BrettNUFC Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 f*** selling him tbh. He's a good player and we got him at a reasonable price. We can sensibly resolve this without selling him What's your sensible resolution idea? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCormick Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Get the feeling he is being badly advised over this and this is not his own opinion and its going to hurt his career. I respect anyone making a strand for what they believe in however its making him look a little daft as all of the other Muslim players are wearing the kit. Wonder what Ba would have done had he still been here. That doesn't count for a single thing. You have no idea what are the other players beliefs are other than that they are muslim? True but he is saying it is against his Muslim faith to wear the Wonga logo Not all Muslims are the same, man. No shit Sherlock. may be wrong but I am sure most of Muslim faith respect the part of Islam that is giving Cisee the dilemma. May be wrong here but I think all Muslims also do not gamble, yes Cisee does, I have Muslim friends some are totally devoted some will choose not to be so strict on their devotion to their religion. Would seem Cisse is like this so lets hope he can find a way to live with wearing the Wonga logo. It's true what you're saying;, Muslims, as stipulated by the qu'ran shouldn't be gambling but, as with most religions the extent to which certain sinful practices are frowned upon are dependent on different countries'/ families' interpretations of how these sins are weighted (in a moral sense). When a Muslim dies they believe that a set of scales (one side with sins, and the other with merits) decides whether s/he will go to janaa (heaven); so it may be more to do with what Cisse's views are as to the extent to which Riba is haraam. This situation isn't as cut and dry as many are making it out to be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 There is no correlation between virgin money and wonga. Defo can't use the 'he wore the Virgin money logo and they do loans so he should be fine wearing Wonga' argument. They're totally different beasts they both charge interest for loans which is the bit against sharia law, doesn't matter about size its the simple fact of interest being charged at all. So yes theres a correlation It's interest that can be used for extreme profit which is the main issue. Virgin doesn't do that, Wonga does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23347131 http://i.imgur.com/CnOQlU1.jpg Papiss Cisse pulls out of Newcastle tour after sponsor row By Ben Smith BBC Sport Papiss Cisse has pulled out of Newcastle's pre-season tour to Portugal after refusing to wear club sponsor Wonga's logo on religious grounds. The Senegal striker, a Muslim, told club officials he was not prepared to promote the money-lending company. But the 28-year-old did offer to wear an unbranded shirt or one bearing a charity logo instead. It leaves Cisse's future in doubt, with sources describing the relationship between the parties as "strained". The Newcastle forward and his representatives have been in talks with club officials and the Professional Footballers' Association in recent days but neither the club nor their shirt sponsor have been able to find a solution. Cheick Tiote and Moussa Sissoko, Cisse's team-mates at Newcastle, are also Muslim but have told the club they have no issue with wearing the sponsor's logo. Cisse will continue to train on his own as he attempts to catch up on his fitness after returning later than the majority of the squad following international duty with Senegal. Both camps are hopeful that a solution can be found, but it seems Cisse is not prepared to move on his position. Both parties hopeful doesn't sound that bad tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It's getting to the point where a decision to sell him or not needs to be made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 There is no correlation between virgin money and wonga. Defo can't use the 'he wore the Virgin money logo and they do loans so he should be fine wearing Wonga' argument. They're totally different beasts they both charge interest for loans which is the bit against sharia law, doesn't matter about size its the simple fact of interest being charged at all. So yes theres a correlation It's interest that can be used for extreme profit which is the main issue. Virgin doesn't do that, Wonga does. my regard for banks is so low I honestly don't make much distinction other than the fact banks can have and will do far more damage to peoples lives than Wonga can ever hope to do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memphis Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I'm sorry if I seem pedantic about it its just until we really know why Cisse is objecting to Wonga it seems silly to keep on saying he is a hypocrite (not you specifically). Many, many posters on here objected to Wonga becoming our sponsor. I assume some of those objectors were not theists but rather people concerned with the unscrupulous business Practice. Cisse seems to have an acute sense of humanity not displayed by a lot of footballers. If you have ever seen him talk about his time driving an ambulance in Senegal it is abundantly clear that he is someone who cares about people. Similarly the stories surrounding him and his involvement with charities and also just people in general in the North East indicate somebody who is very much a good guy. Conversely his recreational activities that are now well documented are not those of a strict Muslim with a black and white view of the world. This leads me to believe it is entirely plausible he has a strong personal objection to being associated with this brand. For these reasons I am currently reluctant to criticise his stance. My fear however is that this may mean he cannot have a future at the football club. Either way I know who I prefer as a representative of NUFC. That's