It’s sad to know we’ve taken money from them, I’m glad we’re not owned by them though. Football is a massive part of our lives, but I’d be ashamed of myself if I went around Internet forums sticking up for evil regimes with the hopes of signing expensive footballers.
Newcastle United now owned by the PIF | PL receives "legally binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not control NUFC" ;)
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
She looks happy to be there anyway...
At least I think that's a happy face.
At least I think that's a happy face.
This part is lost on me, none of us (like EVER) have stuck up for our owners, Glazers or otherwise, or claimed to support the owners or agree with their political or human rights views/actions.
We support the club, not the owners, we have zero influence on who the owners are currently or who they will be in the future. Which is why I had no massive problem with the Saudi's potentially owning United.
It would have been different for us as well because we are not Newcastle, floundering around the relegation zone, were an institution, a mammoth in size, having them as owners would have just allowed us to operate to our fullest potential whereas Newcastle will be successful purely because of them - totally different scenario.
Here come the plastics.
Whilst I disagree with your claim that City are apparently squeaky clean (which is laughable really when you see everything that was exposed by Der Spiegel etc) the bolded part I've been claiming for a LONG time, way back when the Saudi's were first linked with buying United.
Any ties with western society only serve to highlight their wrongdoings, I've said that all along, owning a football club doesn't make the world forget about the atrocities, that much should be obvious to everybody really. I posted before that in fact, if anything, more ties to the west and the public eye over here will only serve to make them behave themselves a bit more (at least on the surface.)
People act like they buy clubs to cover up their wrongdoings and pumping billions into this sort of things is going to help their appearance, that's a complete nonsense to me.
On this point, you go to the stadium, you watch a game on tv, you look at the United website, you buy a player shirt and you are generating money for a country who are despicable. The natural and defensive reaction is either, what can I, one person, do or what does it matter as I am one person and the % of money they gain from me is inconsequential? Every single person over the age of 16 who is fortunate enough to have had a basic education can pick that apart in less than 10 seconds. Would football be that important to you that you'd turn a blind eye? For most, probably.
If you don't want to care and/or simply accept it for what it is, that is fine. Everyone should and can do what is best for them. But trying to justify it and even wishing it for United? Shame on you.
With respect; I don’t know what you’re talking about. All I said was that if I were a Newcastle fan, I’d be ashamed of myself if I spent my time trawling Internet forums sticking up for the Saudis.
This is the thing though, in my opinion, distancing ourselves from them and sitting here just wagging our fingers might make you feel better about yourself but it achieves nothing. If anything the opposite is a better approach, closer ties to the west will only mean they have to start to conform to what we expect from modern nations, many laugh at that and say it's a naïve outlook, but in fact distancing ourselves and finger wagging achieves less and only hardens their resolve. Change will only come through integration, and integration is what they need in order diversify their wealth.
It makes sense when you think about it, but I understand the reluctance from many because the atrocities have been a disgrace.
Apologies mate I misread your post a tad, I thought you were referring to United fans if the Saudi's owned us. My point was that we wouldn't be singing the praises of the owners no matter who they were.
But yeah, the Geordies are a complete embarrassment with how they've embraced the whole Saudi thing, should have stayed classy and understated with their response without entirely coming out and worshipping them like they have immediately. Then again they would have needed to be classy to begin with.
Agreed mate. I wouldn’t begrudge them for enjoying the journey, especially if it meant they get champions league football for example. I don’t even think putting tea towels on their heads at the matches is that bad, I think when they start talking about the Saudis ‘diversifying their portfolio’ they’ve gone too far though.Apologies mate I misread your post a tad, I thought you were referring to United fans if the Saudi's owned us. My point was that we wouldn't be singing the praises of the owners no matter who they were.
But yeah, the Geordies are a complete embarrassment with how they've embraced the whole Saudi thing, should have stayed classy and understated with their response without entirely coming out and worshipping them like they have immediately. Then again they would have needed to be classy to begin with.
It's really not about this at all, it doesn't make sense at all.
