

He provides an insightful account of working on one of their “giga projects” alongside Diriyah company, which is an offshoot of the PIF that they created specifically to undertake the work.

 

The 20,000-seat arena is hugely ambitious and, in Thomas’ words, “radical, challenging and future-facing”. When you see artists’ impressions of the venue you can understand what he means: large gleaming columns constructed to look like fortifications jut out from the ground at the entrance. The design is a testament to what you can do with a lot of money and a blank canvas.

 

“What characterises the majority of projects that have been done so far in Saudi Arabia is the level of ambition,” Thomas says.

 

“It’s founded on the idea that this is a new start, we don’t have to do things how they’ve been done in the past, we’re going to do them our way.”

 

Thomas points out that there is now a “financial gateway” that PIF projects must “walk through” before they are agreed. What that boils down to is: does it make sense for the fund or is it money that won’t get a return?

 

It’s not inconceivable that the St James’ Park rebuild project is going through a similar process. Although those close to the process stress there’s an acute understanding of the central role of the stadium in boosting commercial revenue (a key aim for the club), the bill could end up being billions.

 

“If you think about how that (PIF) attitude might translate to Newcastle I would personally hope, as someone who lived in the city and liked the club, that the PIF element of ownership bring that same level of ambition and vision to the project at St James’ Park and indeed they demand it,” Thomas says.

 

“It’s then going to be a challenge to whoever is involved in the project to meet those demands, how you can create something progressive and that has hallmarks of PIF involvement but is going to work within the many constraints and realities of working on a historic football ground in England.”

 

The long-term implications of Saudi involvement in Newcastle

PIF’s presence at Newcastle comes as Saudi Arabia targets their next big prize – the 2034 World Cup.

 

If the takeover at St James’ Park sparked controversy on account of the Saudi state’s human rights records, they can expect unprecedented global scrutiny of the same issues when the world’s biggest sporting event is handed to the country.

 

PIF’s 2021 takeover was passed, controversially, after “legally binding” assurances were given to the Premier League on links between the state and its sovereign wealth fund.

 

The reaction was almost universally positive on Tyneside and while there have been points at which Howe has been questioned on human rights and some small protests at matches, largely those issues are not part of the conversation among the fanbase.

 

For John Hird, the organiser of the Newcastle United Fans Against Sportswashing (NUFCAS) campaign group, that is wrong. He believes there has been a failure of local MPs and representatives – including the media – to ask questions on human rights.

 

“It’s a question of trying to normalise their dictatorship,” he says.

 

“That’s what they’re trying to do and it’s why we have pushed back. I don’t think it should be normalised. The way (our) campaign has developed, it’s not just about Newcastle, it’s about the future of football. Should state ownership be allowed?

“MPs said before the takeover they would keep talking about human rights but have they? They haven’t.”

 

The future

Links between the Kingdom and Newcastle have grown but in truth the influx of Saudi sponsors that was anticipated at St James’ Park has been more of a trickle than a stream.

 

Sela are the front of shirt sponsors and Noon, an online retailer, is also a partner, but i has been told that there is no edict from PIF to solely target companies within their umbrella.

 

By the same token, there have been curiously few transfers between Newcastle and any of the four Saudi Pro League clubs majority owned by PIF.

 

“There’s been no favours whatsoever,” said one source. Indeed, when Newcastle needed outgoing deals to satisfy PSR in the summer, it was to Brighton and Nottingham Forest they turned rather than the SPL.

 

Instead, Newcastle are expected to build and thrive by building a modern infrastructure, hiring smart people and finding a good strategy.

 

Slowly that messages appears to be getting across to the rest of football and the club believe their rivals now believe them when they say they won’t pay a “Newcastle tax” on transfer deals.

 

Walking away from an overpriced deal to sign Marc Guehi from Crystal Palace in the summer will have helped on that front.

 

It is perhaps not the “winning lottery ticket” that former owner Mike Ashley told friends he believed a PIF takeover represented but few could dispute they have transformed Newcastle, injecting hundreds of millions to transform the academy, playing squad and club infrastructure.

 

A skeleton staff has been fleshed out with smart hires to look much more like a modern, ambitious Premier League club and i understands more investment is coming.

 

“There’s this tendency to concentrate on what is happening on the field with Newcastle and far fewer people look at what is happening off the field,” Simon Chadwick, an expert on Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, tells i.

 

He views what has happened at Newcastle as logical given the club was, in his opinion, an “opportunistic” purchase made partly for soft power and influence.

 

“It was always a proper investment,” he says.

 

“You have to understand Saudis are more fiscally responsible, they’re more stringent in how they control finances and there is a kind of traditional investment logic in that if you spend £1 you want £2 back.

 

“The smash-and-grab mentality at Paris Saint-Germain or Manchester City is absolutely not the case at Newcastle. Just look at the considered development of the commercial team. The people they’ve brought in are experts with strong background in the areas they’ve been appointed in. It’s obvious to me that Saudi Arabia acquired an investment asset, not a vanity project.”

 

That has implications for the long-term, Chadwick believes.

 

“I’ve said for a while now that if there comes a point where they need to sell it they will sell it,” he says.

 

But that point does not feel close, even if the next part of the club’s journey under PIF might just be the most challenging.