Newcastle hypocrasy from dissenters

[Bassey the warrior]

Two (or three) wrongs don't make a right. Besides, I don't recall Russia or the UAE going to a foreign country and murdering a journalist and this being signed off right from the top of government.

[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.

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 I understand where you are coming from and sympathise with your view but I just don't think it's that simple to establish the criteria. For example, asset stripping wasn't illegal last time I checked. As to the LGBTQ+ community, well right now that would probably rule out wealth funds and politicians from a host of countries (but again it depends on how you define things like "freedom of expression").   I'm not arguing against a better fit and proper test, just pointing out that it isn't simple.

[Bill2]

Anyone having any misgivings regarding this deal check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLgIVYkbVz4

They are just showing any lack of class, no doubt thinking they will have a team of the best players in the World. Not sure myself as they will have to show some success before any of the top players turn up.

[blingo]

"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.

[/quote

More to the point. Could Hitler have done what he did if no one had sold him the arms???

[john dempsey]

Think Saudis still cut the hands off of thieves
so will make the Mexican wave interesting at Newcastle..

[Ludlow Richard]

No doubt Shearer will be the "figurehead apologist" for the new owners and will gloss over the appalling human rights record of Saudi Arabia. I'd like to think that Lineker will put Shearer on the spot on his next MOTD appearance and grill him hard about his views on human rights and the new owners; but somehow I doubt that will happen. 

[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 I understand where you are coming from and sympathise with your view but I just don't think it's that simple to establish the criteria. For example, asset stripping wasn't illegal last time I checked. As to the LGBTQ+ community, well right now that would probably rule out wealth funds and politicians from a host of countries (but again it depends on how you define things like "freedom of expression").   I'm not arguing against a better fit and proper test, just pointing out that it isn't simple.

Thanks. In my world all that host of politicians and wealth funds wouldn't be welcome  :dft012:

[Terry Towling]

"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.

[/quote

More to the point. Could Hitler have done what he did if no one had sold him the arms???

Actually he didn't buy the armaments - Germany made them, companies like Bosch, Krupps, Mercedes, Hugo Boss, BMW and AEG etc made them or contributed to the war effort. Germany was under embargo and was not allowed to build up its armed forces but there were plenty of German companies willing to ignore the nasty side of the Nazis.

[Terry Towling]

No doubt Shearer will be the "figurehead apologist" for the new owners and will gloss over the appalling human rights record of Saudi Arabia. I'd like to think that Lineker will put Shearer on the spot on his next MOTD appearance and grill him hard about his views on human rights and the new owners; but somehow I doubt that will happen.

he has aknowledged it "We have that chance now and I'm glad. I want my club to represent my city and my region and not some distant, authoritarian regime, but it looks like the second thing is opening the way to the first. Maybe it's just our go.""

[Terry Towling]

Think Saudis still cut the hands off of thieves
so will make the Mexican wave interesting at Newcastle..

Just interested at the people outside the ground celebrating with cans of lager..wonder what the owners think?

[blingo]

"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.

[/quote

More to the point. Could Hitler have done what he did if no one had sold him the arms???

Actually he didn't buy the armaments - Germany made them, companies like Bosch, Krupps, Mercedes, Hugo Boss, BMW and AEG etc made them or contributed to the war effort. Germany was under embargo and was not allowed to build up its armed forces but there were plenty of German companies willing to ignore the nasty side of the Nazis.

With borrowed money Mr T which is pretty much the same thing.

They also stole 15 tonnes of gold and untold millions from the Jewish people.

[MartyFFC]

Two (or three) wrongs don't make a right. Besides, I don't recall Russia or the UAE going to a foreign country and murdering a journalist and this being signed off right from the top of government.

Nope, Russia most definitely draws the line at poisoning British citizens in Italian restaurants in Salisbury

[Motspur Park]

Two (or three) wrongs don't make a right. Besides, I don't recall Russia or the UAE going to a foreign country and murdering a journalist and this being signed off right from the top of government.

Nope, Russia most definitely draws the line at poisoning British citizens in Italian restaurants in Salisbury

I just looked at this thread and couldn't work out if Mitrovic the Warrior's comment was satire. If he really believes that Russia doesn't sanction killings on foreign soil, what sort of sheltered life does he live?

[toshes mate]

It's revealing when China, a country not noted for its human rights, has an undue influence not only within the UN but in British and European football and much else too.  That smartphone, laptop, TV, TV box or smartUSB was most likely manufactured in China the greatest source of fossil fuel emissions in the world (but not per capita since that is the US). The world order isn't exactly squeaky clean, people aren't either, and it isn't getting any better.     

[Luka]

Has anyone on here actually been to Saudi ?

[RaySmith]

"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.

[/quote

More to the point. Could Hitler have done what he did if no one had sold him the arms???

Actually he didn't buy the armaments - Germany made them, companies like Bosch, Krupps, Mercedes, Hugo Boss, BMW and AEG etc made them or contributed to the war effort. Germany was under embargo and was not allowed to build up its armed forces but there were plenty of German companies willing to ignore the nasty side of the Nazis.

Those firms used slave labour during the war, under the harshest possible conditions, with  many dying after  only a few weeks, to be replaced with more  of those seized
from all over Europe by the invading German army. Continental Tyres firm was another I was just reading about that did this, with workers from a notorious concertation camp, but these firms, carried on as  normal after the war.

Very few Nazi's involved in  The Holocaust and Germany's many war crimes were tried and punished after the War.
Sympathetic regimes in  Argentina, and The Vatican in Rome, ran an escape route, and many leading ex -Nazi's  built new lives and identities in Latin America.
And then the US and  British,  began to see the new Communist regimes as more of a threat  and turned their attentions away from Nazi hunting, to opposing the new  Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, even recruiting ex-Nazis as spies.

Am I culpable when I but Continental tyres for my bike?
It does show how hard it is to make moral judgements.

Fans themselves,  understandably maybe, forget  their moral principles  re owners of their own clubs.
Geordie fans are falling over themselves, even a leading  LGBTQ Newcastle  fan rep, to  say how these new Saudi owners are  not representing the Saudi government, and anyway  it's our government's problem, not the club's.

But i can see that it   does seem hypocritical maybe, if you stop the Saudi's bid, but not Man City's Dubai owners, for example, with a similar record on human rights.

[Penfold]

Has anyone on here actually been to Saudi ?

Certainly not. Can't get a beer there.

[Nick Bateman]

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.

Plenty of hot totty coming my way, it seems. Bring it on, I say!

Regards Saudi, my main gripe with them is their protrated war against Yemen to restore a corrupt and heinous despot to the throne, and the Khashoggi murder was of course an outrage.

But I believe sport and politics should never mix. One recalls Sheikh Mansour watching Manchester City with Richard Scudamore, then EPL chair, sat alongside him every game, basically intimidating referees to favour Man.City (or else). One does not wish the same with the new owners of the Toon Army, and there the matter should end. We already have many unscrupulous owners of Premier League clubs, Abramovich has an alleged history of bribery and corruption as well as other more nefarious deeds, yet does the media condemn him or Chelsea's dark arts whenever they play a football match?

Motor racing still hosts a grand prix in Dubai so where is the clamour from the do-gooders there or does it only apply to football when they take umbrage?!

In the end, the Newcastle fans have desired this and how can one not have affinity with the geordies who now have a chance to upset the "big six" and challenge them for honours with a cash-bought team same as every other wealthy club.

[S.F.Sorrow]

That's the final straw for me. The Premier League has been corrupt to the core for years now but this is on a whole new level. I simply cannot support anything related to the PL anymore. This of course means I won't be able to watch a single game if we're promoted next season. It's sad but there are more important things in life than football, like taking a stand against totalitarian regimes, oppression, torture, murder, mutilation, public executions, corruption, etc. etc. Some of you will think I'm overreacting but when the Premier League actively support all of the above I'm out.

[Luka]

Has anyone on here actually been to Saudi ?

Certainly not. Can't get a beer there.

That will change as there is a big drive to get tourism into the place. Sometime soon I believe you will be able to get alcohol in tourist hotels.
Not that that will be a new experience to the hypocritical white robed Saudi elite you see buying bottles of expensive booze straight after disembarking flights to Dubai International then being whisked off in limo's to indulge in ultra nice hotels and expensive hookers.