Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Newcastle's Muslim stars told: Don't play in new 'Wonga' tops Controversy grows over £24m shirt deal with moneylenders as FA plans talks Newcastle United's £24m shirt sponsorship deal with Wonga was engulfed in fresh controversy last night when the club's Muslim players were warned that wearing the new shirts would infringe Sharia law. The intervention from the Muslim Council of Britain will heap further pressure on the club as it seeks to deflect widespread criticism after unveiling a four-year deal with the short-term loan company. Of the Newcastle team who took the field against Manchester United on Sunday, four are practising Muslims – Demba Ba, Papiss Cissé, Cheick Tioté and Hatem Ben Arfa. ... Whilst it is accepted that Wonga have not behaved improperly it came in for further criticism from the Muslim Council of Britain. Under Sharia law, a Muslim is not allowed to benefit from lending money or receiving money from someone. This means that earning interest is not allowed. To comply, interest is not paid on Islamic savings or current accounts or applied to Islamic mortgages. Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, assistant secretary general of the MCB, said: "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 Islamic system is based on a non-interest-based system of transaction." Frédéric Kanouté, the former Spurs striker, refused to wear the 888.com logo of the gambling website when he was with Seville in La Liga because of his religious beliefs. He was allowed to play games for Seville with an unbranded shirt but had to wear the logo on his training equipment. "Freddie was allowed to wear a top without the 888.com and that is a reasonable request to be made by the player," added Mogra. "Assuming all four are on the pitch at the same time, if you have seven out of 11 [who have the advertising on their shirts] you have sufficient coverage. It is not asking too much, I believe." The Football Association entered the debate when its general secretary, Alex Horne, expressed his reservations about Newcastle's deal. "The Football Supporters' Federation of Britain told us in no uncertain terms it's not appropriate, [sunderland non-executive vice-president] David Miliband has told us he does not think it is appropriate," Horne said. "We are talking to the leagues on Friday about it. If you consider it as in the category of things that are inappropriate for children like gambling and alcohol, it feels like it is in that category to me." http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/newcastles-muslim-stars-told-dont-play-in-new-wonga-tops-8204411.html To be honest, if such fuss weren't made out of this I don't think our Muslim players would care that much. (we're still not sure if they do, tbh.) Inclined to agree with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Islam and long-bearded Muslims piss me off. Did Southampton get as much shit for Friends Provident? Are they not effectively the same thing, only a bit more personable by coming to your door every week for the money? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Our friends down the road being paid to support whitewash operation by a company that has exploited some of Africa's poorest people for decades. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanSkÃrare Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Commercialism and the modern western society does not go well with any form of conservative religion. I think those who oppose themselves to our muslim players wearing the adverts need to be reminded of the context and the fact that football in general is surrounded by elements that some forms of Islam does not approve of. This is the case in many parts of the western society. No need to attack the religion in itself just because of this. I really hope this won't be any concern or kick up anything. These questions are very delicate and need to be debated with respect and mutual understanding, not finger pointing and a dramatic intolerant approach. Leave that sort of reaction to the EDL and all the other geniuses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishMagpie Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Sorry if this has been mentioned before but why all the uproar about this now? Don't recall this when it was Blackpool or Hearts. Not a "big club" my arse! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Sharia law, D Miliband and the FA can all f*** off tbh. Very few, if any, sponsors have any kind of moral standing, and play a positive role in society. Even Barcelona under UNICEF. The UN including all of its sub-organizations is the biggest scam in recent times and causes far more death and misery the world over than Wonga. I am by no means defending Wonga, but people truly can f*** off with the double standards. If Al Qaeda wanted to sponsor some football team's shirts, they wouldn't look out of place with some of the other names on show. Sharia Law is a really poor choice of words from the Independent. It has extremely powerful and negative connotations. The Old Testament/Torah forbids usury (making loans with excessive interest rates) so if for example we had Orthodox Jews or Christians playing for us there would probably be similar advice coming from the relevant bodies. The fact that our Muslim players take their faith seriously isn't any great problem. yup. I'd like to think that our players, of any creed, don't have the kind of brainless faith as to refuse to play in a Wonga sponsored shirt for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 One thing for sure, Wonga must be fuckin loving this so far and have probably got their money's worth already. They've certainly picked a "big club" to sponsor if the media interest is anything to go by. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Commercialism and the modern western society does not go well with any form of conservative religion. I think those who oppose themselves to our muslim players wearing the adverts need to be reminded of the context and the fact that football in general is surrounded by elements that some forms of Islam does not approve of. This is the case in many parts of the western society. No need to attack the religion in itself just because of this. I really hope this won't be any concern or kick up anything. These questions are very delicate and need to be debated with respect and mutual understanding, not finger pointing and a dramatic intolerant approach. Leave that sort of reaction to the EDL and all the other geniuses. No one is desecrating any holy symbols of religion here! Just saying pretty much what you've said in your first paragraph. Just because it's Islam doesn't mean we need to be more delicate or whatever. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy no matter who is guilty of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Stifler is correct about Muslims not believing in loans and interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Stifler is correct about Muslims not believing in loans and interest. that is brand new information! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Stifler is correct about Muslims not believing in loans and interest. that is brand new information! The ridiculous thing is, is that a Islamic Mortgage is that of the bank buying the house and then you paying them for it while they make a PROFIT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Is it really £24m over 4 years? Is that all? What a terrible deal! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brazilianbob Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I don't see how the government even think they can take the moral hjgh ground over this deal when you consider what they have done to the electorate such as making us pay more for pensions work longer no public sector pay rises for the last 3 year's.... I could go on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Is it really £24m over 4 years? Is that all? What a terrible deal! There is a reason we have gone with a bargain basement brand, Ashley either couldn't or no one else wanted to come in and offer more. Can't believe that he wanted to branding us with Wonga and would have rather had a "blue chip" company but was unable to secure one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 There is too much speculation around how much the deal is worth. One thing we can conclude with through logical thinking is that Ashley would never cancel the deal with Virgin if a better deal wasn't on the table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Dekka in the Chronicle reckons they are working on other deals right now, Indicating more money was to come in. Fwiw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUFC_Chris Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 He also said it was the biggest commercial deal in the clubs history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I really don't care about any of it because it makes very little difference to us. It was always St James's so they never really renamed it. It's not the city or the fans that are dealing with Wonga, so it doesn't hurt our reputation, just the owner. The money won't be invested in the first team. The money that is invested in the academy is irrelevant, if we dont know how much it costs to run an academy in the first place. When Wonga leave, the whole thing will be forgotten anyway, in fact people will forget it a week into the new season. Oh and the moral issue, some aren't happy with us "making a deal with devil". Was it better advertising alcohol? Which also tends to pray on some of the vunerable in society. Or how about Northern Rock, which was a source of embarrasment? A load of hot air IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Newcastle shied away from revealing the exact figures yesterday, but Llambias confirmed it was the club’s biggest sponsorship deal, and said that quoted figures of £8million per year over four years of the deal were “not far off”. The Journal: http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2012/10/10/61634-32001249/#ixzz28tAAJYp5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Newcastle shied away from revealing the exact figures yesterday, but Llambias confirmed it was the club’s biggest sponsorship deal, and said that quoted figures of £8million per year over four years of the deal were “not far off”. The Journal: http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2012/10/10/61634-32001249/#ixzz28tAAJYp5 Why doesn't he just come out with the figures? Ridiculous. It's basically about around 6m a year which will make fuck all difference to our ability to compete with the top 4/5 clubs, regardless of all the spin about competing with them coming from the management inc Pardew and his 'champions league' quotes. Putting the questionable moral debate aside, it's a very poor deal for the image of the club and it's marketability in England and Europe. No other partners are going to be excited about being part of a 'leper' brand franchise. This deal will do short term and long term damage to the club and all for a couple of million more than Virgin were paying. Ashley has proven to be astute when it comes to managing player wages and general cost cutting and with things like that he deserves credit. But for the long term building of the club they remain self-serving, clueless and gutless. Futhermore Newcastle United have a resonsabitlity to the wider community and should in all cases pursue ventures that add value and bring positive impact to the supporter and the public. This deal does neither. Infact this deal is such a bad message to the city it is almost surreal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If Dekka is telling it true (haw) then I suppose we could reasonably narrow the estimates to between £6m and £10m per season. Of course, that's still quite a range However, given that they've paid for both the shirt sponsorship and the naming rights to the stadium (which he pointed out cost them extra), I'd hope it's towards the upper end of that spectrum. Although if it was that good a deal I'm sure they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 What difference does it make? I mean one or two million in who's pocket? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 What difference does it make? I mean one or two million in who's pocket? It's club money. I think that much is beyond dispute. Potentially £8m difference (positively or negatively) over four years is hardly small change, especially given the way we operate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBG Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 What difference does it make? I mean one or two million in who's pocket? That one or two million could be used towards buying Messi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts