James Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Fit and proper person? If it let Thaksin in, it will let anyone in tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'm opposed to it for exactly the same reasons as James. Of course it is important. It is modern day SLAVERY. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Parka Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think James is taking this a bit too seriously. Just shows he lacks emotional maturity. No, it just shows that I've strong beliefs that every human should be free, and that I'm not morally bankrupt like some people. Are you chakribati in disguise? http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/03/01/ShamiChakrabarti460x276.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think James is taking this a bit too seriously. Just shows he lacks emotional maturity. No, it just shows that I've strong beliefs that every human should be free, and that I'm not morally bankrupt like some people. Are you chakribati in disguise? http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/03/01/ShamiChakrabarti460x276.jpg Ha ha, i can hear a footy chant coming on! Are you chakribati in disguise?!?! Are you chakribati in disguise.................. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Didn't know where to put this, but this is interesting (Guardian): Latest figures show Premier League clubs owe £3.1bn England's 20 Premier League clubs owe a total of £3.1bn in bank overdrafts, loans and other borrowings, according to the latest published financial information. The accounts for the clubs, mostly documenting the year to May, June or July 2008, show that the FA chairman, Lord Triesman, significantly underestimated football's indebtedness when he cautioned last October that debts in the sport as a whole, including the Football League and the FA itself, were at £3bn. Manchester United and Chelsea were by far the most indebted, owing £699m and £701m respectively, Arsenal were third, with £416m debts and Liverpool, the other top four club, were understood to owe around £280m; their accounts, due to be filed at Companies House last week, are overdue. The debts of those top four clubs, incurred in very different ways, demonstrate the extremes to which Premier League clubs' finances have been taken. United, Premier and European Champions League winners in that 2007-08 season, nevertheless made a loss of £44.8m because of the swingeing interest the club pays on its debts. United owed £699m to financial institutions because the Florida-based Glazer family, who bought the club in 2005 largely with borrowed money, then loaded their own debts on to the club. In just three years to 2008, £263m has become payable by United in interest alone. Liverpool's debt is similar, owed by the club's holding company, and including the £185m borrowed by the north American businessmen, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, when they acquired the club in 2007. At Chelsea, by contrast, no money is owed to banks; the entire £701m was an interest-free loan made by the club's owner, Roman Abramovich, since he bought Chelsea in 2003. The Russian oligarch has poured money in to pay for players whose wages the club would otherwise not be able to afford, in his hunger to claim football trophies. Since the accounts were published, Chelsea, partly as a response to Triesman's warning about high debt levels, announced that Abramovich had reduced his loan to £339.8m, converting the rest to shares in the club. Arsenal is the only Premier League club that incurred significant debt to carry out long-term investment. The club borrowed £260m originally to build the new Emirates Stadium, and a further £133m to convert the old Highbury ground into flats. Arsenal have been generally admired for prudence because the Emirates, with 60,000 seats – some very expensive – generates around double the money Highbury did, but the sales of apartments have stalled in the downturn, not producing the windfall expected when property prices were booming. The 20 clubs' accounts show that despite booming incomes, which include the first season of a record £2.7bn TV deal which runs from 2007-10, Premier League clubs increasingly rely on subsidies from the billionaires who now mostly own the clubs. Manchester United's takeover may have resulted in huge sums going out of the club in interest payments, but 15 of the 20 clubs in last season's top flight are now subsidised by owners. After Abramovich, the next highest contribution came from Mohamed Al Fayed, whose interest free loans to Fulham increased to £174m. The smaller Premier League clubs are struggling to compete financially, and as they are desperate to avoid relegation out of football's golden circle, they have been urgently seeking backers of their own. In the last week, two more clubs have announced takeovers: Sunderland, by Dallas-based private equity investor Ellis Short, and Portsmouth, by a consortium fronted by Dubai businessman Sulaiman Al Fahim. The Premier League defends the financial picture presented, arguing that the levels of debt are generally manageable, given rising turnovers and the improved TV deal. Most clubs did not spend all their increase on swelling footballers' already galactic pay packets; wages, for players and administrative staff, did rise to £1.095bn, but at an average 55% of turnover that is generally reckoned to be sustainable. If making it as a top footballer or manager still furnishes the most lucrative bank balances in English football, the top clubs' directors have also seen their salaries rise way above those for directors of non-football companies with similar turnover. Ten directors in football were paid over £1m in 2007-08. Keith Edelman Arsenal's former managing director, was paid the most: £2,726,000 in total, including a £1,056,000 payoff when he left the club on 1 May 2008. Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, maintained his status as Britain's highest paid trade union official, with a salary package of £972,087. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 The reason im against Omani buyers is because usually their pretty dodgy when it comes to business, lots of fraud and poor managment of businesses in General, won't really trust them with my money, i wish we'd have offers from somewhere like Kuwait or Saudi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowen Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Just to clarify, Oman, led by its Sultan who people appear to want to be involved is on the highest level on the Human trafficking scale with: Algeria Iran Oman Sudan Burma Kuwait Papua New Guinea Syria Cuba Korea, North Qatar Fiji Moldova Saudi Arabia American list by any chance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'd be opposed to any Omani owners. 80% of the labour force in that country is made up of foreign nationals, much of which is forced labour. I'll still support the club, players and the manager, but I couldn't support a board which made its money from the exploitation of human beings. A bit OTT as some issues are actually "best of the worst" that they have no choice. But frankly I agree with you, I prefer other owners than Omani. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'd prefer the survival of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'd prefer the survival of the club. Over human life? You pig! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpeth mag Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 tbh he has more medals than shearer and the whole of the first team together Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'd prefer a Russian oligarch who has asset-stripped his own country, or failing that a deranged Thai dictator with a dubious human rights record. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alexharrisonnufc Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'd be opposed to any Omani owners. 80% of the labour force in that country is made up of foreign nationals, much of which is forced labour. I'll still support the club, players and the manager, but I couldn't support a board which made its money from the exploitation of human beings. My grandfather worked in Oman as a plane technician, got paid very very generously, had Arab servants the whole lot. That was not cheap labour, and i know of plenty more of the same. They even offered to buy my nan for 3 camels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'd be opposed to any Omani owners. 80% of the labour force in that country is made up of foreign nationals, much of which is forced labour. I'll still support the club, players and the manager, but I couldn't support a board which made its money from the exploitation of human beings. My grandfather worked in Oman as a plane technician, got paid very very generously, had Arab servants the whole lot. That was not cheap labour, and i know of plenty more of the same. They even offered to buy my nan for 3 camels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 How are the camels getting on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alexharrisonnufc Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Not so bad, they make better cups of tea thats for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'd prefer the survival of the club. Over human life? You pig! We don't even have a buyer yet and people are lining up to throw stones. Ridiculi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I'd prefer the survival of the club. Over human life? You pig! We don't even have a buyer yet and people are lining up to throw stones. Ridiculi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think James is taking this a bit too seriously. Just shows he lacks emotional maturity. No, it just shows that I've strong beliefs that every human should be free, and that I'm not morally bankrupt like some people. What about the kids who work in sweatshops to produce the shoddy clothing sold in Mike Ashley's shops and online businesses. Do they prick your consciences too? Are all your clothes fair-trade? Do you only buy chocolate that is fair trade? And coffee, tea and sugar? And cereals? Cos I bet you that you don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think James is taking this a bit too seriously. Just shows he lacks emotional maturity. No, it just shows that I've strong beliefs that every human should be free, and that I'm not morally bankrupt like some people. What about the kids who work in sweatshops to produce the shoddy clothing sold in Mike Ashley's shops and online businesses. Do they prick your consciences too? Are all your clothes fair-trade? Do you only buy chocolate that is fair trade? And coffee, tea and sugar? And cereals? Cos I bet you that you don't. BOOOOM, in James's pipe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think James is taking this a bit too seriously. Just shows he lacks emotional maturity. No, it just shows that I've strong beliefs that every human should be free, and that I'm not morally bankrupt like some people. What about the kids who work in sweatshops to produce the shoddy clothing sold in Mike Ashley's shops and online businesses. Do they prick your consciences too? Are all your clothes fair-trade? Do you only buy chocolate that is fair trade? And coffee, tea and sugar? And cereals? Cos I bet you that you don't. I've bought some beer before because it was fair-trade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 We have to look on the bright side of things and take the positives; at least we'll never be low on staff in the club shops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think James is taking this a bit too seriously. Just shows he lacks emotional maturity. No, it just shows that I've strong beliefs that every human should be free, and that I'm not morally bankrupt like some people. What about the kids who work in sweatshops to produce the shoddy clothing sold in Mike Ashley's shops and online businesses. Do they prick your consciences too? Are all your clothes fair-trade? Do you only buy chocolate that is fair trade? And coffee, tea and sugar? And cereals? Cos I bet you that you don't. I've bought some beer before because it was fair-trade. Thats Ace lager man, its always fair trade for charver dads. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toon Amy Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I think James is taking this a bit too seriously. Just shows he lacks emotional maturity. No, it just shows that I've strong beliefs that every human should be free, and that I'm not morally bankrupt like some people. What about the kids who work in sweatshops to produce the shoddy clothing sold in Mike Ashley's shops and online businesses. Do they prick your consciences too? Are all your clothes fair-trade? Do you only buy chocolate that is fair trade? And coffee, tea and sugar? And cereals? Cos I bet you that you don't. Ridiculous comparison. James can make his own answer, but I buy fair trade a lot though, but by your definition, no one unless they are absolutely squeaky clean on everything always should ever take a stand against anything else that is wrong even when it is EVEN WORSE. No one unless they are filthy rich can afford to always make a stand on everything, but that does not mean that they have to support the takeover of NUFC by the ruler of a country which is on the UN blacklist for human trafficking. No wonder the original slave trade lasted so long and would have lasted even longer if everyone had to be morally pure before they said anything about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alexharrisonnufc Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Oman ftw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts