Following a meeting in London between all 20 Premier League clubs, it was announced yesterday that clubs voted AGAINST a temporary ban on related-party transactions ahead of the January transfer window.
A 14-club majority was needed for it to pass, but Newcastle, Man City, Chelsea, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Utd, Wolves, Everton and Burnley all voted against the change, ending in a 12-8 result.
The reaction that followed from the mainstream media was quite telling and frankly embarrassing, with the BBC, The Telegraph, The Mail, talkSPORT all tweeting the following misleading headlines:
BBC – ‘Newcastle will be permitted to sign players on loan from the Saudi Pro League in January after a vote by Premier League clubs on a temporary ban on related-party loans did not receive the support required to be introduced.’
The Telegraph – ‘A Newcastle United-led rebellion has narrowly defeated Premier League proposals to effectively ban the club borrowing players from the Saudi Pro League.’
The Mail – ‘BREAKING: Premier League set to ALLOW Newcastle to loan Saudi stars.’
TalkSPORT – ‘BREAKING: Newcastle are free to sign players on loan from the Saudi Pro League in January after Premier League clubs voted against introducing a ban.’
The Sun – ‘Newcastle free to sign Saudi superstars as Premier League rivals fail to block controversial transfer rule by ONE VOTE.’
It reads like the vote was purely centred around Newcastle, creating a narrative that only Newcastle now stand to benefit following loan links with Ruben Neves and other Saudi Pro League stars.
It’s as if we’re the only club in the Premier League whose owners have major stakes elsewhere and therefore the ability to do related-party deals. What about Nottingham Forest and Olympiacos? Chelsea and Strasbourg? Crystal Palace and Lyon? Brighton and Union SG? Man Utd and Nice following Jim Ratcliffe’s arrival? Man City and the clubs part of their multi-club model in Spain, America, Japan and Australia?! Didn’t fit the narrative, did they…yet most of those clubs have been benefiting from related-party deals for much longer than Newcastle.
In reality, the only deal we’ve done with Saudi Pro League sides owned by PIF (Al Ahli, Al Ittihad, Al Hilal and Al Nassr) is selling Allan Saint-Maximin to Al Ahli for considerably less than we could’ve received had a Premier League club come forward, yet the reaction to yesterdays vote suggests we’re about to run riot.
If the vote was ‘should we allow Newcastle to loan players from the Saudi League?’, it would have been a 19-1 resounding win. But it wasn’t and seven other clubs also voted against, knowing they can also benefit from related-party transactions. I suppose ‘Forest FREE to sign Olympiacos stars’ doesn’t have the same ring to it…
What a poor tweet!!! The vote would have also had implications against other PL clubs, oh wait only #NUFC play in the PL now
— Dave Harvey (@DaveHarvey17) November 21, 2023
It was worth it just to see Karen Brady’s face when the vote was lost.
It looked like she was chewing a ????!
Maybe that’s her normal look ????
Joseph(Quote)