Kid Icarus

And who sets the budget on how taxes and benefits are allocated? Doesnt matter dont mix up the governing party with the State I imagine everyone except you knew exactly the point I was making.

What I still don't get and I haven't seen a single answer for, is why the 'support the team not the regime' argument that's been used for the last 13 years has disappeared. If people felt they could support the club whilst not defending or excusing Mike Ashley, why do folk suddenly feel the need to excuse war criminals?

And who sets the budget on how taxes and benefits are allocated?

Whilst accepting wages through their Saudi funded newspapers. Again, I think this argument is irrelevant to the things being highlighted, but even by that logic, I work for a university that over time has been funded more and more by the Saudis and the Chinese, do we all need to go on the dole in order for our opinions and criticisms to have merit? If your beliefs are so stringent against a regime that you feel was necessary to print publications, then I would be certainly be looking at other positions within another media not funded by that regime. Everyone has the right to their views and I would respect anyone who is unable to facilitate anything that goes against their view, but to accept money from the same regime you're putting publications against, seems a bit hypocritical to me. My opinion anyway, obviously others will disagree. The meaning of hypocrisy in this context has broadened to the point of parody. Being critical of your employers and wanting things to improve used to be something unions worked to change, now anyone being critical of anything is an individual hypocrite unless they quit. Presumably I should emigrate because I hate the Tories. That would be your right and choice, if you want to emigrate go for it. The point being, my right to criticise the Tories isn't dependant upon whether I'm a hypocrite (by your definition) for still paying them taxes or taking their benefits. Same as my right to criticise my employer isn't dependant upon whether I take their wages.

Whilst accepting wages through their Saudi funded newspapers. Again, I think this argument is irrelevant to the things being highlighted, but even by that logic, I work for a university that over time has been funded more and more by the Saudis and the Chinese, do we all need to go on the dole in order for our opinions and criticisms to have merit? If your beliefs are so stringent against a regime that you feel was necessary to print publications, then I would be certainly be looking at other positions within another media not funded by that regime. Everyone has the right to their views and I would respect anyone who is unable to facilitate anything that goes against their view, but to accept money from the same regime you're putting publications against, seems a bit hypocritical to me. My opinion anyway, obviously others will disagree. The meaning of hypocrisy in this context has broadened to the point of parody. Being critical of your employers and wanting things to improve used to be something unions worked to change, now anyone being critical of anything is an individual hypocrite unless they quit. Presumably I should emigrate because I hate the Tories.

Don't talk about the people bombing childrens hospitals unless you don't support any football clubs, is essentially the road you're heading down because there's no team in Europe that won't fear us blowing them out of the water by that line of reasoning. By all means talk about people bombing childrens hospitals if that is what you are passionate about, more power to you. But if you are a mackem who has suddenly grown a conscience and decided to give me a lecture about this newly discovered abomination, then I reserve the right to be sceptical. But I'm not though, I'm quite literally one of your own who has the same concerns as these journalists. The things being highlighted don't hold any less merit because of who's saying it if it can be verified as true. Shooting the messenger and ignoring the substance is how dafties in America have ended up automatically defending war criminals and a corrupt media, solely because Trump's one of the people pointing it out.

Whilst accepting wages through their Saudi funded newspapers. Do they have a choice who owns their employer? These people still need to provide a living to their families. If your so adamantly against the regime then get another job/move to another publication not funded by the Saudis. Genuine question, are you a Tory?

Don't talk about the people bombing childrens hospitals unless you don't support any football clubs, is essentially the road you're heading down because there's no team in Europe that won't fear us blowing them out of the water by that line of reasoning.

Whilst accepting wages through their Saudi funded newspapers. Again, I think this argument is irrelevant to the things being highlighted, but even by that logic, I work for a university that over time has been funded more and more by the Saudis and the Chinese, do we all need to go on the dole in order for our opinions and criticisms to have merit?

I'd be the first to twist the knife where the media's bullshit's converned, but the idea that sports journalists are only highlighting human rights abusers buying their way into football specifically because they have a bias against the random football club they've chosen to buy is frankly so embarrassing and conceited that I had to check I wasn't reading 4chan. Even if such a ridiculous claim was true it's irrelevant and presents a distinction without a difference. Bias or no bias, the things they're highlighting are true.

That took a really long time. Senna's probably the only real dip in quality imo and even then he was a very good player. Neuer Godin Baresi Van Dijk Senna Socrates De Bruyne Gascoigne C. Ronaldo Messi Mbappe

Happy with that. Not surprised in the slightest that Sewelley won. Thanks again Yorkie.

That’s not true though is it? Yes, it is true. Having spent time there with work (our company has since disinvested, some macro reasoning but also based on valuations), I have spoken to tens if not hundreds of people in their twenties and thirties in Riyadh who are open, global and good people who have studied outside Saudi and want to see and be part of it become a more open and tolerant society, while also being fiercely proud of their country and their religion. Saudi Arabia has a million miles to go to become close to being as progressive and advanced in certain areas as they could and should be if held to Western standards, but if you genuinely think they aren't moving forward in this regard when you look at generational trends, then you've not looked beyond headlines in the last few years. By way of a very obvious example, last time I was there several meetings with big banks and the regulator were led by females. Something this simple was inconceivable until fairly recently. Are they trying to use sports to improve their global standing and become more integrated in the western world? Absolutely. Does this make me feel uncomfortable when associated with my team? In some ways it does, in others I'm fairly accepting that this is cause and effect of broader society these days. Am I going to stop following / not attend games as a result? No, it means too much and it's been way too long since I've been able to truly enjoy watching Newcastle. If this comes off then it's mine and my dad's time to get to games and have some hope while he's still able. If it makes me a hypocrite so be it. It does get somewhat boring reading the standard left sided trope rolled out whenever it can be applied of Saudi (or US, or Israel) bad and evil without any balancing factors for the other sides involved in these proxy wars and nothing more than rudimentary understanding of the underlying centuries of religious and political discourse that have got the world to where it is. It becomes even more taxing watching it played out on a football forum. But such is life. And the changes in political trends rather than social trends? If they've changed, great, but all I see in this post is the Saudi version of conflating the generational trends of the average Bernie Sanders supporter with Donald Trump the person. Reasonable question, I'd argue both. Like or loathe him, MBS is the most outward looking ever, on virtually any metric you care to name. I'd imagine even the tyrannical and murderous metrics if we had the data - although that's conjecture on my part as I don't have empirical evidence in front of me. But it's MBS who is pushing forward with reform and leading it. As Chris R mentions, it's a tightrope being walked as if he goes too fast the traditionalists will attempt to cut him down and pull power back a generation. But to be clear, this isn't me saying he's some glorious, open democrat. He's a product of his society and he comes from an incredibly privileged and sheltered upbringing and was raised during a puritanical and strict period which actually makes his views in relative terms to the above, very liberal. And I'd say conflation also applies when you compare a presidential system in a liberal western democracy such as the US, to an ascension within a Royal family where no democracy applies. People in the US have a choice whether they follow Sanders or Trump or anyone else. Nobody in Saudi has any real choice in that regard and yet still the regime and the people are changing. Fingers crossed they carry on doing so and tragedies like Khashoggi are not an outward indication of a return to worse times. Appreciate the response and I'll take it on board. I'm not the slightest bit convinced by MBS tbh, mainly because Khashoggi and Yemen are still the huge elephants in the room, but we'll see I guess. It's probably undeniable that it's put a bigger spotlight on him and Saudi, at the very least among Newcastle supporters, so we can be grateful for that.

Aye, absolute nails. I'll take second last tbh.

Yorkie[/member] I think I might have put Sheff Wed in the wrong place in the strip round. I hope you can find it in your heart to take mercy on me.

Trying to log on my laptop to so I can use Zoom, but I can't even get logged in on here.

You gonna play? Has it not already started?

at Disco using the Uni's Zoom.

His post could have been made in any thread regardless of context. Had nowt to do with the purchase. The regimes are only comparable because someone has to be the worst at any given moment. Like saying NUFC are the north east team closest to Liverpool in quality. Okay, sure. But we're still f***ing light years behind, it's just a technically true statement that's unproductive. I just meant that the Saudis are being specifically highlighted in this discussion because they're the ones about to buy the club, but otherwise yeah I agree.

That’s not true though is it? Yes, it is true. Having spent time there with work (our company has since disinvested, some macro reasoning but also based on valuations), I have spoken to tens if not hundreds of people in their twenties and thirties in Riyadh who are open, global and good people who have studied outside Saudi and want to see and be part of it become a more open and tolerant society, while also being fiercely proud of their country and their religion. Saudi Arabia has a million miles to go to become close to being as progressive and advanced in certain areas as they could and should be if held to Western standards, but if you genuinely think they aren't moving forward in this regard when you look at generational trends, then you've not looked beyond headlines in the last few years. By way of a very obvious example, last time I was there several meetings with big banks and the regulator were led by females. Something this simple was inconceivable until fairly recently. Are they trying to use sports to improve their global standing and become more integrated in the western world? Absolutely. Does this make me feel uncomfortable when associated with my team? In some ways it does, in others I'm fairly accepting that this is cause and effect of broader society these days. Am I going to stop following / not attend games as a result? No, it means too much and it's been way too long since I've been able to truly enjoy watching Newcastle. If this comes off then it's mine and my dad's time to get to games and have some hope while he's still able. If it makes me a hypocrite so be it. It does get somewhat boring reading the standard left sided trope rolled out whenever it can be applied of Saudi (or US, or Israel) bad and evil without any balancing factors for the other sides involved in these proxy wars and nothing more than rudimentary understanding of the underlying centuries of religious and political discourse that have got the world to where it is. It becomes even more taxing watching it played out on a football forum. But such is life. And the changes in political trends rather than social trends? If they've changed, great, but all I see in this post is the Saudi version of conflating the generational trends of the average Bernie Sanders supporter with Donald Trump the person.

Tbf to Wullie, none of the other contenders for the title of most evil are about to buy our football club.

Without a shadow of a doubt.

Nah I know, it's just a funny position to be in, I'm sure you can appreciate that.

I'm not sure 'the Nazis were worse' is the best collective argument either way like.