Get your daily update and weekly newsletter by signing up today!


Premier League challenged on supporters charter – Why Manchester United treated differently to Newcastle United?

1 year ago

There are a lot of different forms of protest currently surrounding the aborted Newcastle United takeover.

Some are excellent, such as the petition and writing to MPs.

Some not so excellent, when it involves personal abuse to a certain Mr Masters (although totally understandable, those sort of emails / letters will be destroyed before he ever sees them by his personal team).

So it got me thinking what different avenue is there; what different spin could be put on this sad situation.

I had a look around on the internet about the background of the Premier League and their website.

All 20 clubs are the shareholders, each with the same voting rights and any club that drops out and comes back again should go through the same “fit and proper” test. I wonder if Mike Ashley did after proving to be a liar in the tribunal case brought by Kevin Keegan? I will leave that thought there.

Anyway, looking at their website, there was a section on the supporters charter and this leads me to pose the question: how has the Premier League best served the paying customers of Newcastle United and by definition the customers (supporters) of the PL?

So I settled on using the supporters charter to highlight how one club, Man U, is allowed to profit from investment by the Saudis (via sponsorship these past 12 years and counting), whereas another is not and each club (shareholder) should be treated the same.

The following is an e-mail I have now forwarded to Richard Masters today (2 August 2020):

Dear Mr Masters,

I am writing to you as the CEO of the EPL and in accordance with your supporters charter.

I am an ardent NUFC supporter but I am not writing specifically about the aborted PIF consortium takeover bid. Though the EPL prevarication is puzzling to the extreme.

Anyway, you may or may not be aware of Manchester United’s direct involvement with Saudi Arabia.

On 17/08/08 it was reported (and later substantiated) by The Times that Man U started to receive millions in sponsorship from the state funded Saudi Telecom which still continues.

Subsequently, on the 19/10/17 this was further increased by going into a direct partnership with the state funded General Sports Club and this was proudly announced on the Man U in-house TV station as being part of the Saudi’s 2030 vision.

If there are concerns about the Saudis human rights; the alleged state murder of Jamal Khashoggt or the piracy be beoutQ in respect of bein sports, then it is obvious Man U is complicit with all these allegations and thereby in receipt of “tainted” money. These tens of millions of pounds have put Man U in a better financial position and as such have put other clubs in your competition at an unfair disadvantage. The logic is that they should receive a hefty fine (especially concerning the piracy issue) along with a points deduction for next season.

I would add that I was going to notify Amnesty International and Hatice Cengiz about my findings concerning Man U (and it would of course be a bigger story) but I decided in fairness to the EPL to be given a chance to put its house in order.

I await in accordance with your charter either a reply/acknowledgement in 7 days followed by a substantive reply in 28 days. If I am unhappy with the response I will be contacting the IFO as part of the process’

Not sure what I will receive but at least it is different to name calling, as much as I would want to.

I have already shared an email I sent to the SNP MP John Nicolson on a previous mag forum and will share any response I receive to either email.


If you would like to feature on The Mag, submit your article to [email protected]

Have your say

© 2021 The Mag. All Rights Reserved. Design & Build by Mediaworks