Newcastle hypocrasy from dissenters

[Somerset Fulham]

It's a shame that the ongoing joke of Newcastle United seems to be over now, and I have mixed feelings behind the reasons for it.

You can't blame Newcastle fans for being over the moon about is all but it does stink.  Again, not Newcastle's problem, this is down to those who have allowed these kind of takeovers to happen, despite these people having a less than pleasant story behind them.

The rules need to be changed regarding fit and proper owners, it 100% should not be about just being able to show a big bank acccount.

[rebel]

Poor chap walked into an Embassy, then never came out, go figure, what the Premier League are thinking. A planned 'Assassination', the world turned a 'blind eye' so has the football world. 

I wonder if potential players will 'boycott' the club because of the owner.

[Ruislip White]

Historically, the due diligence and ethical standard that's been applied to these types transactions has fallen short.

That in itself is not a good reason to not apply a more ethical approach going forward.  It's not hypocrisy to do so, it's just holding ourselves to a higher standard today.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Greed is the only snake that can never be charmed.

[toshes mate]

Wow, and no one mentions we were owned by an Egyptian so called ex arms dealer? Hypocrisy is alive and kicking.

My sentiments too.  Our Premier and Football League has been very deep in excreta for a very long time and another pile of manure changes the theme not one jot.

[Woolly Mammoth]

I find it hypocrtical of bodies such as Amnesty International to take umbrage with the Saudi royal family in their proposed ownership of Newcastle United. They claim human rights issues yet we have a Russian owner of Chelsea, Man.City owned by Abu Dhabi, and various American owners with very dodgy standards (the Glazers bought up Man.U with United's own money).

Newcastle fans have been desperate to return those halcyon memorable days under Kevin Keegan when they had a star-studded team. They have been blighted under the misanthropic control of Mike Ashley and his dour choice of management for such a potentially big club.

It would be double standards to apply a stricter examination of the Saudi conglomerate when many others have fell short of Premier League scrutiny before.

This is an exciting moment, to break up the mini-monopoly of the so-called "big six" and introduce competition from the most northerly club in the league!

I for one am delighted to see Newcastle return to former greatness and the injection of capital into English football is more than welcome.

076.gif

PS: Darren Bent announced on Talksport he is a Fulham fan. Good on him!  049:gif

After this controversial statement you have made regarding the Newcastle United take over. I have been inundated with a profusion of women holding a rolling pin in each hand demanding I inform them of your address of the premises you squat in. As they wish to give you a history lesson in the treatment of fellow human beings especially of the female variety.
Naturally I gave them the information they required.
Therefore may I suggest you put the kettle on in anticipation of their arrival and a large supply of tea cakes may also be in order.

[The Old Count]

Wow, and no one mentions we were owned by an Egyptian so called ex arms dealer? Hypocrisy is alive and kicking.

My sentiments too.  Our Premier and Football League has been very deep in excreta for a very long time and another pile of manure changes the theme not one jot.

An unfair comparison to Mr Al Fayed.  I don't recall him ordering the assination of any journalists or sanctioning beheadings. Nor subjugating women or waging war on a neighbor.

[Oakeshott]

"An unfair comparison to Mr Al Fayed.  I don't recall him ordering the assination of any journalists or sanctioning beheadings. Nor subjugating women or waging war on a neighbor."

Not only that, the complaints seem to be (a) he is Egyptian and (b) had been in the arms trade.

The first is at a minimum zenophobic and at worse racist. The second, which may or may not be true, means he had dealings in matters of which the poster does not prove, though legal. There are light years between legal involvement in businesses of which one may disapprove (of which there are many that at least some group target with their disapproval) and the kind of thing The Old Count fairly summarises.

[Snibbo]

Sums it up nicely

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2021/oct/08/saudi-takeover-of-newcastle-leaves-human-rights-to-fog-on-the-tyne?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Lighthouse]

It really is a case of where we want to draw the line. Governments deal with despots and killers and make fraudulent decisions and deals.

Do we insist that football clubs should be our moral compass instead?

Sport is often held up as some sort of arbiter in taste. How dare they take money from gambling and drinks and fast food companies. How awful that some sports personalities are so over paid.

The people that run our sports organisations have much to answer for. Look at the World Cup and The Olympics. Now so full of questionable ethics and decisions.

