Thumbheed

Will those who are against the takeover be boycotting the club?

 

This is not an inflammatory question, I'm just trying to understand to what extent does your moral outrage extends to?

 

The petrol argument was just an example (albeit not the greatest one) because there's very little scope to make a stand against that and I accept that as a reality, but surely boycotting the club is an easy decision and stance to take.

 

Here’s 52 pages-worth of answers to your question:

 

https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=104068.0

:thup:

 

I'll read through that, I didnt realise this was a taboo topic to talk about in this thread after still reading so many objections, but yeh, I'll leave it at that.

 

I wouldn’t say it’s “taboo,” but it’s a question that’s been asked and answered ad nauseam over the past month.

Yeh, that's fair enough, but then I assume most of what's been said and is being said has already been said.

Every point and counter point has been made so what is there left to discuss? I don't post that often so I only replied to a point that seemed relevant at the time because the person making that objection was annoyingly dismissive of a perfectly valid point.

Will those who are against the takeover be boycotting the club?

 

This is not an inflammatory question, I'm just trying to understand to what extent does your moral outrage extends to?

 

The petrol argument was just an example (albeit not the greatest one) because there's very little scope to make a stand against that and I accept that as a reality, but surely boycotting the club is an easy decision and stance to take.

 

Here’s 52 pages-worth of answers to your question:

 

https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=104068.0

:thup:

I'll read through that, I didnt realise this was a taboo topic to talk about in this thread after still reading so many objections, but yeh, I'll leave it at that.

Not sure what's left to discuss until we get a decison then.

Will those who are against the takeover be boycotting the club?

 

This is not an inflammatory question, I'm just trying to understand to what extent does your moral outrage extends to?

 

The petrol argument was just an example (albeit not the greatest one) because there's very little scope to make a stand against that and I accept that as a reality, but surely boycotting the club is an easy decision and stance to take.

 

It's been answered a few times and I can't speak for anyone else, but I won't be giving them any money, for the nothing that it'll change, yeah. Presumably the people who didn't boycott the club while hating Ashley are hypocrites as well then?

Ahhh I've not read every reply but that's fair enough 

Hypocrites in what sense? That they now choose to boycott the club? If so, then no I dont think they are, I totally respect peoples objections to the takeover and I'm not taking the stance that they're wrong or "stupid" for those objections. I object to the notion that "whataboutery" is a redundant argument because I just dont believe it is, because for me, funding that regime is just as bad as supporting a club owned by it.

Either own your hypocrisies or take a more thorough stance against it rather than objecting loudly pre takeover and getting in line for a season ticket post takeover.

I cant get my head round protesting loudly but then putting money into their bank account anyway.

Will those who are against the takeover be boycotting the club?

 

This is not an inflammatory question, I'm just trying to understand to what extent does your moral outrage extends to?

 

The petrol argument was just an example (albeit not the greatest one) because there's very little scope to make a stand against that and I accept that as a reality, but surely boycotting the club is an easy decision and stance to take.

 

Run along now.

Ffs. Sometimes this forum is impossible to engage because people want to interpret things in the worst possible way.

I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with "moral outrage" but for the sake of keeping things on track let's replace ot with "objections" if it makes you happier.

Will those who are against the takeover be boycotting the club?

This is not an inflammatory question, I'm just trying to understand to what extent does your moral outrage extends to?

The petrol argument was just an example (albeit not the greatest one) because there's very little scope to make a stand against that and I accept that as a reality, but surely boycotting the club is an easy decision and stance to take.

sigh

 

Aye, its the worst argument of all time.  Awful.

 

Not really the worst is it though

 

If you think the takeover should not be allowed to go through on moral grounds (which btw is a stance anyone is entitled to and it's understandable) but then you happily view/consume content/products in which they also have investments it's hypocrisy, now some people are comfortable being selective and again that's their prerogative but the hypocrisy can be called out

 

No it is not hypocrisy at all. These things are not comparable. I have to put petrol in my car, and even if i didn't I get the bus, so that consumes petrol. I have to get home from town, so I use an uber. There are things that you use in a society because you have to. The argument that I should quit using uber is ridiculous. If we applied that logic unilaterally, nobody could disagree with anything. Hate capitalism mate, well you've got an iphone! Check mate!

It is hypocrisy. Using petrol is a personal choice.  If you truly did want to take a stance against the regime you could, you just choose not to because it would be inconvinient for you to do so.

You cant rationalise an issue to suit your personal lifestyle choices. Want to take a stance against Saudi - boycott all things that funds them. You wont because it would be inconvinient for you to do so and that unfortunately is not a valid argument at all.

 

The fact that society is already dependant on that product should not cloud the fact that that is the case. I can't understand an argument which suggests that supporting a sports club owned by the Saudis is objectively worse than using a product which directly funds that very same regime. It makes no sense.

 

As for the Capitilism comment, well that falls short in the sense that saying you hate Capitilam is totally different to actually taking a stance agaisnt it. There are people who do take a stance against Capitilism and live self sufficiently. It's a tried and tested method.

 

This is absolutely brain dead. It is not a personal choice at all, so when my mother was in the RVI with Covid, I had to drive her there, and pick her up, I have to put petrol in my car to do that. Under your logic I should have..not? Society has been built around transport predominantly based on using a car, you're seriously comparing the infrastructure of a country to supporting a football club? Also what do you think buses run on? Air? Trains? so that leave me with walking/cycling? Now tell me how either of those things are viable? You're literally asking me to boycott petrol, think about that for a minute.

 

There are people who do take a stance against Capitilism and live self sufficiently. It's a tried and tested method.

 

Can you point me to one single person who has done that? And even if you can you are talking about being in a privileged position to even try it.I can't believe I'm even debating this honestly.

I get that you think differently to me but the personal insults is just pathetic. Grow up.

 

The fact that we are so dependent on petrol as a society is a symptomatic of the larger issue so yes, it is worse that our entire infrastructure is dependent on a state that is so morally reprehensible. That is the trade off we make off every single day of our lives.

 

Well that's kind of my point, a moral stance agaisnt an issue is just that, you take the stance agaisnt the whole issue and not just cherry pick the parts that are inconvinient to you because its impractical for you to do so. The issue here is SA's applaing human rights record, not the fact they are potentially using the club the sportswash their image.

 

Whether they're viable or not is totally irrelavnt. We're talking about funding a regime that systematically murders and tortures its citizens and repressed the rights of 50% of the population. There is literally no inconvenience that you and I have to suffer that can possibly justify the funding of those actions so that fact that we do fund them makes us hypocrites whether we like ot or not. That is the world we love in.

There are plenty of communities that live off the grid. Read up on it.

 

This is a completely different point to the one you originally made, you made the argument I'm picking morality out of convenience I've just showed you that it would be near on impossible to boycott petrol. Even if I did,  I'm funding it in other ways via public transport, you're missing the point completely. I have to trade off some morality to function in the society we live in, thats out of my control, that is not analogous to to supporting a football team, I don't see how that's hard to figure out? It's 'inconvenient" as you put it because society has been structured in way that has made it impossible to do so. I make the trade off because I have to.

 

Right so to preserve my absolute moral purity I should live completely off grid? and how do you propose I do that? I'd have to travel there (car, capitalism, petrol) Google them (capitalism). You can see how if you apply this argument it strays into complete ridiculousness? Right?

Near impossible but possible, right? How do you justify funding the regime that subjects its citizens to that kind of repression when you yourself admit that there is a moral alternative. The answer is because it's more convenient to make this moral trade off than to bother going through the sacrifices you personally would have to make to a true moral stand against the murder, torture and suppression of the citizens of SA.

For the record, I'm not suggesting we boycott petrol, I'm just pointing out we're hypocrites whether we like to or not so dismissing the obvious comparison to Twitter, Facebook and Uber is wrong. "Whataboutery" is the new "Fake News". Its an invalid argument, which is the point of yours that I objected to.

Again, I'm not the one suggesting you live morally pure. I'm just pointing out that you're not and therefore cant make the argument that others are immoral because they are ok with the takeover. It doesnt mean they support the regime (in a moral sense) and it doesnt mean they are being sports washed, those 2 things can be mutually exclusive.

You admit to making that trade off which is my salient point, thay makes you the hypocrite which is also what you objected to. That's pretty much my only point.

For the record, I think we clearly share the same view on SA, the only difference is I accept my hypocrisy whilst you deny it.

sigh

 

Aye, its the worst argument of all time.  Awful.

 

Not really the worst is it though

 

If you think the takeover should not be allowed to go through on moral grounds (which btw is a stance anyone is entitled to and it's understandable) but then you happily view/consume content/products in which they also have investments it's hypocrisy, now some people are comfortable being selective and again that's their prerogative but the hypocrisy can be called out

 

No it is not hypocrisy at all. These things are not comparable. I have to put petrol in my car, and even if i didn't I get the bus, so that consumes petrol. I have to get home from town, so I use an uber. There are things that you use in a society because you have to. The argument that I should quit using uber is ridiculous. If we applied that logic unilaterally, nobody could disagree with anything. Hate capitalism mate, well you've got an iphone! Check mate!

It is hypocrisy. Using petrol is a personal choice.  If you truly did want to take a stance against the regime you could, you just choose not to because it would be inconvinient for you to do so.

You cant rationalise an issue to suit your personal lifestyle choices. Want to take a stance against Saudi - boycott all things that funds them. You wont because it would be inconvinient for you to do so and that unfortunately is not a valid argument at all.

 

The fact that society is already dependant on that product should not cloud the fact that that is the case. I can't understand an argument which suggests that supporting a sports club owned by the Saudis is objectively worse than using a product which directly funds that very same regime. It makes no sense.

 

As for the Capitilism comment, well that falls short in the sense that saying you hate Capitilam is totally different to actually taking a stance agaisnt it. There are people who do take a stance against Capitilism and live self sufficiently. It's a tried and tested method.

 

This is absolutely brain dead. It is not a personal choice at all, so when my mother was in the RVI with Covid, I had to drive her there, and pick her up, I have to put petrol in my car to do that. Under your logic I should have..not? Society has been built around transport predominantly based on using a car, you're seriously comparing the infrastructure of a country to supporting a football club? Also what do you think buses run on? Air? Trains? so that leave me with walking/cycling? Now tell me how either of those things are viable? You're literally asking me to boycott petrol, think about that for a minute.

 

There are people who do take a stance against Capitilism and live self sufficiently. It's a tried and tested method.

 

Can you point me to one single person who has done that? And even if you can you are talking about being in a privileged position to even try it.I can't believe I'm even debating this honestly.

I get that you think differently to me but the personal insults is just pathetic. Grow up.

The fact that we are so dependent on petrol as a society is a symptomatic of the larger issue so yes, it is worse that our entire infrastructure is dependent on a state that is so morally reprehensible. That is the trade off we make off every single day of our lives.

Well that's kind of my point, a moral stance agaisnt an issue is just that, you take the stance agaisnt the whole issue and not just cherry pick the parts that are inconvinient to you because its impractical for you to do so. The issue here is SA's appalling human rights record, not the fact they are potentially using the club to sportswash their image.

Whether they're viable or not is totally irrelavnt. We're talking about funding a regime that systematically murders and tortures its citizens and repressed the rights of 50% of the population. There is literally no inconvenience that you and I have to suffer that can possibly justify the funding of those actions so that fact that we do fund them makes us hypocrites whether we like ot or not. That is the world we love in.

There are plenty of communities that live off the grid. Read up on it.

sigh

 

Aye, its the worst argument of all time.  Awful.

 

Not really the worst is it though

 

If you think the takeover should not be allowed to go through on moral grounds (which btw is a stance anyone is entitled to and it's understandable) but then you happily view/consume content/products in which they also have investments it's hypocrisy, now some people are comfortable being selective and again that's their prerogative but the hypocrisy can be called out

 

No it is not hypocrisy at all. These things are not comparable. I have to put petrol in my car, and even if i didn't I get the bus, so that consumes petrol. I have to get home from town, so I use an uber. There are things that you use in a society because you have to. The argument that I should quit using uber is ridiculous. If we applied that logic unilaterally, nobody could disagree with anything. Hate capitalism mate, well you've got an iphone! Check mate!

It is hypocrisy. Using petrol is a personal choice.  If you truly did want to take a stance against the regime you could, you just choose not to because it would be inconvinient for you to do so.

You cant rationalise an issue to suit your personal lifestyle choices. Want to take a stance against Saudi - boycott all things that funds them. You wont because it would be inconvinient for you to do so and that unfortunately is not a valid argument at all.

The fact that society is already dependant on that product should not cloud the fact that that is the case. I can't understand an argument which suggests that supporting a sports club owned by the Saudis is objectively worse than using a product which directly funds that very same regime. It makes no sense.

As for the Capitilism comment, well that falls short in the sense that saying you hate Capitilam is totally different to actually taking a stance agaisnt it. There are people who do take a stance against Capitilism and live self sufficiently. It's a tried and tested method.

How many of our centre-backs would you put in the top 6 clubs?

 

 

Probably none. Hard to say as others have mentioned we play a system that suits them. Maybe Schar and Lejeune could get in as backups. That’s not the point though, we will be limited by ffp. If a time comes when cb is our weakest position, we can go out and get one.

 

This is it, with FFP we will be limited as to what we can spend, the logical thing is to focus on your weakest areas and that is not at centre back

 

Think the FFP talk is a bit of a red herring. £150m is the figure being banded around and the doesnt take sales into account. Furthermore, the rules are likely to be relaxed and there will be alot more value in the market due to the current climate.

 

There is a huge amount going in our favour here.

 

Maybe it's the Ashley effect but does the £150m include wages? 

 

I don't think we'll generate that much from sales but let's say that becomes £180m to spend, I still think other areas of the squad are a priority that CB should be left until all of those are sorted

 

Whilst I like our set of CB's if we want to kick on there is always better, it's just a matter of focusing on the priority (central midfield, striker, full backs)

It probably does aye, but like I say i dont that figure wouldnt be reflective of the real figure which I think would be much higher in light of the current environment.

I'm gonna wait until the takeovers confirmed before I start playing fantasy football though.

How many of our centre-backs would you put in the top 6 clubs?

 

 

Probably none. Hard to say as others have mentioned we play a system that suits them. Maybe Schar and Lejeune could get in as backups. That’s not the point though, we will be limited by ffp. If a time comes when cb is our weakest position, we can go out and get one.

 

This is it, with FFP we will be limited as to what we can spend, the logical thing is to focus on your weakest areas and that is not at centre back

 

Think the FFP talk is a bit of a red herring. £150m is the figure being banded around and the doesnt take sales into account. Furthermore, the rules are likely to be relaxed and there will be alot more value in the market due to the current climate.

 

There is a huge amount going in our favour here.

 

I'm with you - it really does seem to be a perfect storm for someone who wanted to bootstrap their club to the next level. Between clubs desperate for cashflow, a league desperate for transfer fees to wash around and players afraid the good times might be coming to an end - I think there's the prospect of player turnover well in excess of what many expect

Yep! Football's desperate for investment now more than ever. That shortfall in revenue needs recouping somehow, so capping it with FFP makes no sense at all on any levels. Should this takeover go through, this could be an unprecedented summer transfer window as we'd be one of only a handful of clubs who would have the means and resources to take advantage of it.

Having said all that, I'd prefer it if we'd build slowly but I'm not gonna complain either way.

How many of our centre-backs would you put in the top 6 clubs?

 

 

Probably none. Hard to say as others have mentioned we play a system that suits them. Maybe Schar and Lejeune could get in as backups. That’s not the point though, we will be limited by ffp. If a time comes when cb is our weakest position, we can go out and get one.

 

This is it, with FFP we will be limited as to what we can spend, the logical thing is to focus on your weakest areas and that is not at centre back

Think the FFP talk is a bit of a red herring. £150m is the figure being banded around and the doesnt take sales into account. Furthermore, the rules are likely to be relaxed and there will be alot more value in the market due to the current climate.

There is a huge amount going in our favour here.

Rafa would make the most obvious and perfect sense.

He really would, but I've got to say, I'm becoming more open to all the managers we've been linked with so far. I haven't felt that way since Sir Bobby got sacked.

Anyone else notice how we've been linked with players who all seem to have some kind of tie to Rafa, or is that wishful thinking?

We've been linked with a fair few players who seemed to be targets during or just after Rafa's time here too.

Steve Wraith totally missing the point in spectacular fashion. Utter embarrassment.

It would be so Newcastle United to announce the sale is complete on a weekend when people least expect it.

 

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it.

 

This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying.

 

Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football.

 

The only way he is staying is if the Premier League knock the takeover back or if the remaining amount is not paid into his account. He would be facing a massive lawsuit if he 'announced' he is staying when a legal agreement is in place.

 

OK I'll entertain you..show me actual evidence that a legal agreement for the sale is in place that he can't back out of. The document uploaded to companies house does not prove a sale is agreed with no way for him to back out. We are led to believe he can't back out by the same press that has led us to believe he has been about to sell for 12 years. But I haven't seen irrefutable proof of this, and neither have you.

What proof can we possibly provide? The actual SPA documentation showing Mike Ashley cannot pull out?

 

Russel's teapot here - the burden of proof is on you.

 

After failed takeover after failed takeover, it would be reasonable to wait for irrefutable proof before declaring that we are sold.

 

I also haven't stated that there Ashley can back out, just that it would be sensible to wait and see how this all plays out. It's Godzilla who is convinced of something he can't prove...reminds me of BZG last year now come to think of it.

 

The fact is none of us know whether it's legally binding for Ashley to be forced to sell or not.

 

But oh no...

 

Yes, and I'm asking what proof do you want?

 

The PL have already confirmed that this is being reviewed by them, so we now know an SPA has been agreed - it would not get to the PL had this not been in place. That is a fact.

 

What are you implying with that in bold then?

 

BZG didnt get to the PL stage. The PL openly denied it.

 

The PL used the word "putative", so no they didn't confirm anything.

 

Show me where the PL stated BZG didn't get to owners and directors tests? They didn't get that far, but the pl never "openly denied it".

 

FWIW I'M not saying this isn't going to happen, just waiting for proof rather than getting carried away (as has happened repeatedly in the past).

 

And I'm implying with the bit in bold, that we have no guarantee Ashley is locked into a sale. We are trusting Staveley's word for this (via Caulkin).

 

I accept you don't want to hear all this, but we are not sold yet, and we don't know if Ashley can back out of the sale.

Christ

It would be so Newcastle United to announce the sale is complete on a weekend when people least expect it.

 

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it.

 

This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying.

 

Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football.

 

The only way he is staying is if the Premier League knock the takeover back or if the remaining amount is not paid into his account. He would be facing a massive lawsuit if he 'announced' he is staying when a legal agreement is in place.

 

OK I'll entertain you..show me actual evidence that a legal agreement for the sale is in place that he can't back out of. The document uploaded to companies house does not prove a sale is agreed with no way for him to back out. We are led to believe he can't back out by the same press that has led us to believe he has been about to sell for 12 years. But I haven't seen irrefutable proof of this, and neither have you.

What proof can we possibly provide? The actual SPA documentation showing Mike Ashley cannot pull out?

 

Russel's teapot here - the burden of proof is on you.

 

After failed takeover after failed takeover, it would be reasonable to wait for irrefutable proof before declaring that we are sold.

 

I also haven't stated that there Ashley can back out, just that it would be sensible to wait and see how this all plays out. It's Godzilla who is convinced of something he can't prove...reminds me of BZG last year now come to think of it.

 

The fact is none of us know whether it's legally binding for Ashley to be forced to sell or not.

 

But oh no...

Yes, and I'm asking what proof do you want?

The PL have already confirmed that this is being reviewed by them, so we now know an SPA has been agreed - it would not get to the PL had this not been in place. That is a fact.

What are you implying with that in bold then?

BZG didnt get to the PL stage. The PL openly denied it.

Yeh, not denying that at all. Just an example of how close we got to something that resembled a football club had he not been a total cunt.

It would be so Newcastle United to announce the sale is complete on a weekend when people least expect it.

 

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it.

 

This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying.

 

Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football.

 

The only way he is staying is if the Premier League knock the takeover back or if the remaining amount is not paid into his account. He would be facing a massive lawsuit if he 'announced' he is staying when a legal agreement is in place.

 

OK I'll entertain you..show me actual evidence that a legal agreement for the sale is in place that he can't back out of. The document uploaded to companies house does not prove a sale is agreed with no way for him to back out. We are led to believe he can't back out by the same press that has led us to believe he has been about to sell for 12 years. But I haven't seen irrefutable proof of this, and neither have you.

What proof can we possibly provide? The actual SPA documentation showing Mike Ashley cannot pull out?

Russel's teapot here - the burden of proof is on you.

Sort of see what you are saying actually. He surrounded himself with complete morons who just made things so much worse, he then got loads of stick (rightly so), hoyed his toys out the pram and decided to be the absolute c*** we know so well now.

It was the Pardew years for me, because we were signing quality players (albeit for the wrong reasons) and I always thought that had someone with experiences of that model been in charge, then where would we have been if he'd actually reinvested the money rather than pocket it?

No.

Well, yes. 

Had we employed that manager who was familiar with the buy cheap sell high method, theres no reason we couldn't have done well.

There are plenty of clubs who have that model, these clubs dont employ, Alan Pardew or Steve McClaren though and that was the key for me.

Massively unpopular opinion here, but one of the most frustrating aspects for me was that I actually think he was quite close to getting it right (on a footballing level).

He was just too stupid to f***ing see that.

Imagine thinking that the PL would dare call the defacto ruler of one of the richest and most powerful nations, 'unfit for purpose' to own our club.

He basically owns an entire country ffs

Rafa stayed with us in the Championship. Champions league winner Rafael Benitez gambled his career to manage us in the second tier of English football.

 

Just over a year after managing the biggest club in the world.

Rafa came in to save us after Steve i want him back so bad he gets it

I want to know all the fans who were clamouring for Pochettino whilst Rafa was at the helm.

That's where the real revisionsim is.

Rafa stayed with us in the Championship. Champions league winner Rafael Benitez gambled his career to manage us in the second tier of English football.

Just over a year after managing the biggest club in the world.