Let's just hope that our 2 academy hotshots will feel some love & loyalty at least for a year or two more. They both have brand new contracts IIRC. That said their buddy Willock is already there and could lobby for them to join him. Or maybe, Willock will be jettisoned/loaned by the next manager. The Newcastle effect is going to make for an "interesting" few years.
ESR and Saka are going to recognize that staying at Arsenal is wasting their time. They're gonna move somewhere to win trophies
I can't find good reason for any youth to join us. Coaching is mediocre, team mates are average and owner is stingy. Besides the above we are outshined by many lower clubs on scouting. So you know for sure we will never get the best of the best.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I can't agree with virtually everything in you post. I think we agree that winning trophies will be significantly harder, but my personal feeling is that if we can keep our young core of players intact, then smartly supplement with acquisitions as needed. Hopefully that puts us in a competitive spot going forward. If we're both smart and competitive, I can be reasonably content...
I wouldn't start fapping over newcastle too soon. To build a competitive squad from where they currently are will cost a fortune. Most likely if KSA do drop huge money (say 500m quickly) it will just cause more internal inflation within the EPL
Maybe this is true, but you don't have the same set of brands. For example, people generally don't fly Saudi Arabian Airlines unless they're going to Saudi Arabia (and the airline is dry and it's an incredible pain to connect in Saudi Arabia). And you really can't build that same set of brands either.
Agreed. I was simply using City as an example of what this kind of integration looks like. The idea City is "sports washing" Abu Dhabi seems a bit Guardian opinion level analysis.
I'm no expert, but isn't that where Emirates, Etihad and maybe Qatar were before? And now they are airlines used to fly to many destinations, not just ending in those 3 countries, but perhaps using them as hubs? Isn't that what Saudi would like to emulate? At least that was my assumption.
How is our scouting turning around? Tavedes and Lokonga. Wow. Tomiyasu and Ramsdale sure. But the rest meh.
Oops, I must have imagined we had signed Ben White and Martin Odegaard, and that they were both young players we signed to go immediately into our preferred starting lineup. Sorry to be mistaken. And since I sense you‘re being sarcastic in your praise of Lokonga, I‘m wondering how you‘re assessing his performances thus far. Kid is a stud, and he perfectly represents the type of scouting that we need. Low price, high ceiling, and he‘s making the case to be a first-choice starter this season.
Count me among those that sees the Newcastle purchase as less sports washing and more simple investing. Shy of buying into a club poised for Super League access, picking up a Premier League team that has retained some degree of global brand recognition despite poor on-field performances presents a fair opportunity for long-term investment. If they simply make the league more competitive and can camp out in the upper half of the table with regularity, that alone will aid the value of the league and the team. If in several years they're on the doorstep of where Leicester City is now then they can try to lure even better talent to compete for trophies.
I think football clubs are known to be poor investments, especially when compared to the other investments MBS & KSA hold, like petro, private equity, real estate, etc, etc. I imagine this deal is about image burnishing, vanity, keeping up with the jones, etc.
Perhaps, but for a select tier of clubs it's possible to be a global brand that exists at a different economic level/ valuation. Especially depending on the future of competition models and media deals. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's a degree of sportswashing at play here, and at the very least Newcastle (or any club, for that matter) will have difficulty cracking into the already congested too tier of English clubs.
Personally I think there is a bit of racism goes into the claims against City. There is obvious truth to the arguments about human rights and the nature of the UAE - you can see that also in Dubai and the associated Emirates brand. The place is dressed up as a modern progressive regional hub. But every year there are reports of westerners getting locked up in atrocious conditions for flimsy reasons. Let alone locals. Fly Emirates and get thrown in a filthy jail for the crime of getting a bit too pissed on your flight! But that doesn't mean it isn't a savvy financial investment. They know what they are doing. And of course in other industries like Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, no one says anything when Abu Dhabi is gobbling up strategic assets.
Do you really think that Man City or City Football Group is generating net profits for the Dubai owners? And is there any data to support that? (beyond whatever financial opacity is at play)
The sale of pieces of the club value it at $5bn approx, so it is clear (IMO) that they've made a large capital gain - as have most owners during the era. Obviously the club doesn't generate cash profits. Also the supposedly overvalued sponsorship deals turned out to be undervalued compared to other similar deals in the pre-covid era - so I would say their investment has worked out pretty well so far.
OK, sure I was kind of assuming that a "savvy financial investment" would generate annual profits. But your point is taken that they/one could consider capital appreciation alone to be a success. But even then, wouldn't one have to do some sort of net calculation of what the total value of CFG is, minus the cost they paid for the assets, and the cash they've pumped into it for players, staff, infrastructure, etc? Is there any way to do that, i.e. is the data available?? (I'm guessing not completely)
I'm wondering if the KSA acquisition of Newcastle is more than buying just the club. Perhaps there is land and property development in Newcastle worth far more than just what they potentially make from the team itself. For example, a lot of NFL teams have built small cities around their team training facilities - so they have shopping, restaurants, hotels, and all sorts of housing that all has significantly inflated rent and property values that generate substantial income beyond any revenues the team itself makes. From what I know, Newcastle is primarily a working-class community that could potentially benefit from inflated values if big money comes into the city on a whole. Let me know if I'm making sense or if I'm off-base on any of this.
It makes perfect sense, I always wondered how much Arsenal makes off the old Highbury grounds, but its wouldn't surprise me if there is more to the Toon purchase than we are aware of.
Correct. Random people aren’t ‘supporters’ or ‘fans’ of like Hilton or Marriot properties or whatever. But huge numbers of people are intense followers of sports clubs. So they imagine and we pretend that the KSA buying a football club is a big deal but what we’re upset about has already happened.
You can do a very basic cigarette packet calculation (Forbes) It's hard to know exactly, but my guess is they have made well over $1bn, plus the value of the platform. It’s strange that the massive increase in the value of the club almost never gets mentioned, when considering Mansour’s investment. When you look at the numbers the Sheikh’s $212 million takeover in 2008 looks pretty savvy business. Since then, accounts show he has invested $1.8 billion to lift the club from mid-table also-rans to all-conquering giants. But this has resulted in the club being worth nearly $4 billion. Bear in mind he has also netted close to a billion in the two stakes sold, which offsets a substantial portion of that investment. City, the coronavirus season notwithstanding, now turns a profit, so the role of the owner essentially becomes more about offering a lending facility that keeps the club debt free.
Thanks for that. Without reading all of your links (yet) I accept your analysis. I supposed one predicate is that the $5bn value doesn't suddenly collapse, i.e. if the whole market around it were to pull back like may be happening in France? Has the value of PSG gone down any since the TV deal collapse, etc?