Saudi Arabia in talks to buy stake in Tigers

[Tigerbeat]

Excellent points - I don’t believe they are allowed to own more than 10% of each club. We own the ground but don’t own the training ground - maybe they will build us a new one?? They may also pay for rock bottom

I recall the maximum stake being 20% so an investment of 19% was being banded around.

[PAW2]

Im not funding 4 clubs will benefit the game - clearly it will for the 4 involved.

Whilst highly unlikely, it would be better if the funding could be shared across the top two divisions, perhaps in exchange for naming rights to the leagues and a shared academy structure in Saudi - including women's rugby. Then the English game benefits, not just four 'super' clubs.

[tigerburnie]

Emirates Welford Road or the Arabian Tigers maybe?

[watsonjm]

The article says they are after naming rights of stadiums or maybe teams rather than ownership, I know the RFU don't bother much with rules anymore, but you cannot have an owner having more than one club.

From the article my understanding us they can own up to 19% in all 4 clubs as long as the 19% isn't a controlling stake

[trendylfj]

I had not read this before and thank this forum for enlightening me of the possibility. Investing/sponsoring any sports club always has some issues and this seems to be the same. Who exactly is doing the investing? Where is the money coming from? What do they get in return? Why are they investing? What rights do they get in return? These are just some questions I would want to know the answer to before saying yes or no. I do not know who is behind this but if the academy they want to set up includes girls and ladies, then would that help in any way??? I don't know but will reserve my judgment until I know more.

[CrumblingTerrace]

Whichever side of the argument you fall down on, I think it's vital to be informed about Saudia Arabia's Public Investment Fund.

There is extensive reporting you can easily find on their source of funding, their activities and their motivations (thanks for the links @Puja).

I feel it's too complicated an issue to simply form an opinion on what happens on the pitch.

[RagingBull]

Anything more than naming rights and I would seriously question my support of the club

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

Got an image problem?

Invest in Sport.

There is no amount of nose pinching that makes this palatable.

[Rugbygramps]

Leicester City have strong ties with Thailand, which has an interesting history.
As others have said if it’s more than naming of the stadium or the like then I would be against it.
Your comment about being bribed to ignore is imo wide of the mark, this is pocket change for these investors and if it doesn’t go to rugby they will just invest it elsewhere.
Finally a poster asked if Tigers weren’t one of the 4 teams mentioned wold I still be ok with it, Yes absolutely good luck to those 4 clubs

[TigerFeetSteve]

I had not read this before and thank this forum for enlightening me of the possibility. Investing/sponsoring any sports club always has some issues and this seems to be the same. Who exactly is doing the investing? Where is the money coming from? What do they get in return? Why are they investing? What rights do they get in return? These are just some questions I would want to know the answer to before saying yes or no. I do not know who is behind this but if the academy they want to set up includes girls and ladies, then would that help in any way??? I don't know but will reserve my judgment until I know more.

Think I'm currently in the same boat as you, unsure on how to view this till we know more.

[Scuttle]

Excellent points - I don’t believe they are allowed to own more than 10% of each club. We own the ground but don’t own the training ground - maybe they will build us a new one?? They may also pay for rock bottom

Paying for Rock Bottom has to be 1st on the shopping list, then in no particular order keeping Weise, Pollard and Montoya, and convincing Penaud, Dupont, Ntamac and Skelton that French wine isn't all that good after all. Post match in The Final Whistle isn't the same sans Rock Bottom.

[GB72]

OK, I am going to play devils advocate here and these views are not necessarily my own.

With the current financial position of the clubs and the league as a whole, are we now at a stage where we are choosing in general between selling out soul and survival. The next TV deal is coming up and rumours are that TNT may look at a low ball offer due to reduced numbers of teams and low viewing figures. Can we or the other clubs take a hit like that. Would we need to look at more centralised contracts for England players to help the wage bill. Would we still get the crowds if the big names were away more.

Is there any risk of another club in the league, perhaps one of these four, collapsing. Lose one more club and you risk losing the league and the professional game. That may still happen and in that case teams would be looking to get on the coat tales of other leagues. Which clubs would be the most attractive to other leagues, those funded to compete at the top level and who have financial security.

If the game as whole needs investment, who else will do it. Investing in rugby is a licence to lose money at club level. There are no profits to be had, no transfer fees to make money on, nothing. Anyone investing is not doing that, they are giving money away and there are not many that would do that and none with a morally clear ledger I suspect.

What if we declined the offer and 4 other teams took the funding. Would we still get the crowds if top 4 became an occasional treat as the better funded clubs surged ahead.

As I said, not my views but some contrary points to weigh up against the massive weight of moral issues.

I know the club will not be making any comments at this stage but what I would want to hear is whether outside investment is essential to ensure the future of the club. I know that we get pretty honest sounding interviews with Andrea but is any of that to stop fan panic.

[sk 88]

Genuine question to those saying they're fine with it: would you have been okay with the idea if it had been Glaws, Saints and Falcons getting the investment and not on our own club? Not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just curious to know if it wasn't Tigers who stood to benefit, would your reaction be the same?

Obviously I'd then think it was a disgrace that needs the full force of the law to stop.

If it's us getting the money then it's absolutely fine

[Robespierre]

My initial response would be an emphatic NO, due to the political and moral background of such a country.

[Puja]

Your comment about being bribed to ignore is imo wide of the mark, this is pocket change for these investors and if it doesn’t go to rugby they will just invest it elsewhere.

"We may as well do the incredibly amoral thing because someone else will if we don't" is not a good excuse.


Anyone know why my previous post on the matter's been deleted? Didn't seem to break any board rules by my reckoning and I cited where I was getting my facts from.

Whatever, you maybe want to check your messages about overtly political postings.

It's "overtly political" to make a post citing the major moral issues with taking Saudi Investment Fund money, in a thread about us potentially taking Saudi Investment Fund money?

Really?