well put. I totally agree with you and David with regard to Wonga as an outlet. I find their practices disgusting. I cringe when I see their logo on the shirt of the team I support. And I can completely see and agree with why a player or a supporter would find them so repulsive that they simply couldn't wear the shirt. The reason I draw such a fine line under the issue is that to me there is a gaping difference between a truly religious objection and a simply moral one. There are all sorts of allocations made by employers to accommodate religious beliefs and practices; in fact, they're typically required to do so. There are no such allocations required for moral objections. Whether that represents an actionable difference in how this conflict plays out I do not know. It may not, in practice. McCormick helped to shed a little light on some of the differences in interpretations some Muslims may use in observing their religious beliefs. But for me, knowing how professional football works - and knowing that the large pay packets you get as a top-class footballer are funded in no small part by objectionable businesses of many stripes, Barclays being atop that list - I find that a selective religious objection holds less plausibility than a purely moral one, if that makes sense. Again, I come at this from a relatively ignorant place, so I am open to learning more. tl;dr - Wonga sucks, it's a tough, issue, wish Shola was Muslim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 There is no correlation between virgin money and wonga. Defo can't use the 'he wore the Virgin money logo and they do loans so he should be fine wearing Wonga' argument. They're totally different beasts Yes, they are, but that's not the point discussed here, as we're talking about them within the context of Cisse's objection to wearing the Wonga logo. If a person objects to Wonga and Virgin on the basis of money lending being morally wrong, then ultimately, they're two very familiar beasts, as that is what they both do. If the objection to them is discriminatorily high interest rates charged vulnerable people, then they're too very different beasts. Good point made by madras, too, about the Barclays logo. Barclays too are pretty despicable, on recent evidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 There is no correlation between virgin money and wonga. Defo can't use the 'he wore the Virgin money logo and they do loans so he should be fine wearing Wonga' argument. They're totally different beasts they both charge interest for loans which is the bit against sharia law, doesn't matter about size its the simple fact of interest being charged at all. So yes theres a correlation It's interest that can be used for extreme profit which is the main issue. Virgin doesn't do that, Wonga does. my regard for banks is so low I honestly don't make much distinction other than the fact banks can have and will do far more damage to peoples lives than Wonga can ever hope to do That's absolute rubbish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 In hindsight Wonga should really have quietly said to the club they were okay with Cisse wearing a shirt without a badge. If Cisse leaves on the back of it, it's hardly going to improve their image and the whole business has given them more negative publicity they could have done without. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theregulars Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It's not that he's despicable or hypocritical or anything, it's just that he's kind of lame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettNUFC Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 In hindsight Wonga should really have quietly said to the club they were okay with Cisse wearing a shirt without a badge. If Cisse leaves on the back of it, it's hardly going to improve their image and the whole business has given them more negative publicity they could have done without. It's clear Wonga aren't ok with this otherwise this would have been resolved a long time ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brummie Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 In hindsight Wonga should really have quietly said to the club they were okay with Cisse wearing a shirt without a badge. If Cisse leaves on the back of it, it's hardly going to improve their image and the whole business has given them more negative publicity they could have done without. But then again, if that were the case, they'd want you to reduce the money they were paying for the sponsorship as a result of it. I actually don't think Wonga would go for that anyway - if there is a Newcastle match on telly, and people are asking "why is that striker the only one not wearing the sponsor's logo", it's like a nationally televised reminder of how Wonga are unacceptable to a lot of people. I don't think this is a situation which would be easy to fix in any way other than selling the player concerned - even though it's mental to find yourselves in that situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 In hindsight Wonga should really have quietly said to the club they were okay with Cisse wearing a shirt without a badge. If Cisse leaves on the back of it, it's hardly going to improve their image and the whole business has given them more negative publicity they could have done without. Might have been that the talks have been with just the club and Cisse, i'm hoping your point is the next step. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 In hindsight Wonga should really have quietly said to the club they were okay with Cisse wearing a shirt without a badge. If Cisse leaves on the back of it, it's hardly going to improve their image and the whole business has given them more negative publicity they could have done without. Except of course both they and Ashley see all publicity as good publicity. It's a nonsense. He plays in the Barclays League He wore a Virgin Money Shirt. He likes gambling in casinos He sits smoking shisha pipes in a scruffy cafe. It's a conveniant excuse to engineer either a move or a big pay rise. I wonder if he invests his massive pay packet in ISA's and High Interest Offshore Bank Accounts as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Fuck selling him tbh. He's a good player and we got him at a reasonable price. We can sensibly resolve this without selling him The only way we will sell him is if we get his full market value. Say what you like about Ashley but he won't ever be taken for a mug in the transfer market. But at what point does Ashley decide paying Cisse wages without him playing is worse than copping a hit of a few million on a transfer fee? And before anyone suggests NOT paying Cisse (i.e. continuously fining him for refusing to play), just image how that might play out in the court of public opinion... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Fuck selling him tbh. He's a good player and we got him at a reasonable price. We can sensibly resolve this without selling him The only way we will sell him is if we get his full market value. Say what you like about Ashley but he won't ever be taken for a mug in the transfer market. But at what point does Ashley decide paying Cisse wages without him playing is worse than copping a hit of a few million on a transfer fee? And before anyone suggests NOT paying Cisse (i.e. continuously fining him for refusing to play), just image how that might play out in the court of public opinion... they'd be within their rights to since by refusing to play he's in breach of contract, can't expect to get the massive wages he gets without actually doing your job Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Highly doubt Cisse is gonna get his way on this. The board seems to work very closely with Wonga over their sponsorship, logos plastered on every available space on clothing, those 'feel-go' SD logo removal and gate-gate. And we know how ruthless/stubborn Ashley can be when he wants his way. The only way it's going to happen is that Wonga pulls off another feel-good stunt again. But then, if they wanted to do so they wouldn't have taken til now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 In hindsight Wonga should really have quietly said to the club they were okay with Cisse wearing a shirt without a badge. If Cisse leaves on the back of it, it's hardly going to improve their image and the whole business has given them more negative publicity they could have done without. But then again, if that were the case, they'd want you to reduce the money they were paying for the sponsorship as a result of it. I actually don't think Wonga would go for that anyway - if there is a Newcastle match on telly, and people are asking "why is that striker the only one not wearing the sponsor's logo", it's like a nationally televised reminder of how Wonga are unacceptable to a lot of people. I don't think this is a situation which would be easy to fix in any way other than selling the player concerned - even though it's mental to find yourselves in that situation. Then Cisse's replacement had better start banging in the goals, because you don't want to be seen by the Newcastle fans as the sponsors who sold a star for their own purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 No chance are Wonga not going to allow our main striker to not wear their sponsor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NobbyOhNobby Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I think that is the point though. Wonga are the final nail, the step too far, etc etc. It's far easier to justify having a high street bank logo on your shirt as opposed to Wonga/Money Shop or some other payday loan company. It's just a step too far, and I'm finding it really hard to criticise Cissé as I'm definitely not going to purchase any paraphernalia with Wonga emblazoned across it, and their sponsorship is one of the reasons I've cancelled my season ticket. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 No chance are Wonga not going to allow our main striker to not wear their sponsor. Hmmm...I'm still trying to work out what that means when it's unraveled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Fuck selling him tbh. He's a good player and we got him at a reasonable price. We can sensibly resolve this without selling him The only way we will sell him is if we get his full market value. Say what you like about Ashley but he won't ever be taken for a mug in the transfer market. But at what point does Ashley decide paying Cisse wages without him playing is worse than copping a hit of a few million on a transfer fee? And before anyone suggests NOT paying Cisse (i.e. continuously fining him for refusing to play), just image how that might play out in the court of public opinion... they'd be within their rights to since by refusing to play he's in breach of contract, can't expect to get the massive wages he gets without actually doing your job Are you sure about that? Personally, I think a good lawyer might make a decent case that an employer cannot take action against an employee for making a moral stand, especially when they had no input in the decision-making process that led to the morally objectionable outcome. I'm not taking a side here, and I don't know how UK industrial relations legislation works, but I'm certain a good lawyer could make a good case, and all the while Ashley is paying squillions in legal fees while the case is being played out in the courts and in the media. I don't believe it's as cut and dried as you have suggested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimburst Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Oh god, if Cisse doesn't give in soon then he's gone no matter what, I reckon. Ashley won't like what he's seeing, and we'll get Darren Bent in for 8m and he'll be our main striker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Oh for the halcyon days when sponsorship deals helped buy strikers for the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now