Saudi Arabia in talks to buy stake in Tigers

[Tiglon]

Exactly, losing money and massive loans doesn’t point to sustainability.

£0.9m is less than the £4m average across the league

The £13m was to pay off loans and had no bearing on the operating profit or loss.

We also have one of, if not the, highest incomes in the league, so that makes it a lot easier to get to break even than for most clubs, if that was the priority.

So, yeah, we are more sustainable than most other Premiership clubs. I think that's pretty clear.

[Rugbygramps]

Rugby forum so in danger imo of becoming political/ moral but for those throwing their arms in the air about supporting such a regime have a look at your day to day lives and remove everything that doesn’t involve crude oil in some way in its production process, not just the transport and energy products.
Yes everyone should do their bit but let’s not be hypocritical in the process

[GB72]

Rugby forum so in danger imo of becoming political/ moral but for those throwing their arms in the air about supporting such a regime have a look at your day to day lives and remove everything that doesn’t involve crude oil in some way in its production process, not just the transport and energy products.
Yes everyone should do their bit but let’s not be hypocritical in the process

I think in this case, the two are intrinsically linked. The grounds for objection are, in the main, based on politics and human rights and that needs to be discussed to make a more than valid case for not wanting such investment.

As for the other aspects of life, the gulf states are not using oil to try and clean their human rights record or deflect from it but they are doing that with sport and on that basis you can differentiate.

[Tigersunited]

Exactly, losing money and massive loans doesn’t point to sustainability.

£0.9m is less than the £4m average across the league

The £13m was to pay off loans and had no bearing on the operating profit or loss.

We also have one of, if not the, highest incomes in the league, so that makes it a lot easier to get to break even than for most clubs, if that was the priority.

So, yeah, we are more sustainable than most other Premiership clubs. I think that's pretty clear.

I fully respect your opinion, my opinion is losing more year after year and having to borrow to be a going concern is not sustainable.

[GB72]

Exactly, losing money and massive loans doesn’t point to sustainability.

£0.9m is less than the £4m average across the league

The £13m was to pay off loans and had no bearing on the operating profit or loss.

We also have one of, if not the, highest incomes in the league, so that makes it a lot easier to get to break even than for most clubs, if that was the priority.

So, yeah, we are more sustainable than most other Premiership clubs. I think that's pretty clear.

I fully respect your opinion, my opinion is losing more year after year and having to borrow to be a going concern is not sustainable.

I agree on that, we are not a premier league football club that can apparently just keep accumulating debt. I would also add that we had an additional windfall last year from the RFU for taking our coaching staff and so without that, the loss would be double that. Losing money every year is not sustainable and because of the precarious nature of rugby and recent failings, eventually the sources of funding will say enough it enough.

[Tigersunited]

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

Thailands history is often cited as problematic, but then many countries in the world have issues.
Interesting how many think naming rights are ok but no more than that?

[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

Thailands history is often cited as problematic, but then many countries in the world have issues.
Interesting how many think naming rights are ok but no more than that?

That’s my point, there are many other countries with similar histories. Regarding the naming rights if it were suddenly to become Saudi Air Welford Road, for example, with a successful team full of stars, how many would not attend matches because of the countries issues, imo not that many.
My earlier point re crude oil is that is where the wealth initially comes from, which makes the West reliant etc. so again imo if you’re going to object then go whole hog

[Tigerbeat]

Understand that this is a hot topic and borders on politics. Feel free to discuss the topic of pros and cons of the investment / plans for the game but please leave the political views out. This is a sports forum and discussion should remain around the rugby and its place in todays world.
The whys and wherefores or Saudi Arabia can be discussed on another suitable platform away from the Fans Forum
Thanks

[Tiglon]

Exactly, losing money and massive loans doesn’t point to sustainability.

£0.9m is less than the £4m average across the league

The £13m was to pay off loans and had no bearing on the operating profit or loss.

We also have one of, if not the, highest incomes in the league, so that makes it a lot easier to get to break even than for most clubs, if that was the priority.

So, yeah, we are more sustainable than most other Premiership clubs. I think that's pretty clear.

I fully respect your opinion, my opinion is losing more year after year and having to borrow to be a going concern is not sustainable.

Did I say it was sustainable? Or did I say it was more sustainable than most other Premiership clubs?

[Tigersunited]

I don’t believe I said you did say it was sustainable? If I did please show me.
What I said was I did not believe it was sustainable, I also said I respect your opinion.

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

Understand that this is a hot topic and borders on politics. Feel free to discuss the topic of pros and cons of the investment / plans for the game but please leave the political views out. This is a sports forum and discussion should remain around the rugby and its place in todays world.
The whys and wherefores or Saudi Arabia can be discussed on another suitable platform away from the Fans Forum
Thanks

As Sport is being used for arguably political aims going to be tricky to differentiate between the two.
As the money is it would appear to be effectively direct from the Rulers of Saudi Arabia again there is a huge crossover.

Are the owners of the Foxes part of Thailands rulers?

[Rugbygramps]

Understand that this is a hot topic and borders on politics. Feel free to discuss the topic of pros and cons of the investment / plans for the game but please leave the political views out. This is a sports forum and discussion should remain around the rugby and its place in todays world.
The whys and wherefores or Saudi Arabia can be discussed on another suitable platform away from the Fans Forum
Thanks

As Sport is being used for arguably political aims going to be tricky to differentiate between the two.
As the money is it would appear to be effectively direct from the Rulers of Saudi Arabia again there is a huge crossover.

Are the owners of the Foxes part of Thailands rulers?

I believe they have close ties but not related,

[Hot_Charlie]

Sports washing. Dead against this.

In which case we should be against pretty much every middle-eastern and in many cases asiatic investments in sport and boycotting those nations with huge luxury tourism industries.

[Hot_Charlie]

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

Thailands history is often cited as problematic, but then many countries in the world have issues.
Interesting how many think naming rights are ok but no more than that?

That’s my point, there are many other countries with similar histories. Regarding the naming rights if it were suddenly to become Saudi Air Welford Road, for example, with a successful team full of stars, how many would not attend matches because of the countries issues, imo not that many.
My earlier point re crude oil is that is where the wealth initially comes from, which makes the West reliant etc. so again imo if you’re going to object then go whole hog

And it's nothing new either. Saudi Airlines were sponsoring major sports events and teams in the early 80s. Arab state money starting flowing around sport around then and grew exponentially with the arrival of conveniently consumer friendly airlines (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar) who've been fronting sports sponsorship for a couple of decades now around a booming tourist industry that's been built by the use of migrant workers from the Indian and Asian subcontinents.

[johnthegriff]

Our sport needs investment, it needs all clubs at the top end to be sustainable businesses or for the very rich club owners to be tied to long term guarantees that they will financially support losses. We cannot afford that more top level clubs fail, it is noticeable that the teams of interest to the Saudis are all ground owning businesses able to create non rugby income, this is the way forward but there needs to be a dozen at least such clubs. We all have an opinion whether this investment will be tainted, The same could be said about investment from any source, all counties have a chequered past and some where we have difficulties with their present maybe transitioning to a better.
Personally I am reasonably happy with our current investment but I certainly do not want our rivals to take a big step that leaves us behind. Investment that builds us a multi storey car park replaces the old Crumbie stand, increases the size of our pitch slightly and improves our dressing rooms would make us financially more viable and that would not be a bad thing.