Premier League 2019/20

[Colly]

This week's Squires is quite the kick in the bollocks.

[The Lusophone]

Damn he really did

[gunnar hendershow]

Meh, I'm pretty desensitized to incredibly awful people owning sports teams living in the US and all. If the House of Saud is evil (they are) then a huge number of the billionaire owners who directly do business with them, run cover, provide financial support, are also complicit in their numerous human rights violations. Ideally they'd all be gone of course, but I just basically am numb to caring about who owns your favorite sports team. It's all an interconnected web of evil.

[METALMAN]

That's the sort of thing that someone who supports an evil sports team would say. Newcastle United were founded by locals in 1892. It's not just a football club. It's emblematic of whole community, perhaps even a whole culture. It's a way for people from what is all too often a heinously overlooked and derided part of England to express their regional pride and identity.

Having that become a PR project for murderous, savage monarchy is quite sad. I'm not yet numb to it - it's still upsetting. I think we can still aspire to something better. But it isn't surprising.

Scottish football might be shite, but thank god it's shite. It means the game hasn't had its heart ripped from it.

[gunnar hendershow]

There's a strong community aspect of sports that isn't lost regardless of who owns a team. Nobody cares about the ownership unless the team sucks and then everyone blames the owner. It's a totally different dynamic over here. The things that matter the most to most people are who is playing and the overall entertainment. The people in the box seats matter to no one except the announcers who presumably are paid to talk about how good all these really awful people who own teams are. I understand it's a completely different dynamic, but the only time I really give thought to sports ownership in US leagues is when they're trying to rob taxpayers blind for a new stadium or new stadium upgrades or when they're acting like they're headed to the poor house if the players dare make another cent or when they donate money to the Trump campaign.

And, needless to say, the fact that I can now with ease watch every Premier League game (plus many from La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, and of course great Champions League coverage) is directly playing into the fact that these clubs are basically just fun hobbies for the super rich, long-term investments, and PR vehicles for their business interests. 15 years ago if you told me people would be filling bars in random US cities to watch Tottenham, Chelsea, or Manchester City (especially Manchester City!) I'd have called you crazy. But alas we're in a brave new world where the Premier League is the most popular sports league on the planet. And, sadly, that came with some unfortunate consequences.

It would be a better world if this takeover wasn't able to go through and (selfishly) if a cleaner, better ownership group came in to take Newcastle to new heights instead but it's frankly just not something I can lose sleep over because if I did I just wouldn't be able to watch any sports at this point. 

[Lineker]

From PA:

Quote

The Premier League has been asked to consider blocking a Saudi-backed
consortium's attempt to purchase Newcastle by one of the league's major
broadcast partners.
The north-east club are reportedly on the verge of being sold to a sovereign
wealth fund which involves Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for around
£300million.
However, Qatar-based broadcaster beIN Sports has said Saudi Arabia should be
held to account for its involvement in a pirate network which illegally
broadcasts Premier League matches.
The broadcaster's intervention follows concerns raised by Amnesty International
who have written to the league's chief executive Richard Masters to say the
takeover could be used by Saudi Arabia to cover up "actions that are deeply
immoral", including its human rights record.
The Premier League was among a number of organisations and governing bodies who
called on Saudi state satellite operator Arabsat to stop providing a platform
for a pirate network they said was "abusing" sport.
The network, known as beoutQ, first began streaming sporting events illegally
in 2017 and despite repeated attempts by sports governing bodies and rights
holders to stop it, the piracy has continued.
Last July, the Premier League said it had spoken to nine law firms in Saudi
Arabia who either refused to act or later recused themselves when asked about
pursuing a copyright complaint against beoutQ.
Yousef Al-Obaidly, the chief executive of beIN, has written to the chairmen of
Premier League clubs saying "the potential acquirer of Newcastle United (has)
"caused huge damage to your club's and the Premier League's commercial
revenues".
Al-Obaidly, who is on the board of Paris Saint-Germain, added: "The legacy of
the illegal service will continue to impact you going forward.
"When the Premier League season re-commences in the coming months, all of the
league's broadcasters' content will continue to be readily and illegally
available via the IPTV streaming functionality on the beoutQ set-top-boxes which
were sold in significant quantities in Saudi Arabia and the broader MENA (Middle
East and North Africa) region.
"Furthermore - given the crippling economic effect that coronavirus is having
on the sports industry - this is all happening at a time when football clubs
need to protect their broadcast revenue the most."
In a separate letter to Masters, Al-Obaidly is asking the League to apply the
Owners' and Directors' Test, taking into account the "direct role of Saudi
Arabia in the launch, promotion and operation of the beoutQ service" and "the
challenge the Premier League itself has faced and will continue to face in
taking any action to protect its own intellectual property rights in the
country".
Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been involved in a political dispute since 2017.

The Guardian have written it up properly now

[Colly]

I know Twitter is rubbish, but at this point I can't decide who's worse between Newcastle fans who don't care at all about human rights atrocities and fans of other clubs saying "walk away, it's just a hobby".

[METALMAN]

The Newcastle fans who don't care about human rights atrocities.

[Gazz]

60/40 other fans because you know for a fact they wouldn't walk away from their club if it was taken over by some wrong 'uns. There's also the section that mocked our fanbase for protesting outside of Sports Direct shops but now expect us to somehow single handedly enact regime change for a major foreign economic power. Not to mention everyone's love of the 'plucky underdog fairytale story' of Sheffield United yet no one gives them any stick for being owned by a literal Saudi royal.

[The Lusophone]

There's plenty of people who have raised concerns about the owners of Sheffield United - and Manchester City - Newcastle fans dismissing the concerns of people out of hand as being some sort of an agenda against them are acting as useful idiots for Saudi Arabia's sportswashing attempts.

[Gazz]

Man City, there was some but not much, most press was more concerned with the wider financial implications of them spunking £100m+ on players in one sitting and there was absolutely nothing about Sheffield Utd because they were in League One at the time and it cost £1.

Am I happy about my club being associated with an oppressive, draconian political regime? No, but what am I supposed to do about it? Newcastle United is part of my identity. Has been since I was 8 years old, will be till the day I die. It's even worse for people from Newcastle, where the club is representative of the area and the culture.

You're a Plymouth fan, right? Your chairman is Simon Hallett, who works for Harding Leovner, a US investment corporation. A quick google search tells me a not insignificant portion of their investment portfolio is Middle Eastern oil companies, including Saudi firms. This isn't me trying to manufacture a 'gotcha' moment, but with the amount of money in football and the amount of money that lies in the hands of shitty people, I would not be in the least bit surprised if you could link the majority of professional clubs in England, especially at the top end of the pyramid, to money coming in from these kinds of sources. Are these fans going to walk away from their 'hobbies'? Doubt it.

[Colly]

1 hour ago, metalman said:

The Newcastle fans who don't care about human rights atrocities.

I know. I'm just a tad exasperated by supposed football fans saying "you know that thing you love? Just walk away from it". It's absurd. From wider society maybe, but not from other football fans.

The League and the FA should be protecting our clubs from this nonsense but never will, yet it's fans (the majority of which have at least some reservations to one extent or another) getting shat on by journos.

Personally I've wanted the whole thing to collapse since it was mooted in January, but my voice means fuck all.

[METALMAN]

42 minutes ago, Gazz said:

Am I happy about my club being associated with an oppressive, draconian political regime? No, but what am I supposed to do about it? Newcastle United is part of my identity. Has been since I was 8 years old, will be till the day I die. It's even worse for people from Newcastle, where the club is representative of the area and the culture.

I don't think it would be fair to expect you or the other Newcastle fans to leave or stop supporting them on the basis of the takeover. I would, however, hope that Newcastle fans don't make excuses for their potential owners or their behaviour.

[Colly]

Just now, metalman said:

I don't think it would be fair to expect you or the other Newcastle fans to leave or stop supporting them on the basis of the takeover. I would, however, hope that Newcastle fans don't make excuses for their potential owners or their behaviour.

And this is basically where I am. I'm absolutely disgusted by both supposedly intelligent people trying to explain it away ("the government do deals with them, why can't we?") and the general thickos with Saudi flag Twitter bios, and I think that's where a lot of fans are.

I've literally gone through every emotion between never going again, going this year as I've already part paid for 20/21 anyway, never going again again, and after that Twitter onslaught I mentioned the other day just going anyway so none of those glory supporting Sol Campbell's can have my seat. I'm currently at the point where I'm going to keep going and just not like it, which probably sums up 85% of my time supporting the club...

[DavidMarrio]

6 hours ago, metalman said:

I don't think it would be fair to expect you or the other Newcastle fans to leave or stop supporting them on the basis of the takeover. I would, however, hope that Newcastle fans don't make excuses for their potential owners or their behaviour.

This is the best attitude to have really.

7 hours ago, Gazz said:

Am I happy about my club being associated with an oppressive, draconian political regime? No, but what am I supposed to do about it? Newcastle United is part of my identity. Has been since I was 8 years old, will be till the day I die. It's even worse for people from Newcastle, where the club is representative of the area and the culture.

The thing I would say about Newcastle as a city is I see a lot of similarities to Liverpool in a lot of ways as well as how important the football club(s) are for thr city. If there's a group of fans that would hold the ownership to task, I'd believe Newcastle fans would.

The fans shouldn't be punished for who owns the club.  But they can hold the club/owners to account on things. 

 

[TCO]

Yeah I'm never going to excuse Saudi Arabia, but I'm not going to stop supporting the club I have done all my life and pretend I'm not happy about massive investment.

I find it funny that Qatar's BEIN Sports are trying to block this because of Saudi Arabia's piracy of Premier League games. Yes, that's clearly the morale line that Saudi have crossed and Qatar are the one's to make the call.

[The Lusophone]

It's probably the only line the Premier League will care about to be honest.

[TCO]

True but getting MBS and the Saudi's involved will stop the piracy if anything. If they're on the Premier League's side then they can cut that shit out pretty quick I'd imagine.

It's a Middle East political squabble being played out via Premier League football clubs which is just depressing on so many levels.

[Lineker]

Quote

An increasing number of Premier League clubs are actively discussing the possibility of bringing the season to an early end, with concerns ­growing over the feasibility of a return even behind closed doors.

The Premier League is suspended indefinitely and, last week, a meeting of the 20 clubs reaffirmed the intention to complete the season when it is “safe and appropriate”. Away from collective discussions, however, clubs are informally talking about the hurdles in the way of a return, with some asking whether the challenges will soon become too great.

West Ham’s David Moyes yesterday became the first manager to publicly question whether the campaign will restart. He said he hoped to continue but added: “The deeper and deeper you look the harder you feel it is to get it up running again.”

The Guardian has spoken to clubs who have raised a range of concerns including over finance and sporting integrity. The most immediate fear, however, regards medical safety.

Clubs were told last week that play would only resume once there was sufficient capacity for Covid-19 testing while a provisional medical plan has been drawn up with club doctors over how to minimise the risk of infection.

But the practicality of the plan was questioned by one club, who argued that players may have to be separated from their families for a month or more to make sure they are not infected. There is also the concern over the amount of testing required, with perhaps multiple tests per person per match being needed, and the possible insensitivity of such a plan when frontline workers in the NHS and other public services are currently not getting the testing they need.

These sentiments have now been echoed by Moyes. “I think we’ve got to realise there are a lot of people whose lives we could be putting at risk,” he said. “We can’t let that happen. I think until we have the testing, which we need for the nurses and the doctors – I’m finding it really difficult to see where the conclusion is and how we can start [to play].”

The financial complexities centre on the extension of player contracts. If the season were to return in mid‑June – a best-case scenario – clubs may have to keep players on large wages who might otherwise have left. Equally some clubs at the bottom would be paying greater wages than they would had they already dropped down a division and activated relegation clauses. It is also the case that some clubs could find themselves in legal dispute with players over extending their deals.