The idea, as you are saying, that 'we can help them', is the exact same mantra which essentially permitted the atrocities of colonialization. European countries were more 'civilised', 'educated' and considered themselves to live in a superior way to the counties they colonised. Europeans genuinely believed these countries needed their influence. Your point is exactly the same but in reverse here, we want what they have (money) and are trying to justify doing something unanimously thought of as wrong because we are 'better' and therefore they must be influenced by us. It's been going on since forever - where do you think making a 'Deal with the Devil' comes from but we should really know better by now.
Very simplistic but...Let's say you're a parent and your child wants something but is behaving badly. You don't give them what they want and hope they improve their behaviour, you get them to improve their behaviour and then give them what they want.
Not really. A big issue with the UEFA case was some key findings were deemed to be outside the 5-year statute of limitations.
If only City had played ball and not hampered/delayed UEFA at every step… it’s almost like they knew about the five year deadline? Rascals.
The fact that City abstained from this sponsorship vote speaks absolute volumes, and the fact that Newcastle tried to veto it also speaks equal volumes.
Surely now though the FA/Premier League can only find City guilty of their FFP irregularities in the ongoing investigation!?
Surely now though the FA/Premier League can only find City guilty of their FFP irregularities in the ongoing investigation!?
Has Amanda Staveley joined the Caf?
I'm struggling to find your position on it to be honest bud
It has nothing to do with Colonialization because that's not what is happening here. This is 2021 and we aren't invading Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's other than trading arms and oil with the west have nothing that ties them with the west that is tangible/visual to the person on the street, that's what is different with club ownership, it throws up all the questions of civil rights etc that they don't usually have to answer for or hide/restrict.
What is it you want? Do you want them to improve their civil rights? But you don't want them to integrate and mirror our own? Do you think shutting them off, telling them how much of a disgrace they are whilst still filling up our cars with fuel will help improve their civil rights? (It hasn't so far.)
It's obvious really, for them to operate to any scale in the public eye in the western world they simply cannot commit atrocities at the same time, any benefit of 'sports washing' would be reversed. My point can't be quantified but it's based in the fact that they can't have it both ways, if they want to diversify into westernised world and 'sports wash' their image, they know that they can't be committing atrocities, so by default that only improves their behaviour and doesn't worsen it.
Colonisation point you've missed, please reread, I said 'reverse'.
I don't really see how you don't understand the above. PL holds the power until they let them in, you say x, y and z needs to change if you want to enter this league and benefit financially from it. Your logic seems to be let them, let them benefit and then, although they won't have a reason to do so, they will inevitably become more like us?
FYI that is exactly the opposite of how sports washing works. The entire point is more exposure = more leeway not the opposite. Also most of our oil comes from Norway.
But the PL let them in when City were took over, can't be one rule for one and a different rule for everybody else.
For the record the whole fake sponsorship aspect I despise and I hope this ban is upheld going forward for the Saudi's and for City, but the premise of them being owners in itself and being involved in the league and the west I don't think is a terrible thing in as much as what it can do for them changing their approach to things like human rights etc. Surely if we want them to change integration of some kind is needed.
Distancing ourselves from them will only make them more insular and introspective and strengthen traditions, look at North Korea. We need one big melting pot innit
Do you have any examples of this ever working?
Pretty sure that was the thinking behind ever closer integration with China over the last 30 years, that hasn't really worked out too well so far.
Well to be honest mate I don't but... surely it makes more sense than to turn our collective backs on them for another 50 years, at least this way they are invested in our culture to some extent. Tentative but it's a start.
China are a mega power and not just reliant on Oil like Saudi either. At some point Saudi need to diversify and I think a lot of good can come of it for the people over there if the countries they invest in can question their actions.
So if a rule is bad you just keep letting it not be enforced? Of course City shouldn't be allowed to be effectively be owned by the UAE.But the PL let them in when City were took over, can't be one rule for one and a different rule for everybody else.
For the record the whole fake sponsorship aspect I despise and I hope this ban is upheld going forward for the Saudi's and for City, but the premise of them being owners in itself and being involved in the league and the west I don't think is a terrible thing in as much as what it can do for them changing their approach to things like human rights etc. Surely if we want them to change integration of some kind is needed.
Distancing ourselves from them will only make them more insular and introspective and strengthen traditions, look at North Korea. We need one big melting pot innit
North Korea isn't forced to be as it is, or more accurately Kim Jong-un isn't forced to run his country as it is. They essentially are still run by rulers from a bloodline... it's about as archaic and nonsensical as you'll find and one of the few countries 'worse' than Saudi Arabia for human rights abuses. By your logic, if Kim Jong-un wants to buy a football club in the PL, we should allow him to do so because it might mean he sees some sense? He already knows the Western world (as does MSB), for example he's obsessed with the NBA but he has no interest in allowing his subjects the same freedoms he has...
We do need a melting pot, but you don't get one by empowering those who don't want one.
Yes, once the rule has been created then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That's the reality.
OK we are going way off topic here with N. Korea, but how would the Saudi's owning Newcastle be a terrible thing? Would it mean more people die? No?
The example of North Korea is different because they have no intention of integrating with the outside world, but the Saudis in this situation I believe is a viable opportunity to build ties with them and highlight any wrongdoing etc.
I understand your point to an extent but what is the answer to your version of it? Never attempt to integrate or influence them? Just keep them in a box and perpetuate the problem whilst we label them a disgrace by our own standards?
It doesn't have to be, just look back through history.
Re N. Korea, you brought them up - I just pointed out how it was a poor example.
No, as I said originally, you decide what they need to do to join and then it's up to them. It's so basic, that's why it's frustrating. If Saudi then say, 'you know what we don't want to change that much', it's on them but you have to at least ask the question of them.
You seem very set on this idea of keeping countries in boxes/isolated...the word is completely global now, they choose to censor their population, who is isolating who? The fact you keep trying to justify this is worrying - for me there are two camps for those who don't seem against it:
- You know it is wrong, you choose to turn a blind eye because you simply want to watch football. I don't agree with this group but I understand them.
- You know it's wrong but try to justify it. The only defence seems to always come down to some variation of 'we already fecked up so what's the difference'. This group are what is wrong with society.
Maybe the other clubs have sh!t lawyers who don’t know the law as well as City’s lawyers do.
All 18 clubs lawyers….
It would only make sense if it actually worked though wouldn't it?
And much like you I can't think of a single example where it did work which would lead me to suspect that it doesn't on any meaningful level.
Shunning their investment and business would be a much quicker way to get them to change their ways. But the problem there is there are too many people with zero morals all to willing to take their money.
Like the UK government and Newcastle United.
I’m not claiming what the Saudi’s have done is not wrong, of course it is. Not once have I tried to remotely excuse their human rights issues etc.
My view on how this specific scenario effects any of those issues is just different to yours.
You can’t effect change in Saudi very literally by outlining what we want to see them change in their country before we allow them to buy bloody Newcastle United, they just wouldn’t buy them!
My view is a longer term one through ongoing integration with the West because that is the only way they will change and you haven’t given a better solution, other than ‘your what’s wrong with society’
Sitting back and labelling people and offering no solution apart from finger wagging solved nothing, ever.
Nations have evolved through integration since forever, it’s how the entire western society share largely the same standard of human rights.
In a nutshell:
1) Saudi Arabia owning Newcastle doesn’t make atrocities worse (the opposite in my view, no matter how slight)
2) The more they integrate with the west the better (in order to improve the deeper lying issues everybody is supposedly unhappy about.)
*or is it more to do with them not wanting Newcastle to be rich.
Didn't you know Newcastle United are a great source of renewable energy? All the larger than life fans who go topless are able to attract a massive amount of sun onto themselves with their beautifully supple, often ghost like white skin - all that's needed is a plug to fit up their arse and they can power all the "workers" digs back in Saudi Arabia.
Exactly...someone else would
I have given you a solution you just disagree, same as I disagree with you. I can't think of a single time your solution has worked in history. I'm not religious at all but just consider this, Saudi Arabia has a lot of Christians (probably more than reported as you get killed if you convert and they are also heavily persecuted) so from all their dealings with the West, PIF has been running 50+ years for reference, how have they changed, adapted or shown a shred of evolution? They haven't. There are 0 churches or places of worship there for Christians whereas since the 80's, there are now 1200 mosques in the UK. This is great for the UK's cultural melting pot but it's one way traffic. Saudi gov. takes what it wants, does what it wants and they don't need to appease anyone because everyone wants that sweet dinero.
1) no it's exactly the same, it isn't going to make it better or worse (it won't affect it) it's that they can improve their image and benefit their elite through a PL football team.
2) I've explained twice now why I don't think the integration point makes sense. I don't see why Newcastle being rich or poor would bother me either way.
There’s no reason that this takeover should have/has gone through. It’s absolutely impossible that PIF managed to prove they have no connection with Bin Salman and his lot. There’s nothing they could have given the Premier League to show it, aside from a Billion Pound cheque. The FA might as well scrap the Fit and Proper Persons test now, because if the likes of Steve Dale can take Bury over after taking 40+ businesses into liquidation and Saudi Arabia can buy Newcastle despite still hanging people and not giving women rights in the 21st century, then it’s simply pointless and nothing more than a box ticking, virtue signalling exercise.
However, no matter how atrocious this lot are, I can understand the Geordies’ delight, and would never take my annoyance from this takeover going through out of them. At the end of the day, they’re just football fans who want to see their club do well. There’s a misconception that they would never be happy unless Newcastle made top 4. All they want is a team with direction, and not fighting relegation year on year. This has simply not been possible with the worst owner in their history, Ashley, suffocating the club for the past 14 years. He’s far from a good man as well, what with the stories of the awful working conditions and workers being paid less than the minimum wage in a pandemic at Sports Direct coming out last year. Just that he’s nowhere near as awful as the people coming in, who have a genuine claim to being the worst people in the world.
I say all this as a person who doesn’t like Newcastle fans for their awful treatment of Bruce. There’s actually a thread of their forum called ‘happy Ashley’s gone but uncomfortable with the Saudi takeover’. Considering this is how the majority of their fans feel, I can live with that.
On the pitch, I can only see good things coming for Newcastle. When you are the richest club in the world and have so much room to manoeuvre with regards to FFP due to Ashley’s lack of spending, you can’t really fail. They’re looking at the right profile of players as well. The likes of Tarkowski and out of favour players like Donny, Martial and Barkley are perfect to get them challenging for the top 7 to first become an attractive on-field proposition, before really targeting the superstars to make them a permanent fixture in the top 4. Their plans seems similar to City’s, who started by signing players like Bridge and Given, before moving up to the likes of Toure and Silva.
For us, the implications of this takeover are basic: if we don’t get our act together, we will lose our top 4 spot in less than 3 years time, and with another club with so much money in the mix, I doubt we’ll be getting it back in a hurry should we lose it.
However, no matter how atrocious this lot are, I can understand the Geordies’ delight, and would never take my annoyance from this takeover going through out of them. At the end of the day, they’re just football fans who want to see their club do well. There’s a misconception that they would never be happy unless Newcastle made top 4. All they want is a team with direction, and not fighting relegation year on year. This has simply not been possible with the worst owner in their history, Ashley, suffocating the club for the past 14 years. He’s far from a good man as well, what with the stories of the awful working conditions and workers being paid less than the minimum wage in a pandemic at Sports Direct coming out last year. Just that he’s nowhere near as awful as the people coming in, who have a genuine claim to being the worst people in the world.
I say all this as a person who doesn’t like Newcastle fans for their awful treatment of Bruce. There’s actually a thread of their forum called ‘happy Ashley’s gone but uncomfortable with the Saudi takeover’. Considering this is how the majority of their fans feel, I can live with that.
On the pitch, I can only see good things coming for Newcastle. When you are the richest club in the world and have so much room to manoeuvre with regards to FFP due to Ashley’s lack of spending, you can’t really fail. They’re looking at the right profile of players as well. The likes of Tarkowski and out of favour players like Donny, Martial and Barkley are perfect to get them challenging for the top 7 to first become an attractive on-field proposition, before really targeting the superstars to make them a permanent fixture in the top 4. Their plans seems similar to City’s, who started by signing players like Bridge and Given, before moving up to the likes of Toure and Silva.
For us, the implications of this takeover are basic: if we don’t get our act together, we will lose our top 4 spot in less than 3 years time, and with another club with so much money in the mix, I doubt we’ll be getting it back in a hurry should we lose it.
So you think the western world stumbled across roughly the same set of human rights and we’ve had no influence one one another? Nonsense.
How do you fix issues like Racism as an example? Through education. Same mantra is required here no matter how long it takes.
Without integration and the experience of other cultures/traditions nothing will change.
Thinking that UK can influence Saudi Arabia just based on commercial relationships is ridiculous and desilusional.
All that Saudi government has to do is just buy expensive stuff from UK, so brit politicians won't even dare to mention Saudi Arabia in a negative way, as they are profiting from them.
This is exactly how it works :
Official PlayStation Twitter used the LGBT flag for pride month in their english version, but they didn't in the arabic version...why?
Money money money, they don't give a F about the pride month, it's all about profits, they don't want to lose that juicy deal with arabic countries, so while they praise pride month in one or two countries, they go to Qatar and say : "Yes, sheik Abdulla lll, i believe women shouldn't have rights...buy my product please please"
UK will NEVER influence Saudi Arabia
Of course humans influenced other humans, that has happened through history, how broad and random do you want to get? We are talking specifically about Saudi buying a PL team and how your idea, that you influence them through letting them in, is flawed. Give me an example, just one, of when it has worked? Bringing up racism further weakens your stance, I'm interested to hear how you think we are benefitting the fight against racism by allowing a racist country to own a club...how are the FA going to 'educate' the Saudi royal family?
The way you write it's as if humans from every century are all the same but that's not true. Each subsequent generation should be wiser and fairer and generally better than its predecessor, if you don't learn from you mistakes you just keep making them. You keep ignoring every example I give you & going broader and more vague.
The point of Colonization is just being more powerful than the other and the desire to expand the territory, not so much about being civilized...that was just the excuse.
Through History from Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt to the British Empire, it's all about power...
Also UK will never influence Saudi Arabia.
The modern colonization is through finances, not with armies or military forces...United States have doing this since 1950, very effective btw.
As there is not much to resist an economical colonization, especially if your government have no problem selling the country to profit themselves.
UK and Canada right now are being financially colonized by China.
This is why UK will never influence Saudi Arabia, or will be any close to even change their views
Yeah exactly. My point re reverse colonialization is the mindset the other poster tried to justify it with is flawed. This was how atrocities during colonisation were justified, as you say the 'excuse'.
Now we are doing the reverse, instead of imposing our evil, for want of a better word, on someone else for wealth we are receiving someone else's evil for wealth.
So they're choosing between Eddie Howe and Favre as their new manager. Will be years and years before they become actually competitive.
Had to turn that off midway through. Some seriously bizarre mental gymnastics from Neville there.
"Anybody who says there's no way they shouldn't be allowed in English football, you can't disagree with that point of view. I do disagree with it, but .."
That's an incredibly odd way to set up his argument.
So they've been temporarily blocked from sponsoring themselves - like City did - and 18 clubs voted for that (while City abstained ) and their reaction was to threaten clubs individually with legal challenges.
It's a great start.
Edit: Not blocked from sponsoring themselves, but blocked from sponsoring themselves with outlandish deals. Slight difference. But still, maybe the difference of a few hundred millions here. What was the City stadium sponsorship again, 300m?
) and their reaction was to threaten clubs individually with legal challenges.It's a great start.
Edit: Not blocked from sponsoring themselves, but blocked from sponsoring themselves with outlandish deals. Slight difference. But still, maybe the difference of a few hundred millions here. What was the City stadium sponsorship again, 300m?