The "delighted Ashley has gone, but uncomfortable with Saudi ownership" thread

[JeffJ]

3 hours ago, Thiago said:

The fact Tuchel is deemed 'statesmen like' for saying war is bad when he knew who he was working with when he joined the club speaks strongly to how performative a lot of this is. If Eddie Howe simply said 'killing people is bad' they'd call him Churchill.

When asked about the Newcastle ownership, Tuchel pretty much said ‘That’s a difficult one’

 

Prior to the game, when Howe was asked about Chelsea and Tuchel’s position he pretty much said ‘That’s a difficult one’.

 

One is being lauded by Neville and Carragher as ‘statesman like’ and the other questioned with the inference of ‘why are you working for these owners?’

 

Also Neville threw Klopp’s name out as ‘statesman like’ when dealing with difficult situations. I’m sure he lied through his polished teeth and straight batted all questions on the ESL before they played Leeds after it broke and it was Milner & Henderson who spoke out.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Klopp name dropped us the other day when talking about Chelsea and saying ownership needs looking at. 

[Rafalove]

I have no problem with our managers or players or representatives being asked these questions, in fact they should be. I don’t think it’s whataboutism or deflection though to hope that Manchester City get the same treatment.

[Yorkie]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10612555/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Saudis-Newcastle-kicked-Chelsea.html

 

"This is why it’s harsh to judge football supporters who grade owners on the football alone. 

 

A Newcastle fan will have bought his ticket through many generations of stewardship — the McKeag family, Hall and Shepherd, Ashley, the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia. Is that same fan now to pass moral judgment on Hall’s contributions to the Conservative Party, Shepherd’s conduct on foreign trips, the working conditions in Ashley’s warehouses, human rights in Saudi Arabia or the civil war in Yemen?

 

All or any of these decisions, controversies or outrages, could be a reason not to attend. Yet all that fan wants to do is watch his, or her, club. Why should fans make the moral reckonings governments do not? Governments do business, they accept donations — whether from Hall, or Russia, with love.

 

Boris Johnson may travel to Saudi this very week. Will he be discussing Yemen, or last week’s 81 beheadings? No, he’ll be asking them to keep oil prices down, because of developments in Russia. It’s only Eddie Howe, the Newcastle manager, who gets asked to comment on crime and punishment in Saudi. And maybe Thomas Tuchel soon, if new owners get their hands on Chelsea.

 

By all means have a discussion about club ownership and due process, but do not forget where this starts and stops. At the top, with who we court as our allies and business partners, not at the bottom with the powerless chanting Abramovich’s name because they mistakenly think that shows solidarity with their club in difficult times. 

 

They do not need pompous lectures from the press box, or from the Prime Minister’s office, particularly given what a mess has been made of the position to here."

[The Prophet]

It keeps coming back to the same issues.

 

Public Investment Funds, Royal Family members and the like should not be allowed to purchase and run football clubs.

 

It becomes even more of an issue when those entities and individuals have problematic backgrounds or continuously commit barbaric acts. War, slavery, assisnstions, etc.

 

An effective governing body would have scrutinised these issues under a fit and proper owners test. The Premier League failed to do so because they prioritised expanding their global brand and raking in the cash.

 

Sky and other broadcasters have passively accepted this, cheering on the grotesque spending of cash from these club owners.

 

An invasion of a European Country occurs and an individual linked to the invading party owns one of these football clubs. The governing body and the broadcasters knew what he was when they let him purchase it, but they need to be seen at the very least to be outraged.

 

So what so they do? Hound football managers, call out sets of fans and generally put it on the folk who carry the least blame on the matter.

 

Meanwhile there is zero scrutiny of the Premier League and the money continues to roll in, happy days.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by The Prophet

[UncleBingo]

1 hour ago, Sima said:

Did Guardiola get asked about the human rights abuses of the UAE in his post-match interview?  Unfortunately I didn't tune in.

Or their role in the coalition bombing Yemen?

[Sima]

5 minutes ago, UncleBingo said:

Or their role in the coalition bombing Yemen?

 

Anything they are guilty of really.  No double he'd have been described as 'statesman like' whatever he said.  

 

Not like that filthy Englishman Eddie Howe with his bloodstained hands who is fair game.

 

Course they didn't, just on the off chance Guaridola thinks "fuck this" and walks away, harming their beloved "Top 6" brand.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Sima

[Khalidao]

2 minutes ago, UncleBingo said:

Or their role in the coalition bombing Yemen?

 

Spoiler

They also execute criminals y'know... 

 

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/emirati-court-sentences-foreigners-death-murder-80430452

 

[nbthree3]

 

[OCK]

 

I'll enjoy this while it lasts. 