If it were judged safe to play and clubs were able to take the short-term financial hit in the hope of recouping the money later through broadcast revenue, for example, there would remain issues over sporting integrity. A compacted remainder of the league season, with 92 fixtures still to be completed, would take place during the summer months and would have a physical impact on players. Clubs with smaller squads would face a challenge.

One club is believed to consider their squad’s age profile as a disadvantage if a regular rhythm of weekend-midweek-weekend were required. Another raised the issue of what would happen should a player refuse to play over welfare concerns, or if one who had been set for a transfer were selected against their prospective new club.

Moyes also raised the issue of compacting next season as a result of extending this one, with the postponed European Championship to follow. “We’ve got to be careful that we are not asking an incredible amount of the players,” said Moyes, whose team were in 16th place when the season stopped.

The issues may be resolvable but it is understood they have not been discussed openly in Premier League meetings. One club official who has been part of the meetings said there had been no attempt to ascertain a ­preferred outcome and none expressed by individual teams. The next Premier League meeting is ­scheduled for ­Friday 1 May.

The government has given a strong indication it will not intervene in the controversial £300m Saudi Arabia-funded takeover of Newcastle United and emphasised the UK’s good relations with the kingdom.

Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, was questioned on the issue by the SNP MP John Nicolson during a meeting of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee on Wednesday but said it was a “matter for the Premier League” rather than Downing Street.

Dowden, though, proved rather less hands-off in advising the Premier League to offer free-to-air broadcast of live matches once football finally returns, inevitably behind closed doors. “I have said to the Premier League it wouldn’t send the best signal if the public at large couldn’t have access to it,” he told the committee, before revealing that a ruling body heavily reliant on income from broadcasting deals is “considering” the issue.

Nicolson quizzed Dowden on the suitability of the new owners and their relationship to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. The kingdom’s Public Investment Fund, which is set to purchase an 80% stake of the club, is, in effect, a sovereign wealth fund and Amnesty International has already warned the Premier League it “risks becoming a patsy” if it does not consider Saudi Arabia’s human rights record before approving the takeover.

Like Amnesty, Nicolson suspects this is part of a wider “sports-washing” exercise as the Premier League considers Newcastle’s prospective owners and subjects them to its mandatory owners’ and directors’ test. Although this perhaps unexpectedly diverse consortium also includes the British billionaires David and Simon Reuben and the Yorkshire-born financier Amanda Staveley, Nicolson remains concerned about the central Saudi element and the possibility of Newcastle falling into what he described as Prince Mohammed’s “gruesome” hands.

“Given Saudi Arabia’s record of kidnaps, torture and other human rights violations, not least the brutal murder of [the Saudi journalist] Jamal Khashoggi, how can he [Prince Mohammed] possibly be considered a fit and proper person?” he asked.

Prince Mohammed has said he takes “full responsibility” for Khashoggi’s murder but denies allegations that he ordered the killing and Dowden’s reply proved instructive.

“The fit and proper person test is undertaken by the Premier League and I don’t want to prejudge the process,” he said. “I would slightly take issue with the characterisation of him [Prince Mohammed] personally and, firstly, it’s the sovereign wealth fund, not him personally buying it. We have good foreign relations with Saudi Arabia but we also have never been shy of raising all of those human rights abuses that you have talked about and we will continue to do so. I think it’s a matter for the Premier League. I am content that they should carry out that test.”

Meanwhile Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, has moved to reassure Amnesty that sufficient rigour will be applied to the governing body’s checks on and it will not be a mere rubber stamping exercise.

Replying to Amnesty’s letter he wrote: “These matters are often subject to media speculation but at their heart are due processes, required by UK law and the Premier League’s own rules, which cannot be conducted in public and on which we cannot comment. However, I can assure you that these processes go beyond those required by UK company law and they are applied with equal rigour to every single prospective purchaser of a Premier League club.”

[Colly]

That's the second West Ham related article I've read on the subject of ending the season, the other from Karren Brady. Needless to say neither bothered to mention that West Ham are joint third bottom.