Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

Yorkie

by Yorkie
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

BShearer

BShearer

Posted
Posted

watch how media frames it. even if we end up zero signings in January from Saudi league they will still make sure it will be sold in the media like we would have done it or we are about to do it.

funnily its not against any rule but the way they will frame it is what makes  mockery of journalism in UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MrRaspberryJam

MrRaspberryJam

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MrRaspberryJam said:


 

 

Arsenal — Colorado Rapids (U.S.)

Aston Villa — Vitoria Guimaraes (Portugal)

Bournemouth — Lorient (France)

Brighton & Hove Albion — Union Saint-Gilloise (Belgium)

Chelsea — Strasbourg (France)

Crystal Palace — Botafogo (Brazil), Lyon (France), RWD Molenbeek (Belgium), AD Alcorcon (Spain), ADO Den Haag (Netherlands), FC Augsburg (Germany), Real Salt Lake (U.S.), Waasland-Beveren (Belgium)

Manchester City — Bahia (Brazil), Girona (Spain), Lommel SK (Belgium), Melbourne City (Australia), Montevideo City Torque (Uruguay), Mumbai City (India), New York City FC (U.S.), Palermo (Italy), Sichuan Jiuniu (China), Troyes AC (France), Yokohama F Marinos (Japan)

Newcastle United — Al Ahli, Al Ittihad, Al Hilal and Al Nassr (all Saudi Arabia)

Nottingham Forest — Olympiacos (Greece)

Sheffield United — Al Hilal United (UAE), Beerschot VA (Belgium), Kerala United (India), LB Chateauroux (France)

West Ham United — Sparta Prague (Czech Republic)


Crystal Palace should really be exploiting Botafogo and Lyon like (maybe not now as they’re total garbage). Could cherry pick their younger starlets who want a move to London/PL and sell on for a quick profit. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keegans Export

Keegans Export

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Why would Brighton and Bournemouth not want this btw? Weird they vote against it?

This was just a temporary ban. If they have no intention of moving players between their clubs in January they may as well vote in favour to stifle us short-term then see how things are leading up to the summer window.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keegans Export

Keegans Export

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

Someone explain to a backwards person like me so as I know if we are in a bettor or worse position than this time yesterday with this news

Well it's no worse. Basically they voted on a proposal that would have stopped us loaning players from PIF-owned clubs in January but that proposal was not passed. So if we wanted to loan Neves (for example) there's nothing stopping us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRC

TRC

Posted
Posted

People on about why would these teams block it, have any of them ever used a loan from the club they are linked with?

 

I can only think of Lampard going to City off the top of my head must be more though?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Decky

Decky

Posted
Posted (edited)

I love how some clubs are annoyed at Sheffield United because of their Saudi owners. :lol: Regardless of who owns them they are entitled to vote whatever way they want. Infact, they could easily be using their Saudi links to dip into that league as well but no one wants to mention them because the entire thing is driven by some of top 6 clubs who are only interested in us closing the gap on them, something they know the likes of Sheffield United have no intention of doing. 

 

 

Edited by Decky

Link to post
Share on other sites
SAK

SAK

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Why would Brighton and Bournemouth not want this btw? Weird they vote against it?

Brighton send their players outwards to get experience. They don’t loan in from their partner clubs. Understand the proposed ban was inwards only.Not sure about Bournemouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Optimistic Nut

Optimistic Nut

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, SAK said:

Brighton send their players outwards to get experience. They don’t loan in from their partner clubs. Understand the proposed ban was inwards only.Not sure about Bournemouth.

 

So they're voting against a rule that they themselves exploit in Belgium? :lol:

 

They can get to fuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheHoob

TheHoob

Posted
Posted (edited)

I was of the opinion we probably shouldn't get involved in these loans because it is shite optics, but fuck these cunts.

 

Doing everything they can think of to stop us, we should shithouse to the max. 

 

 

Edited by TheHoob

Link to post
Share on other sites
PauloGeordio

PauloGeordio

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TheHoob said:

I was of the opinion we probably shouldn't get involved in these loans because it is shite optics, but fuck these cunts.

 

Doing everything they can think of to stop us, we should shithouse to the max. 

 

 

 

Absolutely. If it’s in the rules who gives a fuck how it looks or what they think! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
midds

midds

Posted
Posted

Got a feeling this will be like the 5 subs rule. They'll just continue to put it up for a vote until it eventually passes and then that'll be that. They'll wait until Sheff U go down and try again and it'll (probably rightly) pass. It's a rule that could benefit us in the short term but it's not great for the game in general just moving players around a group of owned clubs on a whim, Watford/Udinese have taken the piss recently - not broken any rules but it's not 'right' imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...