[nbthree3]

36 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

 

https://news.sky.com/story/government-seeks-to-finalise-sovereign-investment-deal-with-saudi-arabia-12566809

 

The government is closing in on a multibillion pound investment deal with Saudi Arabia that would provide a backdrop to crucial talks on the Gulf state's oil production.

Sky News understands that ministers have been working for weeks to finalise a new sovereign investment partnership (SIP) with Riyadh that would replicate a £10bn alliance unveiled with an Abu Dhabi state investment fund last year.

 

If the alliance follows the model used in Abu Dhabi, it would utilise Saudi's main sovereign wealth vehicle, the Public Investment Fund, which is now best-known in Britain as the owner of Newcastle United Football Club.

The SIP with Mubadala, which is jointly run by the government's Office for Investment, earmarked billions of pounds for investment in sectors including technology, energy transition and life sciences.

[TRon]

18 hours ago, leffe186 said:

…So yeah, a combination of things but parity (or the loss of it) was at the root. Abramovich. The Champions League. Mansour. West Ham and the Olympic Stadium vs Leyton Orient. The utter balls-up they’re making of VAR. Man City, Man U and Liverpool shirts all over London playgrounds. Drip. Drip. Drip. I stuck with it for a while because my team seemed to be doing it the “right” way, but I’d had enough a long time ago.
 

Found out this week that one of my Dad’s passwords is KaneSon61, which simultaneously make me feel happy and sad. He’d become disillusioned with modern football way before me but was never not going to be a Spurs fan and just fucking loves the game. I still want Spurs to win every game 5-0. It just truly does not feel like the same game any more, and the number of ways that was true reached critical mass.

 

I’m just an old fogey, basically

 

Yeah we know what it feels like to go from being one of the top clubs in England to basically fighting to be mid-table. I also felt some resentment to clubs like Chelsea and Man City basically blowing everyone else out of the water with their wealth, but tbh, you still had it pretty good compared to us. Spurs have consistently been around the CL positions, you have had great managers, and great football to watch.

 

I think I'd be more on the same page as your dad tbh, as long as we were still competitive, the club would be a big part of my life. The problem for us of course, was we were bought by someone who thought we were a cash cow.

 

I agree that there's something wrong with the game where the biggest pockets decide who will be the biggest club, personally I think NUFC (and Spurs as well) would be more than capable of punching their weight if owner's wealth wasn't a factor. But we had to live with this system for the last 20 years, I'm certainly not going to sniff at it now it's our turn to pitch in with the big boys. I agree with @ManDoon, sport is not a moral compass once you get to the professional level. When the stakes are so high, money is going to affect it. Football is probably not much worse than other sports other than because it is so popular, it attracts more money. Honestly, if it was me in your position I think I would just live with it. Spurs are hardly bit part players, they have one of the best managers in the world, some great players, and they are still fighting for CL places. Cheer up mate! 

[leffe186]

6 hours ago, TRon said:

 

Yeah we know what it feels like to go from being one of the top clubs in England to basically fighting to be mid-table. I also felt some resentment to clubs like Chelsea and Man City basically blowing everyone else out of the water with their wealth, but tbh, you still had it pretty good compared to us. Spurs have consistently been around the CL positions, you have had great managers, and great football to watch.

 

I think I'd be more on the same page as your dad tbh, as long as we were still competitive, the club would be a big part of my life. The problem for us of course, was we were bought by someone who thought we were a cash cow.

 

I agree that there's something wrong with the game where the biggest pockets decide who will be the biggest club, personally I think NUFC (and Spurs as well) would be more than capable of punching their weight if owner's wealth wasn't a factor. But we had to live with this system for the last 20 years, I'm certainly not going to sniff at it now it's our turn to pitch in with the big boys. I agree with @ManDoon, sport is not a moral compass once you get to the professional level. When the stakes are so high, money is going to affect it. Football is probably not much worse than other sports other than because it is so popular, it attracts more money. Honestly, if it was me in your position I think I would just live with it. Spurs are hardly bit part players, they have one of the best managers in the world, some great players, and they are still fighting for CL places. Cheer up mate! 

Cheers . That’s partly my point though, it’s not so much about whether my team is good or not, more that I just don’t like what football is any more. I was biding my time for a few years and when the CL run came along my plan was to sign off after one of our greatest achievements. One soft as fuck handball later…

[Jackie Broon]

11 hours ago, The Prophet said:

It keeps coming back to the same issues.

 

Public Investment Funds, Royal Family members and the like should not be allowed to purchase and run football clubs.

 

It becomes even more of an issue when those entities and individuals have problematic backgrounds or continuously commit barbaric acts. War, slavery, assisnstions, etc.

 

An effective governing body would have scrutinised these issues under a fit and proper owners test. The Premier League failed to do so because they prioritised expanding their global brand and raking in the cash.

 

Sky and other broadcasters have passively accepted this, cheering on the grotesque spending of cash from these club owners.

 

An invasion of a European Country occurs and an individual linked to the invading party owns one of these football clubs. The governing body and the broadcasters knew what he was when they let him purchase it, but they need to be seen at the very least to be outraged.

 

So what so they do? Hound football managers, call out sets of fans and generally put it on the folk who carry the least blame on the matter.

 

Meanwhile there is zero scrutiny of the Premier League and the money continues to roll in, happy days.

 

 

 

 

How is a governing body meant to make assessments like that? How are they meant to gather enough evidence to prove that Abramovich came by his money in such a way that would make him fail their test? Ultimately it is not the place of a governing body to scrutinise those issues, it's the place of government.

 

As far as I'm aware, other than football, there is no other circumstance in the UK where prospective owners of a business have to go through an owners and directors test. The only other is for directors of NHS trusts and that is enshrined in law, unlike the football owners and directors test.

 

Why should owning a football club be different to owning any other business or sporting club? If it decided that football is so important to us culturally that who can own clubs should be specially restricted, the test should be enshrined in law and independently assessed by a government body.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Jackie Broon

[TRon]

1 hour ago, leffe186 said:

Cheers . That’s partly my point though, it’s not so much about whether my team is good or not, more that I just don’t like what football is any more. I was biding my time for a few years and when the CL run came along my plan was to sign off after one of our greatest achievements. One soft as fuck handball later…

 

But that's professional sport, I guess the argument would be, once money comes into it, why should it be any different to any other profession?

 

 

[madras]

7 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

But that's professional sport, I guess the argument would be, once money comes into it, why should it be any different to any other profession?

 

 

Money has always been in it. The supposed oldest club in the world, Sheffield fc, was set up to make money from the cricket pitch in the winter, then we get to Alf Common's transfer and the dodgy deals to induce players to move before that.

 

Money has always been a deciding factor....just know the figures are ridiculous.

[TRon]

6 minutes ago, madras said:

Money has always been in it. The supposed oldest club in the world, Sheffield fc, was set up to make money from the cricket pitch in the winter, then we get to Alf Common's transfer and the dodgy deals to induce players to move before that.

 

Money has always been a deciding factor....just know the figures are ridiculous.

 

That's how it works. The figures made 50 shades of Grey author a millionaire, is that any less ridiculous?

 

 

[Awaymag]

8 hours ago, nbthree3 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/government-seeks-to-finalise-sovereign-investment-deal-with-saudi-arabia-12566809

 

The government is closing in on a multibillion pound investment deal with Saudi Arabia that would provide a backdrop to crucial talks on the Gulf state's oil production.

Sky News understands that ministers have been working for weeks to finalise a new sovereign investment partnership (SIP) with Riyadh that would replicate a £10bn alliance unveiled with an Abu Dhabi state investment fund last year.

 

If the alliance follows the model used in Abu Dhabi, it would utilise Saudi's main sovereign wealth vehicle, the Public Investment Fund, which is now best-known in Britain as the owner of Newcastle United Football Club.

The SIP with Mubadala, which is jointly run by the government's Office for Investment, earmarked billions of pounds for investment in sectors including technology, energy transition and life sciences.

So if the above is true then the UK government is working in partnership with PIF.  So will that then shut down this whole fucking agitator from the usual media shits?

[Jordan]

13 hours ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

Klopp name dropped us the other day when talking about Chelsea and saying ownership needs looking at. 

Coming from the bloke who’s clubs owners tried to destabilise european football. 

[madras]

21 minutes ago, Awaymag said:

So if the above is true then the UK government is working in partnership with PIF.  So will that then shut down this whole fucking agitator from the usual media shits?

At this rate we might get a penalty.

[triggs]

43 minutes ago, Awaymag said:

So if the above is true then the UK government is working in partnership with PIF.  So will that then shut down this whole fucking agitator from the usual media shits?

I don't think the journos point has ever been that they expect sanctions to be imposed on Saudi Arabia so I don't see why it would

[veriaqa]

6 hours ago, madras said:

At this rate we might get a penalty.

 

That would be excellent tho. If NUFC can get penalty match in match out that would help NUFC alot.

[RS]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60754163
Boris, the bone sawing bastard. FTM

[Awaymag]

8 hours ago, triggs said:

I don't think the journos point has ever been that they expect sanctions to be imposed on Saudi Arabia so I don't see why it would

Wow

[The Prophet]

 

We need journos like Delaney to keep banging the drum when it comes sportswashing and the like, but fuck me he's a hypocrite.