Where do we draw the line? It really is up to us. But making a football club guilty with all that goes on in and around it. Is a bit like criticising a karaoke song a politician sings. Really we are picking on the wrong things when there are bigger things to debate and feel angry about and try and do something about. But we don't. We are led by the nose like a cow to slaughter while complaining the grass could taste nicer.

[Twig]

I agree there is a degree of hypocrisy involved but the whole thing is a matter of degree.  Very few nations or individual owners are totally and utterly squeeky clean so it's about where you draw the line. Not easy and there will always be argument, however I think most people would agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. 

Compared to many of the other countries mentioned on this thread Saudi has a particularly poor human rights record. I worked in the ME region for years and did my very best to avoid working there because of my misgivings,relatively  but on one of the few occassions I was there for any length of time my government client invited me to attend a public beheading - he genuinely thought I would enjoy the exerience! (admitedly that was quite some years back).

Anyway my point is that it will take the wisdom of Jove to decide which owners and nations should fail any sort of improved proper owners test.  Not something I think many of us would find easy if given the task.

[Terry Towling]

I agree there is a degree of hypocrisy involved but the whole thing is a matter of degree.  Very few nations or individual owners are totally and utterly squeeky clean so it's about where you draw the line. Not easy and there will always be argument, however I think most people would agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere. 

Compared to many of the other countries mentioned on this thread Saudi has a particularly poor human rights record. I worked in the ME region for years and did my very best to avoid working there because of my misgivings,relatively  but on one of the few occassions I was there for any length of time my government client invited me to attend a public beheading - he genuinely thought I would enjoy the exerience! (admitedly that was quite some years back).

Anyway my point is that it will take the wisdom of Jove to decide which owners and nations should fail any sort of improved proper owners test.  Not something I think many of us would find easy if given the task.

For me it would be a quite simple case of a) If it is an individual they are not linked to organised crime or corruption and aren't someone who is an asset stripper b) If it is a govenment it recognises universal human rights, allows universal sufferage, is not racist or mysogenistic or engaged in wars of agression against its neighbours - all of which Saudi Arabia fails.

For those people who thinking making such a judgement is difficult just imagine living in the state in discussion as a woman, as someone from the LGBGTQ+ community, being a migrant worker or wanting to have freedom of expression or religion. If you can't do these things you must recognise that the regime in question is not fit to run a football club in the UK.

[Terry Towling]

It really is a case of where we want to draw the line. Governments deal with despots and killers and make fraudulent decisions and deals.

Do we insist that football clubs should be our moral compass instead?

Sport is often held up as some sort of arbiter in taste. How dare they take money from gambling and drinks and fast food companies. How awful that some sports personalities are so over paid.

The people that run our sports organisations have much to answer for. Look at the World Cup and The Olympics. Now so full of questionable ethics and decisions.

Where do we draw the line? It really is up to us. But making a football club guilty with all that goes on in and around it. Is a bit like criticising a karaoke song a politician sings. Really we are picking on the wrong things when there are bigger things to debate and feel angry about and try and do something about. But we don't. We are led by the nose like a cow to slaughter while complaining the grass could taste nicer.

I do not think the UK should have Saudi Arabia as an ally and I do not believe that having as the direct owners of a premier league club a family that commit the murder of one of its opponents on foreign soil is a standard we should aim for. Would you have supported Pol Pot owning Fulham knowing about the killing fields? Would you have welcomed Idi Armin as a board member knowing what he was doing in Uganda? Would you have cheered on Hitler buying a stake in your company knowing about the concentration camps? If the answer is no then you can't just say "well they are friends with them so why can't I be?" in my opinion.

[Lighthouse]

It really is a case of where we want to draw the line. Governments deal with despots and killers and make fraudulent decisions and deals.

Do we insist that football clubs should be our moral compass instead?

Sport is often held up as some sort of arbiter in taste. How dare they take money from gambling and drinks and fast food companies. How awful that some sports personalities are so over paid.

The people that run our sports organisations have much to answer for. Look at the World Cup and The Olympics. Now so full of questionable ethics and decisions.

Where do we draw the line? It really is up to us. But making a football club guilty with all that goes on in and around it. Is a bit like criticising a karaoke song a politician sings. Really we are picking on the wrong things when there are bigger things to debate and feel angry about and try and do something about. But we don't. We are led by the nose like a cow to slaughter while complaining the grass could taste nicer.

I do not think the UK should have Saudi Arabia as an ally and I do not believe that having as the direct owners of a premier league club a family that commit the murder of one of its opponents on foreign soil is a standard we should aim for. Would you have supported Pol Pot owning Fulham knowing about the killing fields? Would you have welcomed Idi Armin as a board member knowing what he was doing in Uganda? Would you have cheered on Hitler buying a stake in your company knowing about the concentration camps? If the answer is no then you can't just say "well they are friends with them so why can't I be?" in my opinion.

By answer to all those things is why in Gods name did I wait until my football club or company was involved before I showed any sign of moral backbone? Shouldn't the time to complain and argue and protest come well before these people came to power or having come to power object to my Government acknowledging them. My ethics shouldn't start to be pricked only with sport or when I am personally involved. If I accept my Government or my favourite cake company is doing business with these people. Then it is all a bit rich me complaining when my football club becomes involved.

[Terry Towling]

It really is a case of where we want to draw the line. Governments deal with despots and killers and make fraudulent decisions and deals.

Do we insist that football clubs should be our moral compass instead?

Sport is often held up as some sort of arbiter in taste. How dare they take money from gambling and drinks and fast food companies. How awful that some sports personalities are so over paid.

The people that run our sports organisations have much to answer for. Look at the World Cup and The Olympics. Now so full of questionable ethics and decisions.

Where do we draw the line? It really is up to us. But making a football club guilty with all that goes on in and around it. Is a bit like criticising a karaoke song a politician sings. Really we are picking on the wrong things when there are bigger things to debate and feel angry about and try and do something about. But we don't. We are led by the nose like a cow to slaughter while complaining the grass could taste nicer.

I do not think the UK should have Saudi Arabia as an ally and I do not believe that having as the direct owners of a premier league club a family that commit the murder of one of its opponents on foreign soil is a standard we should aim for. Would you have supported Pol Pot owning Fulham knowing about the killing fields? Would you have welcomed Idi Armin as a board member knowing what he was doing in Uganda? Would you have cheered on Hitler buying a stake in your company knowing about the concentration camps? If the answer is no then you can't just say "well they are friends with them so why can't I be?" in my opinion.

By answer to all those things is why in Gods name did I wait until my football club or company was involved before I showed any sign of moral backbone? Shouldn't the time to complain and argue and protest come well before these people came to power or having come to power object to my Government acknowledging them. My ethics shouldn't start to be pricked only with sport or when I am personally involved. If I accept my Government or my favourite cake company is doing business with these people. Then it is all a bit rich me complaining when my football club becomes involved.

That may be the case but I can only speak for myself and as I have stated earlier my membership of Amnesty Internation and Anti-Slavery international along with my regular contributions to Unicef to help the Yemani children caught up in Saudi's war on them means that it would be hypocrisy itself to pretend that I think this investment into the PL is a good thing.

[Terry Towling]

Are we the bad guys?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZ8EkK3eWY

[blingo]

Wow, and no one mentions we were owned by an Egyptian so called ex arms dealer? Hypocrisy is alive and kicking.

And he was ruler of which country?

And what difference does that make Mr T??? Do arms not kill people? Are the suppliers of those arms any less guilty than the Rulers/leaders of the countries that buy them?

[Oakeshott]

"Do arms not kill people? Are the suppliers of those arms any less guilty than the Rulers/leaders of the countries that buy them?"

We'd have had problems stopping Hitler or that little general from Argentina without arms. All countries need arms to protect themselves from other countries. Unless we intend to rely on stones against guns, it follows there need to be an armament industry.

[Terry Towling]

Wow, and no one mentions we were owned by an Egyptian so called ex arms dealer? Hypocrisy is alive and kicking.

And he was ruler of which country?

And what difference does that make Mr T??? Do arms not kill people? Are the suppliers of those arms any less guilty than the Rulers/leaders of the countries that buy them?

Yes they are - Walmart sells guns so is Walmart the same as Putin who ordered his troops to attack and take over Crimea? You might as well blame the post room person in Shell for an oil spill. Also i have found no evidence that Mo sold any arms so could you supply the evidence as otherwise this discussion is irrelevant.

[toshes mate]

Wow, and no one mentions we were owned by an Egyptian so called ex arms dealer? Hypocrisy is alive and kicking.

My sentiments too.  Our Premier and Football League has been very deep in excreta for a very long time and another pile of manure changes the theme not one jot.

An unfair comparison to Mr Al Fayed.  I don't recall him ordering the assination of any journalists or sanctioning beheadings. Nor subjugating women or waging war on a neighbor.

Never bend the rules. You bend the rules a little bit and then it's a slippery slope.