I just think the title is incorrect
Newcastle owners sanction the murder of 7 men for sit-in protests
- Thread starter DatIrishFella
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
In fairness, some of it is. I have very strong feelings about state ownership, and especially authoritarian state ownership but the tone in this thread about 7 deaths is not great.
No. There is just more commentary. The last 18 months' tsunami of having respect for the culture amid discussions about human rights is new. Especially the scale of it. And that's sportswashing.
Your take on this is consistently bizarre.
Personally I use it all the time in discussions about a government's right to murder it's own citizens. Usually in an American context. It's legalised murder.
It is kinda weird how the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, the de facto ruler of a top 20 gdp country, is now routinely referred to in the press as "Newcastle owner" 
Immoral to you maybe and us here in civilised societies but that’s how they do things. Just as they have the death penalties in many US states. People really need to keep out the politics of other countries.
Why? You think if an atrocity happens across an arbitrary line it's not your business? Weird respect for political outcomes based on thousands of random factors over time trumping your concern for human rights and well being.
What 'civilized' country are you from?
Personally I’m more concerned with what’s going on in our own country and trying to fix the damage done over the past 5 years which actually has a detrimental affect on my own life.
It is kinda weird how the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, the de facto ruler of a top 20 gdp country, is now routinely referred to in the press as "Newcastle owner"
If that was the oddest thing he's been part of the world would be a better place.
Yeah you can be more concerned definitely. But that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand while heinous acts are committed.
What country as a matter of interest?
I'm not disagreeing with that, it just is strange that this guy who buys weapons from the UK and US and supplies us with oil, is the ruler of one of the more powerful countries in the world and head of a sovereign wealth fund of 300bn plus is referred to exclusively by his ownership of Newcastle, which he likely has absolutely zero hand in running. It feels like cheap point scoring
Say what you like about Sir Jim but he'd never do this.
Horrendous, they shouldn't be allowed to sportswash in our country.
Anyway, how's the takeover going? I hope Qatar succeed over SJR so we have more money to spend on players!
Anyway, how's the takeover going? I hope Qatar succeed over SJR so we have more money to spend on players!
Nah, he's an esteemed trade partner of the British government. It fits. But yes it's point scoring in that he is liked by more people as a result. He has achieved the oddness of Saudi flags waved on the streets of Newcastle. Sportswashing, despite the arguments of some that it doesn't exist.
These things are quite common occurrence in ME especially in the gulf states (taken to prison indefinitely, executions and the like), it is so common that people there coined some phrases for it, like "behind the sun", "taken in a black GMC", etc..., these states don't take kindly to dissenting voices, the Arab Revolution 10/11 years ago was their biggest nightmare.
I meant it feels like point scoring to have this posted in the football forum and make it about Newcastle. Newcastle represent about 1% of the PIF, the British government do far more business with this guy than Newcastle ever will, but this isn't posted in current events under "man who the British government supplies with weapons orders executions" its posted as Newcastle owners order executions
Its a football forum…
Ah yeah, I get you now. It's relevant to the reader. Skews things a bit alright.
Fixed
“Nearly everyone” apart from migrant workers
Yes! Get in!
Pretty grim...
The fact that we are discussing this on a football forum says it all really. I spend a lot of time wondering what football will look like in a few decades and it doesn't sit right with me.
The fact that we are discussing this on a football forum says it all really. I spend a lot of time wondering what football will look like in a few decades and it doesn't sit right with me.
Yeah, you're probably right.
It's unrealistic to expect a thread like this to move along without any reference to the United takeover, and with that comes point scoring to varying degrees. Not an excuse - it's plain wrong - but, yeah, it's kinda inevitable given the nature of the thing.
Fair enough but have the Saudis or Qataris ever voted for Brexit?
Yeah, I rest my case.
Yeah, I rest my case.
Surely not having to "shut up about politics" should be a minimum requirement? I mean, human rights and all that lark.
I bet if that happens in Qatar, the UK will immediately cut economical ties with them and refuse the 50blns of something that are being pumped into UK by the state on yearly basis.
It's the world we live in and which is driven by money. Sports aren't different.
You can't force a change if it doesn't come from within.
We all saw what happened in Afghanistan and the USA presence there.
It's the world we live in and which is driven by money. Sports aren't different.
You can't force a change if it doesn't come from within.
We all saw what happened in Afghanistan and the USA presence there.
Brace yourself, here come the Whataboutisms.
I don't know what you base that on, but in terms of the online media I personally use/browse, this is not the case.
The negative comments may have increased somewhat, but this is offset by an entirely new set of people commenting, one that did not exist prior to the takeover: football fans who bizarrely downplay HR issues and accuse others of hypocrisy and racism.
Again, this category didn't exist prior to the takeover. It has clearly emerged as a direct result of the takeover, and it is overwhelmingly positive (apologetic, I suppose would be a better term): you hardly ever see a Newcastle fan being critical of either the takeover itself or Saudi policy/practices.
If you don't want to call this "sportwashing" for whatever reason, fine. But it's a phenomenon, it objectively exists. And we'll see it explode if Qatar buys United.
Who had Whataboutism on redcafe bingo?
Depends on exactly what you mean by "from within" (it obviously can't succeed if it doesn't come from within at all), but as a blanket statement what you say there simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Changes have frequently been brought about by outside influences throughout history.
I think you might be confusing Saudi Arabia with a democracy.
It was sarcasm as we see this being said often
It makes a change from "Journalist dissolver"It is kinda weird how the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, the de facto ruler of a top 20 gdp country, is now routinely referred to in the press as "Newcastle owner"
You're also talking rubbish, honestly.
The excuse of "they have a different culture than us" has always existed. Do I really need to dig up posts in the Current Events forum to prove this?
There hasn't been an 18 months tsunami of having respect for Saudi Arabia's culture, unless you only found out about Saudi Arabia 18 months ago and only view world news through a sports prism. And if that's the case, it's no wonder you and others think there's a grand conspiracy by a powerful sovereign nation to get residents of Newcastle to defend it's horrendous actions online, by buying Newcastle. I'm just being consistent in saying the idea is absolutely insane for many reasons, chief amongst them being, the influence you say they seek to get through sports... THEY ALREADY HAVE IT! Proof? Read The Guardian or CNN or any other major news outlet. Or check the wiki of UK Saudi Arabia relations.
There's always certain parties that want change, as people are different and views vary. If more than 50% (or in some cases it needs even closer to 70-80%) don't want the change and have the same beliefs before the attempt, it's often futile.
As I said take Afghanistan as an example they have had the Soviets there for 10 years, they now had the democratic presence of the States for nearly 2 decades and now the Taliban took over control once again and they are back to square one.
Of course in some cases change is inevitable with the western influence all over the world and small changes do happen, but they don't happen overnight. It takes decades and even centuries to change a mindset and in religious views build in and translated over centuries.
But back on the topic - do you believe banning sportwashing will somehow prevent all those things happening in the Middle East? To me the positive effect is negligible and close to 0.
And yes - it's kinda a facetious to point fingers at a sports club, owned by Americans, to accept a takeover, yet keeping shut about the UK state itself accepting billions of pounds every year coming from the Middle East.
Assuming you're right... That brings me to point 2: apart from online discussion becoming more tedious by way of arguing with new fans of Newcastle/Saudi Arabia/beheadings... this has no impact on anything in the real world. I mean, let's call it sportswashing for the sake of argument. It seems pretty useless and a waste of money for no actual impact. I'm not aware of any blocked deals with Saudi Arabia that will now go through post Newcastle purchase.
The death penalty in the US is abhorrent and should have been abolished eons ago. They're talking about allowing inmates to be gassed due to a shortage of chemicals needed for lethal injections.
Good thing we secured Messi and the 2026 World Cup to "sportswash" that away. Or something.
They don't, though. In terms of enhancing what some have called "net reputational gain", owning property and businesses in London is nowhere near as impactful as being directly associated with something millions of people are actually passionately interested in.
I knew a small business that was heavily weighing their options as to whether accept a Saudi offer for cooperation on a certain subject. I'm sure governments and major institutions don't shy away from dealing with Saudi Arabia but small businesses with stronger employee input may still be wary.
If the Saudi government can get some more legitimacy and "normalization" by getting involved in popular Western entertainment industries, they just might.
Mind, I'm speculating here.
Well, the alternative explanation is what you suggest (as I take it): it's just vanity/dick swinging (they like the idea of owning something big and shiny).
Perhaps it really is nothing more than that - but then again, it seems to me that dick swinging is a poor explanation for something done by a state (for an individual businessman, sure - yes. But we don't really believe in the idea that the "oil clubs" are owned by individual businessmen, do we?)
Like I said in the other thread, I recently had an interesting conversation with an expert on ME politics. She had a lot to say about so-called "sportswashing", and she partly dismissed the concept (as it's presented in its most simplistic form). But the bottom line: she thinks this is very much a "long game" thing. It's about normalization, establishing a presence in sectors that ordinary folk actually care about (sports).
Don't ask me to explain how that works on the details plane - I can't, I have no idea exactly how they intend to make money from this, but it seems likely to me that this is their motivation (not dick swinging but something more traditionally capitalist, let's say).