You must log in or register to comment.

dewpacs t1_ixn0qjv wrote

Games gone when United and Liverpool have the same owner


fuckimbackonreddit9 t1_ixodsba wrote

They sanctioned the Newcastle sale, they’ll absolutely let this go through with enough money. Games gone


cryptocandyclub OP t1_ixn029i wrote

Surely that's monopolising?


cs399 t1_ixnhbkk wrote

They seem to have an monopoly of money so..

Might aswell buy FIFA while they’re at it.

Oh wait…


Leandrys t1_ixo3vnl wrote

Yep, they didn't wait.

They didn't wait for FIA too. And golf's leagues struggle cause of these predatory bandits. A lot of sports actually.


kraeutrpolizei t1_ixnm2r6 wrote

Fuck off. My fandom ends the day the Saudis buy the club


D-D-D-D-D-D-Derek t1_ixn3tps wrote

They are pissed they blew their load on Newcastle when they could of waited for a bigger fish.


TortyPapa t1_ixnmbm6 wrote

I think they have a bit more money than that lol.


kingcovey t1_ixng670 wrote

the UK people don't want this at all


americansherlock201 t1_ixoeduv wrote

Yeah well unless the UK people have 7.5 billion to offer instead of the saudis, I’m not sure the owner (an American) cares what the UK will want sadly


plomerosKTBFFH t1_ixof9o7 wrote

The league would have to accept the buyers first.


PJTikoko t1_ixopmal wrote

They already have with man city and new castle.


plomerosKTBFFH t1_ixpl4eb wrote

City is owned by a sheikh from the UAE. I don't see them allowing the Saudi's to own another, let alone two more clubs. Especially if the fans are up in arms.


Forzelius t1_ixyiszb wrote

Lol, the league won't care whatsoever. If the Saudis put up money to buy United and/or Liverpool, whatever imaginary red tape is seemingly in front, will be cut.


CCSC96 t1_ixogz76 wrote

You sure? Newcastle attendance didn’t go down.

I personally think it’s bad but the reason they sportswash is because it works.


Chaloopa t1_ixok75i wrote

Chelsea, City and Newcastle fans would disagree


Forzelius t1_ixyiugo wrote

Chelsea is now owned by Americans, so don't group them together


[deleted] t1_ixofvcx wrote



BeefInGR t1_ixoml84 wrote

And Bucs fans wanted it to happen as well until they signed Brady because the Glazers treat the Bucs like their bastard step child.


buttonions89 t1_ixnm0fm wrote

Great now we are going to have the big Saudi Oil derby. Keep these regressive ass people out of futbol. They have no passion for the game they simply want to spread their power thru monetary means.


navetzz t1_ixnu19n wrote

Everybody here acting like UAE doesn't own city nor Qatar does PSG.


FriendlyLawnmower t1_ixojjcw wrote

Okay..? Just because Gulf influence is already in the confederation doesn't mean it should be allowed to expand


Cborovsky t1_ixogu9b wrote

Serious question, I don’t follow this sport very much, I thought Manchester United and Liverpool are high income generating businesses do they really need to seek new ownership?


BeefInGR t1_ixomx3a wrote

They are. So they'll sell for a premium.

You don't sell a team normally, but when you do it's because you feel as if you've maximized your profits. Man U is going to go for an insane price, hard to deny money even if you're wealthy.


PJTikoko t1_ixopjaq wrote

Liverpool’s owners are potentially trying to buy the Washington Commanders they’ll sell Liverpool while it’s hot to get the capital needed.

Man U owners are probably 50/50 on selling.


Cborovsky t1_ixos8i6 wrote

Wow that’s really new information! I want to add I really always thought of these teams owner as ancient dynasties that never think of letting go of such a brand


TooRedditFamous t1_ixr9f0i wrote

No, at this point the game at the top level in England is way beyond that. They are mostly owned by various international billionaires, oil states, venture capitalists, etc.


Gates_wupatki_zion t1_iy3hcqf wrote

They both have American sports conglomerate owners. Adding to previous comment — the Glazers (ManU owners) are widely despised by the ManU fan base because of how much money they have taken out of the club and saddled it with debt. They also grossly mismanaged player contracts hiring the wrong people after the best coach in football history retired. So they have other reasons to sell. There are very few football clubs that have “dynastic” owners because it became a great way to make money. A few years ago a Welsh team’s mascot went from the bluebirds to the dragons because roof their Far East Asian owner.


flyinsdog t1_ixtan8g wrote

I can’t imagine the Washington Commanders being as prime a property as Liverpool. Even during the heyday of the ‘skins in the 80’s I don’t think they were ever the premier franchise in the NFL. Liverpool is a global brand. Doesn’t make sense to me.


Forzelius t1_ixyiluf wrote

Is there really any chance the Commanders don't go to Bezos?


staresatmaps t1_ixomj62 wrote

Football teams in Europe generally do not make very much if any money. Ticket prices are much lower than in the US. The rich Middle Eastern owners are known for pumping tons of money into the team to buy the players they want like pet projects. They don't care about making money.


nghigaxx t1_ixp4rm9 wrote

true for most teams but united print money, they get enough money to be able to run on their own, their current owners have invested 0 into the clubs, they loaned money to buy the club and use money the clubs generated to pay the loans


staresatmaps t1_ixq1vh4 wrote

Exactly though. Making money off a club is considered bad form in the UK. Whereas in the US all the owners in every sports are making tons of money.


nghigaxx t1_ixrkax8 wrote

After the United takeover UK gov had to change their law to prevent loan takeover like that, they have to recognize football clubs as cultural existences and not just a company


Onespokeovertheline t1_ixovr6x wrote

I'm not sure if it was accurate, but someone posted an info graphic today that showed Man U operates at a loss


Cborovsky t1_ixp3i87 wrote



ShitPostQuokkaRome t1_ixq3lce wrote

Man United owners did a notoriously poor job at managing the team when they bought it.

They're also American which means they're not there to do some ridiculous patronage, neither they're like the 90s local businessmen owned clubs that overspent for patronage - the club has to be useful: it's either need to be profitable, or help enough in making business deals and approach the local business environment.

Milan current owners are also American, and unlike United, they did a good job with managing the club. The club is getting more successful with them. They got the club ownership as payment for debts from the previous owners (spending less than the price coming from actually purchasing it) and besides a very small profit, their intention is that of building a new stadium - and with that, have the privilege to purchase the estate around beforehand for cheap and build luxury apartments for a fat profit.

The current situation in the Premier league is very strange, the club expenses of the big teams are far more than they could get with revenue, they're surviving because they're owned by natural resources barons like Romanov before the war or the United Emirates in City.

Liverpool is the odd man in the Premier league, they're off the norm in all manners (they're lucrative, they don't have any ridiculous debt with billionaire owners, they're among the six most successful clubs in premier league, they've been second most successful club in Premier league last few years, they succeed by making careful spending and thinking through any player purchase to see if it fits the team's strategy and if it doesn't wreck finances)

United is the other direction, worst performing club of the big 6, the one in the worst financial situation, they purchase randomly and change administration often.


Haldir111 t1_ixondrr wrote

Neither *need* to, of course.

In the case of Liverpool, it simply looks like the owners would like to try and maximize a tidy profit by selling near enough to their recent highs in terms of performance. Probably move onto another sporting venture to try and repeat the process, too.

With United, the owners are probably thinking instead of just collecting dividends cheques on all the debt they've been amassing United since buying, they may as well sell off for a huge profit (considering they only spent $250mil if their own money). They aren't stupid, and know while United's buying value will always command a high price, it will most likely only decrease in coming seasons if they can't fix the problems at the club.....which they don't seem inclined to do.


Cborovsky t1_ixos5vg wrote

I didn’t know that, thanks for the write up


nghigaxx t1_ixp4o19 wrote

They don't need too, but unfortunately they are owned by someone, and the owners want to sell


AusToddles t1_ixnymqt wrote

Until I saw which subreddit this was on, my brain went "what... like the whole of the cities or just the nicer areas?"


eo37 t1_ixoa3w7 wrote

Piss off you Saudi fucks, I would legit rather the team went broke and got relegated


johanssonemil t1_ixnowgb wrote

No, I rather keep those bastard Glazier brothers..


Fuibo2k t1_ixo254v wrote

Let the sports washing continue. Same thing is happening in E-Sports right now.


NotJohnDenver t1_ixohpl5 wrote

When Apple and the Kingdom of Saud are your choices in ownership I can’t help but feel this is the same as the timeless “Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich” dilemma.


arun111b t1_ixokpg7 wrote

Why not buy all the clubs and change the name from EPL to SAFL


geordieColt88 t1_ixnrzvf wrote

It wants Saudi investors to buy them


sx70forlifexx t1_ixokjqa wrote

The blood money laundering continues Thanks to football's stupidity


Ok-Discussion-2420 t1_ixr3ty5 wrote

Grabbing 🍿 while watching all the Islamophobs going nuts 🤣


bvanbove t1_ixohs3n wrote

Man U fans despise the Glazers. I don’t even know how to explain the feelings (I assume) they’ll have if Saudi Arabia buys them.


rtels2023 t1_ixorq93 wrote

Is there a rule against owning multiple clubs in the Premier League? In US sports leagues that’s a rule because back in the 1890s the owners of the NL’s Cleveland Spiders bought another NL team the St. Louis Perfectos and then sold all of Cleveland’s good players to St. Louis, making that year’s Spiders the worst team in baseball history and forcing them to fold at the end of the year. It’s such an obvious conflict of interest that it really shouldn’t be allowed.


thalithalithali t1_ixqa87s wrote

They already bought Credit Suisse, so why not.


omdano t1_ixolqm1 wrote

Ngl after the last game, I think Europe should be the ones buying Saudi players, I mean Germany's national team already has middle easterners but...


KittyKlever t1_ixn1hdz wrote

Apple said no.. lol


CompanyDOTA t1_ixnxopc wrote

i think saudi arabia money goes way deeper than apple lmao


KittyKlever t1_ixo2of4 wrote

Based upon multiple articles, it seems as if people are more excited about the possibility of Apple purchasing compared to Saudi Arabia.. I understand their "money" aspect; however, I don't see why Apple couldn't be a top contender


[deleted] t1_ixnhq7k wrote



TanikoBytesme t1_ixnzxk2 wrote

>In Saudi Arabia Christians are denied citizenship and churches are banned!

I don't remember a mosque in the Vatican either


>The Nuremberg Laws 2022 not 1935.

Ethiopian Jews that came to Israel under the right of return were forced to convert to Judaism again and have recircumcision even though they were already Jewish but because their religious practises were ignored. It became difficult for them to gain citizenship.

Further more they have routinely faced discrimination racism and poverty even though they are ethnically Jewish.

There were also claims from Ethiopian Jewish women that when they entered under right to return they had been given temporary sterilisatio. injections (lasting three months an injection ) without their consent or knowledge as to what it was because of the concern about Ethiopian Jewish diaspora having kids.

It's an anti demographic policy.

They had an investigation, magically found no wrong doing and then asked the health ministry to stop mandatory sterilisation injections for Ethiopian women.


>Who was the chancellor of Germany in 1935?

What does that have to do with Saudi Arabia?

You're trying to link Saudi Arabia to Nazism when Saudi was formed from a complex set of relationships between imperial powers setting to destroy the ottoman caliphate and carve each other up. Britain promised and made assurances to every side and ended up taking a group of Arab freedom fighters who wanted to be liberated from ottoman rule into creating what became Saudi Arabia.

In the end middle East was cut up into various lines that fit western maps but not tribal groupings.

Then there was the forced demographic changes of the 1940s and the prelude to 1948 which was the formation of a nation by various colonial powers that wanted a place for expelled Jewish diaspora rather than giving them German land. They did this at the expense of the Palestinians.

Then the 52 Suez crisis caused by Israel defending her interests in by making war with Egypt

And the 67 crisis known as the 6 day war where in Arab states defended their interests in making war with Israel resulting in the illegal occupation of Israel in many Arab areas.

Again I'm not sure why you're conflating a bunch of things but I've explained to you the various issues with your statements

I'm providing examples in an attempt to discover an underlying rule as to why you feel comparisons of Nazis to Saudi Arabia needs to be made when they're not alike at all.


TanikoBytesme t1_ixnxebt wrote

Would be fascinating If they did