jeffk said:Furlock Bones said:not quite the same. Newcastle is already an historic club. Neither City or PSG can say the same.wangus12 said:
I mean its the same story as City and PSG.
Honest question - do y'all really consider the "historicalness" of a club when contemplating how you should react to a change in ownership? Because I definitely don't. I could see why it'd register for someone from England or Spain or Italy or Germany, but my American mind just doesn't really go there naturally.
Some people have this weird conception that only the same 3-4 clubs who happened to be good at the time revenue really took off in their league should ever be allowed to be good and spend money.
Either implement a salary cap of sorts or shut the **** up about owner spending. No one gives a **** about how Man U or Bayern "deserves" to have a higher budget than every other club because they were dominant 30 ****ing years ago and used that to solidify their commercial revenue streams as the game globalized and tv rights skyrocketed.
There's arguments about the ethics of the ownership group but that's separate to the issue of club sugar daddies as a whole.
As to the ethics - I value the opinions of fans from any club who doesn't regularly finish in the top 6 far more than any that does. I see by far the most vitriol from United/Liverpool/arsenal fans, and it makes sense - they have the most to lose with a resurgent Newcastle. Their ethical concerns may be well founded, but forgive me for doubting their motives in voicing them.