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

[relámpago blanco]

2 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

@Theregulars commiserations on your recent amputation

You've had that lined up for years haven't you? I bet this is one of the greatest days of you life.

[Yorkie]

One of em aye!

[St. Maximin]

Tbh I love supporting the club hundreds of times more than I did under most of the Ashley era, but even then I will always feel somewhat uneasy at our (majority) owners. At the same time you may find some fans who couldn’t care less and some who are deeply uncomfortable even if few and far between. Each to their own really and there’s no morally right or wrong position to be. 
 

You don’t have to love your owners and like I’d wager the vast majority of our fans, I feel no allegiance to KSA or need to defend their human rights record. It’s sad when I see people who do, but I think these are a small minority and unfortunately every club will have its share of moron supporters for one reason or another and this just happens to be a way to demonstrate it. You can’t change people sadly. I also find it odd how many of our fans get defensive to criticism of KSA’s sports investment, but saying that many people do it hypocritically and can use it to attack the fans, so to an extent it’s understandable. 
 

At the same time as feeling uneasy about human rights, for all the concerns about ‘sportswashing’ (rightly or wrongly), I have no doubt this takeover will have positive impacts in KSA and ultimately I don’t see that as bad. I think it’s also fair to point out we have multiple people (UK and KSA) that must have some direct or indirect involvement in how the club rather than simply being Bin Salman’s. I have little knowledge of the PIF employees’ views on human rights, but personally I don’t expect them to all be evil people with a moral compass to reflect his. 

[Kid Icarus]

42 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Come on who’s being John Everyman now ? The vote was clearly in relation to PIF taking over -

 

‘Our member survey on the matter received almost 3,400 responses and this represents a significant number of Newcastle United fans.

The headline figure is a massive 96.7% of those members surveyed have reported they’re in favour of the reported takeover by Amanda Staveley, the Rueben Brothers and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia’.

Yeah and being in favour of the takeover going ahead and being in favour of the owners is not the same thing. That's just a basic fact.

 

You can't ignore the context, that we were all absolutely desperate to get rid of Ashley.

[HaydnNUFC]

If I could get rid of the Saudi baggage tomorrow and have just Reubens and Staveley and her husband in charge, I would tbh. But that's not going to happen so here we are.

 

Am I repulsed by what goes on in KSA? Aye.

Will that affect my own personal support for Newcastle United? Nar, because I was here before them and I'll be here after they've gone.

Will I ever try and defend or deflect from KSA when someone criticises them? Absolutely not.

Will I defend NUFC fans who get attacked for merely supporting their football club that they always have done? Absolutely.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by HaydnNUFC

[Johnny]

Well,

27 minutes ago, HaydnNUFC said:

If I could get rid of the Saudi baggage tomorrow and have just Reubens and Staveley and her husband in charge, I would tbh. But that's not going to happen so here we are.

 

Am I repulsed by what goes on in KSA? Aye.

Will that affect my own personal support for Newcastle United? Nar, because I was here before them and I'll be here after they've gone.

Will I ever try and defend or deflect from KSA when someone criticises them? Absolutely not.

Will I defend NUFC fans who get attacked for merely supporting their football club that they always have done? Absolutely.

 

 

 

 

That line isn't true though. The most probable thing is that they will outlast everyone of us. PIF won't sell, as long as the club make profit. Or, to play devil advocate, as long as the club can sportwash Saudi's image.

 

IMHO, we should accept the fact that our club is not "our" club in traditional sense anymore. It's now a global brand. If the plan is working as intended by the PIF i.e we became a succesful club in eruope, they won't care about us local fans anymore. PIF wont care if the local stop supporting the club as long as globally NUFC still makes money for them. Just like what the Murdoch does in Manchester right now.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Johnny

[elbee909]

Is there much evidence of sportswashing really working here? All I ever see is negative stuff highlighted more due to NUFC ownership. Which is absolutely fair enough.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by elbee909

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

7 minutes ago, Johnny said:

Well,

 

That line isn't true though. The most probable thing is that they will outlast everyone of us. PIF won't sell, as long as the club make profit. Or, to play devil advocate, as long as the club can sportwash Saudi's image.

 

IMHO, we should accept the fact that our club is not "our" club in traditional sense anymore. It's now a global brand. If the plan is working as intended by the PIF i.e we became a succesful club in eruope, they won't care about us local fans anymore. PIF wont care if the local stop supporting the club as long as globally NUFC still makes money for them. Just like what the Murdoch does in Manchester right now.

 

 

 

 

[HaydnNUFC]

19 minutes ago, Johnny said:

Well,

 

That line isn't true though. The most probable thing is that they will outlast everyone of us. PIF won't sell, as long as the club make profit. Or, to play devil advocate, as long as the club can sportwash Saudi's image.

 

IMHO, we should accept the fact that our club is not "our" club in traditional sense anymore. It's now a global brand. If the plan is working as intended by the PIF i.e we became a succesful club in eruope, they won't care about us local fans anymore. PIF wont care if the local stop supporting the club as long as globally NUFC still makes money for them. Just like what the Murdoch does in Manchester right now.

 

 

 

 

If the world of Children of Men was a post.

[Johnny]

36 minutes ago, elbee909 said:

Is there much evidence of sportswashing really working here? All I ever see is negative stuff highlighted more due to NUFC ownership. Which is absolutely fair enough.

 

 

 

 

This is why I don't subscribe to this sportwashing BS anyway. PIF is here for the money. And they are here for the long haul.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Johnny

[Zero]

Well it may sounds crazy but at least KSA “wants” to improve its reputation, which IMO is much better than Russia. 

[triggs]

1 minute ago, Zero said:

Well it may sounds crazy but at least KSA “wants” to improve its reputation, which IMO is much better than Russia. 

Wanting to improve your reputation and actually doing the correct things to improve your reputation are two very different things

[Zero]

1 minute ago, triggs said:

Wanting to improve your reputation and actually doing the correct things to improve your reputation are two very different things

Aye, but still better than WFC your reputation / counter-parties value and just start a war and issue nuke threats.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, HaydnNUFC said:

If I could get rid of the Saudi baggage tomorrow and have just Reubens and Staveley and her husband in charge, I would tbh. But that's not going to happen so here we are.

 

Am I repulsed by what goes on in KSA? Aye.

Will that affect my own personal support for Newcastle United? Nar, because I was here before them and I'll be here after they've gone.

Will I ever try and defend or deflect from KSA when someone criticises them? Absolutely not.

Will I defend NUFC fans who get attacked for merely supporting their football club that they always have done? Absolutely.

 

 

 

 

The problem with that though, is that the only reason we have the Saudi  'baggage' is money. Without it, would the Reubens and Stavely even be interested in owning Newcastle? If they wanted to own a club for sentimental purposes they could have bought Blyth Spartans or Tranmere Rovers.

 

Football sold out a long time ago, and let's face it, British football clubs now dominate the world because of it. You are either on the inside enjoying the success that comes with it, or on the outside looking in. Barcelona used to hold the principle that they would never allow a sponsor to despoil their shirt a couple of decades ago, I wonder what happened to that?

[Whitley mag]

6 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

Yeah and being in favour of the takeover going ahead and being in favour of the owners is not the same thing. That's just a basic fact.

 

You can't ignore the context, that we were all absolutely desperate to get rid of Ashley.

Absolute tosh the vote clearly related to also being happy with the consortium involved taking over and certainly isn’t basic fact. You may have voted in the context you mention, however you seem to misjudge the intelligence of your fellow supporters, or just don’t want to accept that the majority don’t have any problems with PIF being majority shareholders.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Whitley mag

[Kid Icarus]

49 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Absolute tosh the vote clearly related to also being happy with the consortium involved taking over and certainly isn’t basic fact. You may have voted in the context you mention, however you seem to misjudge the intelligence of your fellow supporters, or just don’t want to accept that the majority don’t have any problems with PIF being majority shareholders.

 

 

 

Not tosh at all. You can't separate Ashley being involved and change all the meaning to suit your trademark 'everyone thinks like me' guesswork, mate.

 

The new owners were just one part of a takeover. You never heard of pull and push factors like? You're effectively trying to claim that the pull factor (the new owners) was the only factor in all of this for supporters and that the push factor (Ashley) didn't factor in for anyone. 

 

It's just a basic fact that a vote for a takeover isn't ONLY a vote for the new owners for everyone.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[ohmelads]

4 hours ago, triggs said:

Wanting to improve your reputation and actually doing the correct things to improve your reputation are two very different things

 

Of course, which begs the question: if they're trying to sportswash and are failing, would that not suggest they'll have to switch plans or give up on their sportswashing plans by selling up?

 

So far it looks like a massive own goal if sportswashing was the plan. Seems to me that public perception of Saudi Arabia, in England at least, is far worse now as a direct result of their takeover. Not only because of genuine concern highlighted by human rights organisations, but also because they threaten to upset the 'top 6', who are enormously powerful. 

[Kid Icarus]

You're also trying to claim this in a 'delighted Ashley has gone, but uncomfortable with Saudi ownership' thread Doesn't that tell you anything WM? 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[RS]

 

If sportswashing is a tiny minority of fucktards wearing tea towels then it’s worked. 
If sportswashing is convincing the vast majority that what goes on over there is right then it has massively failed. 
 

Money rules the world unfortunately. Nothing gets in the way of wealth. 

[St. Maximin]

6 hours ago, elbee909 said:

Is there much evidence of sportswashing really working here? All I ever see is negative stuff highlighted more due to NUFC ownership. Which is absolutely fair enough.

 

 

 

I think any improvements to the reputation would be in the long-term, but I’m pretty sceptical of a lot of these claims that journalists and Amnesty International like to use - “whitewashing their brutal regime”, “laundering their reputation”, “cover up atrocities behind the front of a football club” etc. If you’ve got a bad reputation, it won’t just go away because you bought a club, especially if there’s added media attention. 
 

What this will likely do is have indirect economic benefits to KSA as it tries to diversify its economy and as such this will still be part of providing a positive image towards the country and encourage tourism etc. Therefore the benefits from ‘sportswashing’ aren’t necessarily bad. As long as they’re in the public sphere I can’t see how their abuses will go unnoticed though and if anything they’re get more attention - the last and next World Cup and prime examples of the limitations of sportswashing. 

[triggs]

24 minutes ago, ohmelads said:

 

Of course, which begs the question: if they're trying to sportswash and are failing, would that not suggest they'll have to switch plans or give up on their sportswashing plans by selling up?

 

So far it looks like a massive own goal if sportswashing was the plan. Seems to me that public perception of Saudi Arabia, in England at least, is far worse now as a direct result of their takeover. Not only because of genuine concern highlighted by human rights organisations, but also because they threaten to upset the 'top 6', who are enormously powerful. 

Sportswashing is about making themselves more open to the rest of the world for commercial reasons moreso than their reputation amongst the general public IMO. Although gaining a significant portion of Newcastle fans as people who are willing to defend them is also handy

[Yorkie]

7 hours ago, Johnny said:

Well,

 

That line isn't true though. The most probable thing is that they will outlast everyone of us. PIF won't sell, as long as the club make profit. Or, to play devil advocate, as long as the club can sportwash Saudi's image.

 

IMHO, we should accept the fact that our club is not "our" club in traditional sense anymore. It's now a global brand. If the plan is working as intended by the PIF i.e we became a succesful club in eruope, they won't care about us local fans anymore. PIF wont care if the local stop supporting the club as long as globally NUFC still makes money for them. Just like what the Murdoch does in Manchester right now.

 

[Newcastle Fan]

The Idea that this is all about "sportswashing" sound silly to me,  PIF didn't buy us to improve their image nor do they care much about doing so as they know it doesn't really matter what they do to change the perception.

 

Yasir said clearly in a recent interview that they looked at it as a smart investment, in his words they looked at what a club like Chelsea is worth and realized that by buying us they could get ten times the value when they sell, plus the marketing opportunities that the club represents, they seem to be calculated investors looking at the long term rather than the short term. which is exactly what we need as a football club and as a city.

 

To me the only metric i really have for them is how they run the club and what decisions they make related to it. anything else doesn't concern me one bit. and at the moment everything they've done for this club has been overwhelmingly positive and i couldn't have asked for better owners.

[ohmelads]

30 minutes ago, triggs said:

Sportswashing is about making themselves more open to the rest of the world for commercial reasons moreso than their reputation amongst the general public IMO. Although gaining a significant portion of Newcastle fans as people who are willing to defend them is also handy

 

They didn't seem to be having any trouble striking commercial deals before Newcastle. They were already significant stakeholders in many of the world's biggest companies.

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

Not tosh at all. You can't separate Ashley being involved and change all the meaning to suit your trademark 'everyone thinks like me' guesswork, mate.

 

The new owners were just one part of a takeover. You never heard of pull and push factors like? You're effectively trying to claim that the pull factor (the new owners) was the only factor in all of this for supporters and that the push factor (Ashley) didn't factor in for anyone. 

 

It's just a basic fact that a vote for a takeover isn't ONLY a vote for the new owners for everyone.

 

 

 

Sorry you can’t accuse me of being John Everyman then claim that it’s a basic fact that the NUST vote only was about getting rid of Ashley, it was also clearly badged as approving of the people involved taking over.

 

You again presume that everyone who voted was only interested in getting rid of Ashley at whatever cost. I voted to get rid of Ashley but was also over the moon that people involved would be transformative for the club. Had the vote been around an American hedge fund who we’re going to leverage the club with debt, I might have voted differently.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Whitley mag