Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: With Arsenal the latest institution to fall to foreigners... is there such a country as Britain any

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    07-08-2013 @ 12:54 AM
    Location
    Heavy Metal Parking Lot
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germ-manic
    Ethnicity
    Eurotrash Girl
    Country
    European Union
    Region
    Essex
    Politics
    Anarcho-Stalinist Agrarian Commienazism ★♨☭卐
    Religion
    ☠ Death Eaterism ☠
    Gender
    Posts
    1,038
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default With Arsenal the latest institution to fall to foreigners... is there such a country as Britain any

    dumb premise (arsenal & other football clubs stopped being english a longggg time ago - whatever international playboy is the 'owner' doesn't mean anything really) but worthwhile article with some good points.

    With Arsenal the latest institution to fall to foreigners... is there such a country as Britain any more?

    By Stephen Glover


    When in 1985 the former Tory Prime Minister Harold Macmillan described Margaret Thatcher’s policy of privatisation as ‘selling the family silver’, he was widely, and probably rightly, derided.

    It seemed idiotic to regard the sale of inefficient state-run monopolies as getting rid of something precious. Much better to subject those creaking behemoths to the disciplines of the market, and deliver an improved service to consumers.

    However, a quarter of a century later it can’t be denied that an enormous amount of ‘family silver’ has been flogged off to foreign buyers over recent years. The latest famous asset to go under the hammer is Arsenal Football Club, which is being acquired by the American billionaire Stan Kroenke in a deal valuing the club at Ł731 million.

    Many will say it is only a football team, and we should not get too worked up. If Arsenal were the only club to be snapped up by a foreign buyer, they would be right. As it is, nine out of 20 teams in the Premier League are already foreign-owned. The top ones — Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester City — all belong to super-rich foreigners.

    And now Arsenal. Ironically, it is the most old-fashioned of clubs, with an old Etonian chairman in Peter Hill-Wood, and a conservative, prudent approach. Even fans of other teams might concede that Arsenal has shown a degree of probity unusual in the world of football.

    But now this club, too, one which still harks back a little to the days when football was a gentlemanly amateur game, is succumbing to the power of international capital, and going the way of other leading English football clubs. In part, of course, all these deals testify to the riches of the Premier League. Foreign owners want to get their hands on the juiciest assets.

    Can anything be done to stop them? The answer to that question reaches far wider than Arsenal and the Premier League. It has to do with whether the whole of Great Britain plc should be up for grabs, as it appears to be, or whether there should be any limits to what foreigners can pocket. It also has to do with our sense of nationhood, and what defines us as a people.

    Spain’s leading football clubs, Real Madrid and Barcelona, could not conceivably be acquired by American billionaires or Middle-Eastern potentates. The same is true of the biggest Italian clubs. In both countries, home-grown wealthy men or companies would step in to save their clubs from falling into foreign hands.

    Not here, alas. Where are the British entrepreneurs or leisure companies prepared to take on a profitable club such as Arsenal, which is probably worth owning if it is valued at Ł731 million? The answer is that they seem not to exist.

    The Premier League might be a success story, but it has become a show for wealthy foreigners in the absence of British businessmen with funds, know-how and commitment. The dominance of foreign owners is an indictment of our entrepreneurial spirit.

    But the problem goes much further than that. The last Labour government seemed eager to facilitate the sale of British companies to foreign owners even when, arguably, they had vital strategic significance.

    We have handed over four of our six biggest energy companies to overseas giants so that we no longer have ultimate control of our energy supplies. Labour rubber-stamped the sale of our major airports to the Spanish group Ferrovial, though that has been partly reversed. Even so, Ferrovial still owns Heathrow, recently ranked the 99th airport in the world in a global table of customer satisfaction.

    All our ports — which control most of our trade abroad — are now owned by foreign companies which put their interests above those of British consumers.

    And that is the point about all foreign-owned groups in Britain, whether Jaguar Land Rover (now owned by the Indian engineering giant Tata) or Cadbury (acquired by the American multi-national Kraft last year) or the Spanish Santander Bank (once Abbey National) and many others. However efficient or inefficient these foreign-owned companies might be, the important decisions about their products and workforces are no longer made in this country.

    The free market is the best system for maximising productivity. But it must be directed and regulated. Countries such as France and the United States would never allow foreign companies to control their ports or dominate their supply of power — in fact, in one recent case American politicians successfully blocked a proposed foreign takeover of some of their ports — yet British governments seem blithely unconcerned.

    Those whose fate is increasingly in the hands of foreign companies might believe they are free and independent, but they will discover, when their factory is closed, or some other decision imposed from on high, that they are really regarded as a slave people.

    If the football teams with which we identify are stripped of any quality of Englishness, and if more and more of our major enterprises are internationalised, our sense of nationhood is bound to diminish. On one level, uncontrolled immigration over the past decade or so has served to chip away at our national identity. Now, on another level, the effects of global capitalism are having a similar and no less subversive effect.

    What makes us feel British is partly vested in our institutions, and if those institutions are globalised, we will lose our sense of identity. The Arsenal fan who has already got used to having few, if any, English players in what he regards as ‘his’ team must now accept that crucial matters affecting the club will not be considered by recognisable people in London but by faceless executives running Kroenke Sports Enterprises in the United States. In no meaningful sense is Arsenal any longer his team.

    London itself has become a living symbol of what we have become as a nation. Far more than New York or Tokyo or any other capital, it is an international melting pot in which Russian oligarchs and rich American bankers and Arab sheiks and many others increasingly push up the price of relatively ordinary houses beyond the means of the home-grown population.

    For them, no doubt, it is an agreeable international, polyglot transit house. Whereas many poorer immigrants strive to integrate in order to survive and prosper, hoping to become part of the identity of their adopted country, these global international capitalists can, and do, occupy a supranational world all of their own.

    Britain is a great trading nation, and I’m certainly not in favour of protectionist barriers. But I am very much in favour of fighting to retain control over precious assets which help define our sense of national identity and are important to our security.

    We need more imaginative entrepreneurs, and a government far more robust than Labour ever was in seeing off carpetbaggers who have no interest in our history and institutions. If nothing is done, we will all of us end up by dancing to someone else’s tune.
    (source)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Meta-Ethnicity
    .
    Ethnicity
    .
    Taxonomy
    .
    Gender
    Posts
    9,771
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 85
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Arsenal has shown a degree of probity unusual in the world of football.
    It markets itself in being French in an English league????

    Who fucking cares? Fuck football today! It's a place by which Jews and Arabs flex financial muscle only.

    The last Labour government seemed eager to facilitate the sale of British companies to foreign owners even when, arguably, they had vital strategic significance.
    Cons privatised shit, the Labs sold it to the highest bidder.

    Just remember this shit the next time someone you love tells you they voted for one of the above.

    I'd break their fucking jaw personally.

  3. #3
    Novichok
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    British Isles
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Boer
    Ancestry
    Dutch, German, French Huguenot, British
    Country
    Great Britain
    Region
    Essex
    Y-DNA
    E-V13
    mtDNA
    H1b
    Taxonomy
    Norid
    Politics
    Godly
    Hero
    Jesus, the King of Kings
    Religion
    Christian
    Gender
    Posts
    60,965
    Blog Entries
    80
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 44,944
    Given: 45,034

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Foreign billionaires love English football clubs. It's money for the country, I guess.
    Help support Apricity by making a donation

  4. #4
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    01-06-2022 @ 10:50 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    English
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England
    Region
    City of London
    Gender
    Posts
    95
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Foreign billionaires love English football clubs. It's money for the country, I guess.
    Pretty much

    To me English Football just represents an industry that brings in a lot of money. Unfortunately, the men getting rich off it are rarely English themselves.

    The life and soul of the game has been raped.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Davy Jones's Locker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    04-20-2024 @ 10:40 PM
    Location
    England/Wales Border
    Meta-Ethnicity
    British-Irish Isles
    Ethnicity
    English + Irish.
    Ancestry
    Majority English, minority Irish
    Country
    England
    Region
    Mercia
    Y-DNA
    R1b-M269
    mtDNA
    K1a
    Taxonomy
    Keltic Nordid
    Age
    35
    Gender
    Posts
    7,201
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,116
    Given: 116

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    It's not just the top (Premier) League. I was reading in a newspaper yesterday that for the first time, the majority of clubs in the second ('Championship') division are not owned by people from the UK. These are;

    Aston Villa (China)
    Birmingham City (Hong Kong & China)
    Cardiff City (Malaysia)
    Fulham (Pakistan)
    Hull City (Egypt)
    Leeds United (Italy)
    Millwall (USA)
    Nottingham Forest (Greece)
    Queens Park Rangers (Malaysia)
    Reading (Thailand)
    Sheffield United (Saudi Arabia)
    Sheffield Wednesday (Thailand)
    Sunderland (USA)
    Wolverhampton Wanderers (China)

  6. #6
    Veteran Member Jehan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 07:37 PM
    Location
    France
    Ethnicity
    European
    Country
    France
    Gender
    Posts
    5,121
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4,759
    Given: 8,734

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Is there really an interest to buy english football club?
    It probably cost hundred of millions even for a second division clubs who won't win any titles. For the same prices thoses companies might bought a top local club and lead it to titles.

  7. #7
    Veteran Member Davy Jones's Locker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    04-20-2024 @ 10:40 PM
    Location
    England/Wales Border
    Meta-Ethnicity
    British-Irish Isles
    Ethnicity
    English + Irish.
    Ancestry
    Majority English, minority Irish
    Country
    England
    Region
    Mercia
    Y-DNA
    R1b-M269
    mtDNA
    K1a
    Taxonomy
    Keltic Nordid
    Age
    35
    Gender
    Posts
    7,201
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,116
    Given: 116

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    It would have been nice if Sir Jim Ratcliffe had bought Manchester United. He was born and raised only a few miles from Old Trafford.

    Seems the Glazer family have sold the biggest club in England to Sheikh Jassim from Qatar.

  8. #8
    Alma portuguesa Damiăo de Góis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    04-03-2024 @ 09:57 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Country
    Portugal
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF27
    mtDNA
    J1c1
    Gender
    Posts
    22,320
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 13,747
    Given: 3,217

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davy Jones's Locker View Post
    It would have been nice if Sir Jim Ratcliffe had bought Manchester United. He was born and raised only a few miles from Old Trafford.

    Seems the Glazer family have sold the biggest club in England to Sheikh Jassim from Qatar.
    So Manchester United will now be a state owned club? If that's true it will be the first club with history to become state owned. Man City and PSG had not history or tradition.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Davy Jones's Locker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    04-20-2024 @ 10:40 PM
    Location
    England/Wales Border
    Meta-Ethnicity
    British-Irish Isles
    Ethnicity
    English + Irish.
    Ancestry
    Majority English, minority Irish
    Country
    England
    Region
    Mercia
    Y-DNA
    R1b-M269
    mtDNA
    K1a
    Taxonomy
    Keltic Nordid
    Age
    35
    Gender
    Posts
    7,201
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,116
    Given: 116

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Damiăo de Góis View Post
    So Manchester United will now be a state owned club?
    It was never definitively proven as to whether Sheikh Jassim was a private businessman or just fronting a State bid. However given PSG chairman Nasser Al-Khelaifi was rumoured to be involved most journalists believe it was state influenced. However it is no longer relevant as the Qatari offer was rejected. I was mistaken to believe those rumours.

    Instead it was officially confirmed yesterday that the Glazer family have sold approximately 28% of the club to Ineos owner Jim Ratcliffe with the potential for that stake to be increased in future. This is probably the better outcome for a number of reasons, not least that Manchester United (unlike Newcastle or Manchester City) don't need state backing to be competitive. Also it has already been confirmed that the stadium of Old Trafford will now receive investment.


    Quote Originally Posted by Damiăo de Góis View Post
    If that's true it will be the first club with history to become state owned. Man City and PSG had not history or tradition.
    Compared to the likes of rivals Manchester United or Olympique de Marseille do you mean?

    Manchester City were founded in 1880 and Champions of England in 1937 & 1968. Their home crowd of 84 thousand for an FA Cup game in 1934 remains a record attendance for a domestic game in England, they would go on to win the competition that season. They also had an historical European trophy, the 1970 Cup Winners' Cup. UEFA decided to end that competition sadly but it was a prestigious trophy at the time. I think Sporting are proud of 1964, maybe Porto of just making the final in 1984 against Juventus also.

    I understand PSG was only founded in 1970, however they'd already been Champions of France and had many Cup wins before the Qatar takeover. Coincidentally PSG had also won the Cup Winners' Cup.

    I know you don't appreciate state owned clubs though, can't recall what you thought of businessman Abramovich turning Chelsea into a Champions League winner. There is a journalist from my country called Martin Samuel who actually argues what has happened with Manchester City, Newcastle & Chelsea was good for the Premier League because it allowed these teams to provide competition for Arsenal, Liverpool & Manchester United.

    I guess the equivalent in Portugal would be a billionaire or state becoming owners of a club like Boavista or Vitória Guimarăes and making that duo compete with traditional big trio of Benfica, Sporting & Porto. I'm curious what you would think of that hypothetical scenario.

  10. #10
    Alma portuguesa Damiăo de Góis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    04-03-2024 @ 09:57 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Portuguese
    Country
    Portugal
    Y-DNA
    R1b-DF27
    mtDNA
    J1c1
    Gender
    Posts
    22,320
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 13,747
    Given: 3,217

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Davy Jones's Locker View Post
    Compared to the likes of rivals Manchester United or Olympique de Marseille do you mean?

    Manchester City were founded in 1880 and Champions of England in 1937 & 1968. Their home crowd of 84 thousand for an FA Cup game in 1934 remains a record attendance for a domestic game in England, they would go on to win the competition that season. They also had an historical European trophy, the 1970 Cup Winners' Cup. UEFA decided to end that competition sadly but it was a prestigious trophy at the time. I think Sporting are proud of 1964, maybe Porto of just making the final in 1984 against Juventus also.

    I understand PSG was only founded in 1970, however they'd already been Champions of France and had many Cup wins before the Qatar takeover. Coincidentally PSG had also won the Cup Winners' Cup.

    I know you don't appreciate state owned clubs though, can't recall what you thought of businessman Abramovich turning Chelsea into a Champions League winner. There is a journalist from my country called Martin Samuel who actually argues what has happened with Manchester City, Newcastle & Chelsea was good for the Premier League because it allowed these teams to provide competition for Arsenal, Liverpool & Manchester United.

    I guess the equivalent in Portugal would be a billionaire or state becoming owners of a club like Boavista or Vitória Guimarăes and making that duo compete with traditional big trio of Benfica, Sporting & Porto. I'm curious what you would think of that hypothetical scenario.
    I meant in terms of titles. Man City only started to win after the emirati takeover, and more than 1 billion euros later, they won a treble last season.

    Regarding state owned clubs, what's to like about them? They have unlimited resources and distort competition. Man City spends millions year after year in players they sometimes don't even need. For example they bought Kalvin Phillips for 50M and he never played. I don't think Abramovich's Chelsea was like this.
    I would also argue that even the premier league is losing its competitiveness. Also, i found it funny when people considered their treble a big achievement. It's impossible for other clubs to compete with a state backed club.

    If this happened in Portugal it would be different because our league is weak, so it would take a while until this team could challenge in Europe. I think it would be good to have more competition, but in the long run i wouldn't like to have a Man City in Portugal.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Britain or America? Which country is more influenced by one other?
    By poiuytrewq0987 in forum Current Affairs & Ideas
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09-30-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-23-2013, 09:09 PM
  3. The Latest ...
    By Lady L in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-09-2009, 06:30 AM
  4. The Institution of Marriage
    By Psychonaut in forum Dating and Relationships
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 08:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •