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

[et tu brute]

32 minutes ago, Tiresias said:

I actually think it's perfectly reasonable to not want to worry at all about ownership, who owns us not the decision of any of us fans (tragically) and not our responsibility. I am a lot more concerned about it but I dont want anyone to think I am trying to make anyone feel bad for just enjoying the football, and I think some of the coverage has been condescending and hectoring of normal fans who just want to watch their football team. I do think though fans shouldn't be critican of other fans who do have concerns of the ownership, and I do think unnecessarily cheerleading or defending saudi arabia is kinda tragic. 

Would the fans of the other clubs be saying the same if they had our owners at their club? I think we know the answer to that question. I'm oretty sure our fans would be the same if PIF had invested in another club. Faux outrage is always in abundance amongst football supporters.

[Dinho lad]

26 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

 

You're saying this like we support those things or haven't condemned them. 

 

I said it to someone who, like so many in this country, is so in love with their cultural identity to the point that they forget about the crimes that Great Britain are continually participating in. (It wouldn't be so bad if those kinda of people weren't so arrogant about their 'prestigious' nationality/ethnicity). 

 

When you attack someone (yes, it was an attack) in that manner with that meaning (i.e., it's unacceptable here - this is the UK!), you place yourself, not just as a country but also individually, as someone better than the person you are responding to. 

 

It doesn't matter if you've condemned your country's actions or not, you are using part of your national identity to belittle that 'other' person and/or their cultural stance - even though your culture's country have fucked up so many other places and cultures around the world. 

 

Try to use a different tone and meaning next time. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Dinho lad

[Kid Icarus]

6 minutes ago, Dinho lad said:

 

I said it to someone who, like so many in this country, is so in love with their cultural identity to the point that they forget about the crimes that Great Britain are continually participating in. (It wouldn't be so bad if those kinda of people weren't so arrogant about their 'prestigious' nationality/ethnicity). 

 

When you attack someone (yes, it was an attack) in that manner with that meaning (i.e., it's unacceptable here - this is the UK!), you place yourself, not just as a country but also individually, as someone better than the person you are responding to. 

 

It doesn't matter if you've condemned your country's actions or not, you are using part of your national identity to belittle that 'other' person and/or their cultural stance - even though your culture's country have fucked up so many other places and cultures around the world. 

 

Try to use a different tone and meaning next time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drivel

 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[Guest reefatoon]

1 hour ago, Chris_R said:

 

I disagree with that.

 

I'm fairly comfortable with Saudi ownership, but I don't think anyone should keep quiet about anything just because they don't know everything about it.

 

We should all constantly question everything. But we should do so with an open mind. It's closed-mindedness that causes problems, not inquiry and discussion which we should all practice to broaden our understanding and knowledge.

I totally agree with that. Question things certainly and want to learn. It was the closed mindedness that I was on about.

[Dinho lad]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

You're talking drivel

 

It's ok for you, you're been provided with pretty much what you want and need - of course your default view of your country in is not going to be so bad.

 

Try living in places that your country have left with salient, neagtive reminders about what GB have done to it, and then you'd realise, in reality, that your country's past and present is also, in effect, right up there with Saudi. 

[Wolfcastle]

Just seen a report on sky that said he'd spoke to Chelsea fans, some accepted the sanctions, some never would but that all think Chelsea shouldn't be the only club.

 

This isn't cleaning up football. This is punishing the dictator of a country via his business associates and other means for invading another country, committing war crimes daily and who needs to be deterred so as not to start world war 3/nuclear war.

 

Any other oligarch football club owners with close ties to Putin should be punished in excactly the same way. But whatever people think of other countries, China, Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Iran - those countries have not done this, the idea therefore they should be treat as though they have, is minority report stuff. If they ever do, then they should be treat exactly the same.

[St. Maximin]

While I don’t think Howe should be asked these questions, they’re a natural consequence of the takeover. What I’m more annoyed by are the reactions on social media criticising him for being part of the ‘sportswashing project’. I’m not sure what he is supposed to say? It’s not only not something he is meant to talk about, but he may not even be trained to handle the questions well so it’s best to say nothing. 
 

Speaking of sportswashing, I might just be ignorant but I still don’t know what clear examples there are of it - in this case or previously. To me seems like one of those coined phrases that gets raised every time a country with poor human rights records invests invests in major sporting events/teams, without evidence of how it’s worked and why it’s so bad. I’m not saying it isn’t a thing, but certainly for us I don’t see the concerns - the clearest examples so far are a minority of whoppers on Twitter acting as Saudi apologists. Surely any sportswashing intentions would have gone deeper than that?

 

That said I cannot help feel slightly uncomfortable about the takeover though. That’s out of guilt about enjoying the support of a nation that has done terrible things, but I don’t see them widely becoming heroes to the west through this takeover while maintaining their abuses, so I don’t really see sportswashing as the issue. If they really wanted to improve their reputation they could have just not killed 81 people the other day, as it’s not like none of us would hear about it…

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by St. Maximin

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Dinho lad said:

 

It's ok for you, you're been provided with pretty much what you want and need - of course your default view of your country in is not going to be so bad.

 

Try living in places that your country have left with salient, neagtive reminders about what GB have done to it, and then you'd realise, in reality, that your country's past and present is also, in effect, right up there with Saudi. 

 

I'm well aware of what 'my' country is like, its history, its imperialism and am completely opposed to all of it. If I was criticising SA while excusing the UK, your posts would have a point, but as I'm not, they don't.

[Darth Crooks]

Abramovic is about as clear an instance of sports washing as your going to get. I don’t actually believe Saudi are in it for the same reasons primarily. I think it’s more regional pride and part of the diversification and acknowledgment and that this oil element of the economy is on borrowed time.

[Guest HTT II]

7 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I'm well aware of what 'my' country is like, its history, its imperialism and am completely opposed to all of it. If I was criticising SA while excusing the UK, your posts would have a point, but as I'm not, they don't.

Our own country is one of the major instigators of war, disharmony and human atrocities in the world, and has been forever. But we have the right to vote, women can drive, gay people can get married, we can sink a few pints and watch our footy team play and so on and so on.
 

That’s why I won’t fully condemn SA, especially it’s people. It wasn’t that long ago we were hanging people, chopping off heads and even members of the royal family couldn’t get married to someone divorced.

 

We have had hundreds of years of enlightenment, but are still barbaric in many ways on human levels. SA need to catch up and they probably will, and if not, who are we to preach to a nation and people that not allowing gay people to have rights is evil for example, who themselves consider us drinking to be similar.

 

It’s all wrong basically and I’m a firm believer that when you remove politicians, royal families, heads of state and power, greed and money from the influential elitists that decent ordinary people of any part of the world don’t give a fuck if you’re white, black, Muslim, Christian, women, gay or whatever. 

[Awaymag]

Morning SA scholars.  What part of history are we going to discuss today.   Maybe Gay rights and comparing to the UK, where only 80 years ago we chemically castrated one of the greatest minds ever to live?  Who then went on to commit suicide.

 

Remember - when putting your answers, try to cover all angles and prejudices.......bonus points for the 1st one to get a Phoenix nights quote in!

 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Awaymag

[LV]

10 hours ago, Dinho lad said:

 

It's ok for you, you're been provided with pretty much what you want and need - of course your default view of your country in is not going to be so bad.

 

Try living in places that your country have left with salient, neagtive reminders about what GB have done to it, and then you'd realise, in reality, that your country's past and present is also, in effect, right up there with Saudi. 

What absolute tripe 

[macphisto]

2 minutes ago, Awaymag said:

Morning SA scholars.  What part of history are we going to discuss today.   Maybe Gay rights and comparing to the UK, where only 80 years ago we chemically castrated one of the greatest minds ever to live?

 

Remember - when putting your answers, try to cover all angles and prejudices.......bonus points for the 1st one to get a Phoenix nights quote in!

The UK is known for its tolerance, we'd never send the buggers back

 

 

[Kid Icarus]

The lad was trying to excuse executions in Saudi Arabia. How far Saudi Arabia has come on as a country or our country's own sins have nothing to do with that. It was me replying to him, not the UK replying to Saudi Arabia.

[Guest HTT II]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

The lad was trying to excuse executions in Saudi Arabia. How far Saudi Arabia has come on as a country or our country's own sins have nothing to do with that. It was me replying to him, not the UK replying to Saudi Arabia.

On a human level, it’s hard to excuse a state killing anyone even if guilty of this that or another, I would rather Bin Laden rot in a jail for example than be wiped out. Again some people don’t deserve to live, but it’s not up to me or anyone else to decide that surely.  

[Guest HTT II]

Dinho is right in what he’s saying, but his argument is wrong because it’s against what no-one is saying or agreeing to in regards our own country, how we act, past and present and what we are involved in regards wars, atrocities, anti human rights and so on.

[tgarve]

In terms of newcastle - unless the premier league retrospectively rip up their current rules on ownership then it’s hard to see the club being in danger at all of any issues ( particularly as they have decided PIF is separate from the Saudi state ) 
Unless the Saudis invade another country some time soon and start bombing theatres full of people and threatening nuclear war on the world then we should be ok.

[Geordie Ahmed]

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

On a human level, it’s hard to excuse a state killing anyone even if guilty of this that or another, I would rather Bin Laden rot in a jail for example than be wiped out. Again some people don’t deserve to live, but it’s not up to me or anyone else to decide that surely.  

I don't think it is hard, it's only hard if you are vehemently opposed to capital punishment, not everyone will share that view and those that don't will have the opinion that it's fine and it doesn't concern them. Who says their view is wrong whilst yours is right?

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, Geordie Ahmed said:

I don't think it is hard, it's only hard if you are vehemently opposed to capital punishment, not everyone will share that view and those that don't will have the opinion that it's fine and it doesn't concern them. Who says their view is wrong whilst yours is right?

Good question, I just don’t think a government or state should have the RIGHT to basically murder someone, regardless of crime. Don’t get me wrong, I’d happily kill someone if they say harmed my family in some way which is wrong on every level, legally and in a human way, but that’s me on an animalistic basic level. Surely we have risen above that as a collective society today, though, in 2022? Or maybe not…

[Geordie Ahmed]

2 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Good question, I just don’t think a government or state should have the RIGHT to basically murder someone, regardless of crime. Don’t get me wrong, I’d happily kill someone if they say harmed my family in some way which is wrong on every level, legally and in a human way, but that’s me on an animalistic basic level. Surely we have risen above that as a collective society today, though, in 2022? Or maybe not…

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with your view, especially when you add in the very questionable judgement process (be that the US or Saudi) it's logical however for someone that thinks otherwise, they can easily excuse that. We have enough people in this country that constantly call for it. 

[leffe186]

1 hour ago, Darth Crooks said:

Abramovic is about as clear an instance of sports washing as your going to get. I don’t actually believe Saudi are in it for the same reasons primarily. I think it’s more regional pride and part of the diversification and acknowledgment and that this oil element of the economy is on borrowed time.

Dunno - think you can draw some direct parallels. Both parties were basically given huge amounts of money by their state (in different ways). Both parties looked to diversify their investments and I think it’s fair to say both (Abramovich and PIF) were looking for some international acceptance and acknowledgement.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by leffe186

[Guest HTT II]

2 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with your view, especially when you add in the very questionable judgement process (be that the US or Saudi) it's logical however for someone that thinks otherwise, they can easily excuse that. We have enough people in this country that constantly call for it. 

Oh I agree, even people who deal drugs, on social media say for example the Chronicle report such a story, people say hang them, or whatever. I do honestly think, however, most people when confronted with the reality of putting someone to death regardless of crime, struggle and normally wouldn’t do it.
 

I’m a true crime nerd and I forgot his name, but there was an executioner who has put many a bad person to death (in the US) saying it was like a death sentence to him. And you’re right me saying no to the death penalty doesn’t make me right over someone who says aye to the death penalty.
 

Again though it’s all about what a nation/state should be able to carry out and with the death penalty it should be a no, along with jailing someone because they are gay or not allowing women to vote, work, gay people to be unable to adopt or people previously divorced not to be able to remarry.

 

Killing your own citizens even under law is surely the ultimate sin of any nation/state/people?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

What about killing the wrong person because they’ve been convicted of something they didn’t do? Or killing someone with a mental disability which led them to commit a crime?

 

The whole concept is abhorrent and serves no purpose except revenge. We shouldn’t have a justice system designed to deliver revenge. 

[UncleBingo]

44 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

What about killing the wrong person because they’ve been convicted of something they didn’t do? Or killing someone with a mental disability which led them to commit a crime?

 

The whole concept is abhorrent and serves no purpose except revenge. We shouldn’t have a justice system designed to deliver revenge. 

This is always worth a watch on this subject....

 

 

[Kanji]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

What about killing the wrong person because they’ve been convicted of something they didn’t do? Or killing someone with a mental disability which led them to commit a crime?

 

The whole concept is abhorrent and serves no purpose except revenge. We shouldn’t have a justice system designed to deliver revenge. 

well you hopefully have a Justice system that protects mental disability defendants from death sentence. Wrongful convictions have been part and parcel of court systems across the globe from the beginning of time, sadly.