BlufPurdi Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Barclays were seen as one of the few banks that didn't contribute to the financial meltdown, and they were sponsors of the league before the Libor scandal broke out. So, no, BB, there weren't any protest or uproar about it because there was nothing there. Like I say, I don't agree with them being a sponsor either, and I'm sure when the new deal is to be arranged there will be a move to stop them taking it up again, but until then they'll have to wait out this contract. It's all a bit stupid, everyone knows there's massive hypocrisy in football sponsorships, it's just about the money. I think people have a right to be peeved at Wonga being our sponsor, pointing out other clubs similar moves should have nothing to do with it. EDIT: And the reason Sharia law is brought up because we have muslim players that would have to wear Wonga on the shirt. We don't wear Barclays, so there's no need for it to be brought up in that context either. We have had Virgin Money though and there was no uproar then. From the Muslim Council of Britain, you mean? I'm not sure why they decided to pipe up now, to be honest, only they know. If you mean from anyone else, non-muslim, then perhaps because Virgin Money haven't helped destroy the economy. From what I've read, it's because Wonga are far more exploitative (in theory) than banks, though. "Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, told The Independent: 'There are two aspects to this. We have the rulings of the religious law and we have the individual’s choice and decision on how they want to follow or not follow that rule. 'The idea is to protect the vulnerable and the needy from exploitation by the rich and powerful. 'When they are lending and are charging large amounts of interest, it means the poor will have short-term benefit from the loan but long-term difficulty in paying it back because the rate of interest is not something they can keep up with." The whole thing is a confused debate, everyone seems to be arguing about different things anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlufPurdi Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 In all honesty, I'm past caring about dodgy sponsorships. Football lost its moral compass decades ago, so why anyone going to give a fuck now, I really don't know. I don't like Wonga, would've preferred someone else, but can't always get what you want. Just we shouldn't try and justify this because others have done similar. At the same time, we shouldn't beat ourselves up about it. If they (MPs, in this case) don't want legal loaners to be sponsors, then create the laws and legislation to prevent it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 In all honesty, I'm past caring about dodgy sponsorships. Football lost its moral compass decades ago, so why anyone going to give a f*** now, I really don't know. I don't like Wonga, would've preferred someone else, but can't always get what you want. Just we shouldn't try and justify this because others have done similar. At the same time, we shouldn't beat ourselves up about it. If they (MPs, in this case) don't want legal loaners to be sponsors, then create the laws and legislation to prevent it. spot on Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlufPurdi Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Feel like I've gone round in circles with my posts. But yeah, fuck off MPs, no laws were broken and that's not our fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 he Barclays were seen as one of the few banks that didn't contribute to the financial meltdown, and they were sponsors of the league before the Libor scandal broke out. So, no, BB, there weren't any protest or uproar about it because there was nothing there. Like I say, I don't agree with them being a sponsor either, and I'm sure when the new deal is to be arranged there will be a move to stop them taking it up again, but until then they'll have to wait out this contract. It's all a bit stupid, everyone knows there's massive hypocrisy in football sponsorships, it's just about the money. I think people have a right to be peeved at Wonga being our sponsor, pointing out other clubs similar moves should have nothing to do with it. EDIT: And the reason Sharia law is brought up because we have muslim players that would have to wear Wonga on the shirt. We don't wear Barclays, so there's no need for it to be brought up in that context either. We have had Virgin Money though and there was no uproar then. From the Muslim Council of Britain, you mean? I'm not sure why they decided to pipe up now, to be honest, only they know. If you mean from anyone else, non-muslim, then perhaps because Virgin Money haven't helped destroy the economy. From what I've read, it's because Wonga are far more exploitative (in theory) than banks, though. "Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, told The Independent: 'There are two aspects to this. We have the rulings of the religious law and we have the individual’s choice and decision on how they want to follow or not follow that rule. 'The idea is to protect the vulnerable and the needy from exploitation by the rich and powerful. 'When they are lending and are charging large amounts of interest, it means the poor will have short-term benefit from the loan but long-term difficulty in paying it back because the rate of interest is not something they can keep up with." The whole thing is a confused debate, everyone seems to be arguing about different things anyway. we do. http://img.uksoccershop.com/timthumb/314/21454.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Feel like I've gone round in circles with my posts. But yeah, fuck off MPs, no laws were broken and that's not our fault. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Typical elitist scum trying to bring a self made man down, a man who does not fit there mold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCW1983 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I find the whole pantomime that the media is making over this completely pathetic. Ok i don't exactly agree with the way Wonga generates its profits and of course in a ideal world i would have a more "ethical" company being our sponsors but tbh thats never going to happen. Anyways, Lend £30 for a week and pay £36 back or lend £115000 for 25 years and pay £195000 back......wheres the fucking difference because both are a joke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brazilianbob Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 In all honesty, I'm past caring about dodgy sponsorships. Football lost its moral compass decades ago, so why anyone going to give a f*** now, I really don't know. I don't like Wonga, would've preferred someone else, but can't always get what you want. Just we shouldn't try and justify this because others have done similar. At the same time, we shouldn't beat ourselves up about it. If they (MPs, in this case) don't want legal loaners to be sponsors, then create the laws and legislation to prevent it. Exactly. Perhaps the MP's objecting are unhappy that they are having to take cut in backhanders for not amending the legislation to make these companies illegal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 The whole thing is a confused debate, everyone seems to be arguing about different things anyway. Ive been rather amused at the amount of posturing on the subject by people who know less about it than me (and I know sweet FA about it) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think the thread's been quality tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil K Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think the thread's been quality tbh. Good laugh. No doubt about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It's good the debate is being made about Wonga etc and the place of such sponsorship in football. Seems like just about everyone agrees that there isn't any morals left in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 My only real concern with the deal is that Wonga sounds too close to "wanker". Other than that, I really couldn't give the smallest shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I don't know how anyone can claim there hasn't been any negative press about banks, have you all been living on the moon for the past 5 years? I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment, exactly, but let's not make out no-one has been bashing Barclays etc. There has been plenty of bad press about banks, but I've not seen anything at all that claims the premier league is cheapening their brand because of their association with Barclays, and that Muslims will no longer watch the Premier League. Nor have I heard MPs voice their concern with such a sponsorship. That's fair enough, but I've read PLENTY of times in this thread now, "there's been nothing said about the banks that f***ed everything up", or words to that effect. The difference is with the banks though, is they're seen as essential to running a country and can't just be done away with. Wonga aren't exactly an essential part of the economy. Again, I'm not taking a side here, I don't like Wonga or the banks' collective practices. It shouldn't be about what's said about other sponsorships, the debate is about Wonga and whether it's seen as a good move. Pointing out someone else's hypocrisy doesn't make our own any better or worse. FWIW I wasn't talking about the press. I was talking about the lack of uproar on here over ntl and northern rock. They both legally did things that people might deem immoral. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BottledDog Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 My only real concern with the deal is that Wonga sounds too close to "wanker". Other than that, I really couldn't give the smallest shit. I have been playing around with accents trying to replicate your issue with 'wonga'. This has led me to the possibility that you are inebriated, an Eton educated toff, or both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It's good the debate is being made about Wonga etc and the place of such sponsorship in football. Seems like just about everyone agrees that there isn't any morals left in football. Well is there? seems like football sold any morals it had long ago for money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It's good the debate is being made about Wonga etc and the place of such sponsorship in football. Seems like just about everyone agrees that there isn't any morals left in football. Well is there? seems like football sold any morals it had long ago for money. 1992 was when it sold its morals to Rupert Murdoch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Geordiesned Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I've just listened to the Lee Ryder interview on Talksport. Jesus what an embarrassment that man is! Laughing at reasonable questions he was asked. Trying to bring up Standard Chartered when he clearly knows fuck all about them and had done as much research on them as he does for his back page bullshit. And today seemingly thinking he did well and retweeting people who point out how unprofessional he was! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I've just listened to the Lee Ryder interview on Talksport. Jesus what an embarrassment that man is! Laughing at reasonable questions he was asked. Trying to bring up Standard Chartered when he clearly knows f*** all about them and had done as much research on them as he does for his back page bullshit. And today seemingly thinking he did well and retweeting people who point out how unprofessional he was! think Bird had a pop at him on twitter earlier today. He's totally isolated and on his own compared to all the other NE journos like. You'll usually see Douglas, Bird, Caulkin, Wilson, Starforth and sometimes that numpty McNally talking to one another on twitter. Notice that none of them ever interact in conversation with Ryder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I've just listened to the Lee Ryder interview on Talksport. Jesus what an embarrassment that man is! Laughing at reasonable questions he was asked. Trying to bring up Standard Chartered when he clearly knows f*** all about them and had done as much research on them as he does for his back page bullshit. And today seemingly thinking he did well and retweeting people who point out how unprofessional he was! He was laughable and he must be embarrassed at how much of a tit he was on national radio. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 To all those on their moral high horse over Wonga and Newcastle's association with them, if you really are so offended by Wonga and their sponsorship of the shirt, then you may as well stop following NUFC and football in general full stop. To deliver to you this product of NUFC and the game of football that you clearly love and watch, thousands if not millions of people worldwide have been and are being used and taken advantage of and almost every entity associated with the game, from sponsors to ruling bodies all the way to even our very own beloved club, have all done 'wrong' in the past or still do. For me, Wonga although not the most ideal of sponsors are no more or no less as bad as say Barclays, Virgin or any other sponsor. The fact their business has shown substantial growth and people continue to use their services, from those on benefits to those earning good salaries, suggest they provide a pretty damn good service otherwise they wouldn't be doing so well. I have no issue with Wonga sponsoring NUFC or our club being associated with them other than their naff name and naff logo which from an aesthetic perspective, wouldn't look good on our shirt in my opinion. A shirt that by the way costs something like £5 to make per shirt and is sold for upto £50. And lets not even mention where they get made, by whom and how much those people are paid and the conditions they operate in... Me, I've long since accepted that football has no morals or scruples as I'd like to call it. It sold itself to the devil years ago. I find clubs handing 6 year old kids thousands of pounds to sign for them more unacceptable and offensive than fucking Wonga.com and I'm in no doubt our own club has in the past done such things or would do so n the future. In fact I find badge kissing more offensive than Wonga.com. The way I see it, they are putting money into the club (whether it actually gets spent and on what is another thing altogether) and have renamed the stadium back to what it should be, St. James' Park. Whether it is for PR reasons or whatever I don't care. By the way, in an ideal world the likes of Wonga wouldn't exists and we wouldn't need fucking sponsors but such a world doesn't exist and do you know what, fans are just as much to blame for the way football is today as much as anyone. Clubs are under huge pressure to get bigger deals in order to spend more on players, players fans demand clubs to sign. Just look at the disappointment shown over the summer with the lack of players signed here. I'm not saying we demand that the club spend X ammount on this player or that but we do demand the club spends money on players. As for the media and politicians, they can fuck right off. Report on the real bad guys of the world, like our banks, bankers, politicians and all the other corrupt systems. Politicians, how about fucking fixing what's wrong with society or even the game itself rather than pay lip service and talk hot air. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I've just listened to the Lee Ryder interview on Talksport. Jesus what an embarrassment that man is! Laughing at reasonable questions he was asked. Trying to bring up Standard Chartered when he clearly knows f*** all about them and had done as much research on them as he does for his back page bullshit. And today seemingly thinking he did well and retweeting people who point out how unprofessional he was! think Bird had a pop at him on twitter earlier today. He's totally isolated and on his own compared to all the other NE journos like. You'll usually see Douglas, Bird, Caulkin, Wilson, Starforth and sometimes that numpty McNally talking to one another on twitter. Notice that none of them ever interact in conversation with Ryder Agree. That Ryder interview was excruciating to listen to. Found the tweets between the local journos on the Wonga deal quite interesting - such a difference of opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Just listened to that interview You wouldn't think he would be the chief sports writer at the North East's biggest newspaper, sounds like they just picked someone random off the streets. Was cringing at him all the way through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 listening to it now. Absolutely cringeworthy. Has a pop at Mark Saggers for not knowing what Standard Chartered do, then "doesn't need to explain" it himself when Saggers offers him to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts