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

[Darth Crooks]

The problem with whataboutery is that it does deflect to another issue to the point where you no longer focus on any single issue being a problem. It’s a logical fallacy that because lots of stuff is fucked/compromised we shouldn’t care/engage with any of it. That applies to society at large really but that’s for the chat section perhaps.  

Of course we can watch our football - but if you’re going to leap on critics citing hypocrisy when you have a rainbow laces campaign whilst wearing Saudi National colours as a player or fan you’re going to look a bit daft. None of us operate in a vacuum.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Darth Crooks

[geordiesteve710]

Regardless of anyone's views, we need to let this protest pass off peacefully (so long as that's how it is carried out.) Otherwise we'll all be made to look like a massive bunch of cunts.

[St. Maximin]

46 minutes ago, Darth Crooks said:

Sportswashing is a thing that works btw. I mean whether the PIF do it to what end remains to be seen but look at the defense of anbramovic despite being a key oligarch I’m Putins inner circle - that happened to fanfare under everyone’s noses and the ‘romans army’ banners were there til the end. It wasn’t  just in football either.

 

I think it’s naive to think we’re immune from that despite fans not being ultimately in control. I refuse to be wilfully ignorant.

 

 

 

It certainly happens but the question is more how effective is it? Supporters of a club even the size of Chelsea make up a small minority of football fans in the country, let alone the world, so a small minority of them choosing to be his apologist can't be that effective in the grand scheme of things as the overall reaction to the war here has shown.

 

With regards to Russia, the 2018 WC is an argument it worked because many people were saying it's a great place to visit. That in itself can't be bad - last year I was thinking I'd like to visit at some point and maybe still will, despite the human rights abuses. At the same time the war shows its limitations because I doubt many of the 2018 fans who visited are defending it now. That the war happens to be in Europe and Russia are not one of our allies doesn't help their cause mind.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Darth Crooks said:

In the interests of balance I look at Saudi investment in this new green transit mirrors edge city and think why are we  not capable of thinking that way with economies our size and the history of Britain and colonialism is brutal and cruel with global influence.

Still it’s a cruel autocratic regime and any talk of separation is for the birds. Flag kits and money. I don’t have a problem with Saudi people - they share problems of most laymen no doubt. Worse if you are gay etc. I do have issue/ critique of this idea that everyone who has concerns and has the will to express them is automatically of a different competitive agenda. Perhaps should just see how these protests pan out and in what form/voice and go from there.

 

 

 

 

I think that's fair enough, but the overriding problem still remains money. It overrides everything including human rights and principle. This is why football, and no doubt most other spheres of life in today's world are where we are today.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Tiresias said:

They get to look like normal benevolent sports investors so people look at them more favourably, it makes it more difficult for a UK government to decide to take action such as sanctions against saudi government if they are intertwined with uk economy and cultural life, it's soft power, it doesn't have to work either, they may have improved their standing with a lot of newcastle fans not sure nation wide it has a good event but they are taking long view and assume it will normalize over time. 

 

There is plenty to feel queasy about and as much as people are trying to read benevolent reasons onto it, take some comfort that they are wasting a lot of money on making us successfull and it does not have to work in terms of improving their reputation. 

 

It also works the other way. By 'adopting' a western football team, the Saudi public will be exposed to a lot of modern culture and practices that they were blocked from previously. I'm sure there will be plenty of traditionalists over there who are seething at being associated with the west as well.

[Darth Crooks]

8 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I think that's fair enough, but the overriding problem still remains money. It overrides everything including human rights and principle. This is why football, and no doubt most other spheres of life in today's world are where we are today.

I agree. We’re at a cross roads in it on the basis of all major challenges we face - what cost/price/extent is okay to profit from our heritage, social need, welfare of our planet. It’s a universal problem. Shits going to hit the fan with one or more of these things and football ownership is low down that list. 

 

[Tiresias]

Pretty much agree with everyone above, am skeptical of influence the other way to Saudi Arabia but I could be wrong.

 

There are two very intertwined, but also sometimes confused issues here. 

 

Money and Geopolitical involvement in sport. Just to illustrate distinction, if Saudi Arabia bought us for sportswashing but made no investment whatsoever it still would be wrong. I would also argue, that any nation state no matter their benevolence on the global scale should not buy football clubs to advertise themselves, even if everyone agrees how wonderful they are. To illustrate I think it's handy to think through what a football club is and ought to be, because it's not an advertising board for regimes, but also they aren't truly businesses either. They are too embedded and important to communities. To illustrate this immagine the sentimental community side of football was all bollocks, that it is just a paid piece of entertainment like Game of Thrones, then NUFC would have been cancelled 5 years into the Ashley regime, noone would go. 

 

Football clubs should be run and regulated with that in mind, but they are instead run to maximise profits or to be propaganda outlets. It's obscene. 

 

And then we get on the is it wrong for one club to be much richer than the others. Yes of course it is, a competitive league is absolutely integral to the quality of the league. It is slightly more complicated in that I do understand, the league wants the best players in it, and to get them you need to have more money in the league than other leagues, and we can't run it like a closed shop unless all the leagues accross europe all agreed to the same rules, but the super league idea which would have cemented the same 6 clubs into their position at the top would have killed the league. Clubs that are run really well like Brighton absolutely should have a chance of transfering that competence into challenging for the league and yet there is very very little chance of doing so, or even of getting top 4. Clubs run like Man U or Chelsea that make continuing mistakes or changes of direction but just spend their out of it should be punished. 

 

This is slightly why I am a bit less critical of the current Financial Fair Play rules, which are awful and seem geared to preventing clubs like us competing, they should do a lot more to limit some nonsense elsewhere, but, even if we would have done it this way anyway, I am happy to see us succeed by spending sensibly, buying players with sell on, looking to build academy, all stuff that is what should be done.

 

Unfortunately noone, not the league, not uefa, not the government, not the fa are interested in tackling these issues, because as discussed above, football is not a random tv show that will be cancelled if it is bad, everyone is too invested to take serious action so instead it is ruthlessly exploited to suck money out of it and to make Saudi Arabia look good. I sympathise a lot with a lot of football pundits who are appalled that football allowed us to be bought by saudi arabia, but they sometimes direct their ire at us as if we are the only ones who 'should' be boycotting football, as if that is a reasonable ask. 

 

[Whitley mag]

3 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

You have to be on the wind up.  There's no way you read my post about it NOT being about one factor alone, but both, and then fired back with 'you're presuming it's about one factor'

 

I hope for your sake that you're on the wind up or you just misread.

I read your post clearly.

 

If you are in favour of the takeover going ahead surely by default you’re accepting Ashley going and PIF becoming majority shareholder no ?

[Kid Icarus]

2 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

I read your post clearly.

 

If you are in favour of the takeover going ahead surely by default you’re accepting Ashley going and PIF becoming majority shareholder no ?

 

Yes, that's the point I'm making to you. That it's both of those things, not just one. Not just Ashley going. Not just the PIF becoming owners. Both of them. 

 

Your reasons for voting in favour of the takeover can be anything from 100% wanting it because you want rid of Ashley and 100% wanting it because you want the new owners, with every option in between.

 

I'd be absolutely floored if there was even a single Newcastle fan whose reason for wanting the takeover was 0% to do with wanting rid of Ashley. 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[tomlynnherrington]

20 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

Me tbh. I was just saying last week that I'm maxing out at about 75%. I know somethings still missing, part of it's the damage done by Ashley, part of it's our owners.

 

Not everyone's the same.

You may feel different when you’re watching Trippy lifting the Champion’’s League trophy at Wembley in 2024.

[thomas]

Not directed at anyone in this thread at all but I wish the people who spent all their time winding up newcastle fans about it would instead harangue people with actual power - i.e. the govt and fa - who allowed this to happen in the first place. i feel like the online winding up is a consolation prize taken because the govt/fa have repeatedly and resoundingly made clear they don't give a fuck what MBS/KSA get up to as long as the cash/oil keeps flowing. So hey pissing off a geordie feels like a real accomplishment under the circumstances.

[Darth Crooks]

It’s low hanging fruit for sure.

[Whitley mag]

5 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Yes, that's the point I'm making to you. That it's both of those things, not just one. Not just Ashley going. Not just the PIF becoming owners. Both of them. 

 

Your reasons for voting in favour of the takeover can be anything from 100% wanting it because you want rid of Ashley and 100% wanting it because you want the new owners, with every option in between.

 

I'd be absolutely floored if there was even a single Newcastle fan whose reason for wanting the takeover was 0% to do with wanting rid of Ashley. 

 

 

 

It’s certainly not a leap to draw a conclusion then that though some members may have had concerns about the Saudi’s, ultimately they came to the conclusion that PIF should be allowed to purchase the club no ?

I think it would be quite a stretch to say any of those 97% were vehemently opposed to the Saudis buying the club. 
 

In fact I would say it would be pretty safe to assume that 3% would be the figure vehemently opposed to it.

 

Which brings me back to the original point of these protesters wanting PIF out of the club, why would anyone of the 97% (the majority of supporters) be supportive ?
 

Nobody is condoning abusing them or dismissing concerns about human rights, but what they want ultimately puts them at odds with the vast majority of the fanbase does it not ? 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by Whitley mag

[TheBrownBottle]

I’m ok with people not giving a shite and I’m ok with people protesting against the ownership.

 

I’ve no time for the rank hypocrisy of swathes of the press, and I do get irritated by a certain type of comment by NUFC supporters re all this.  One which goes something like ‘I knew nowt about KSA human rights abuses and don’t care about them now - and anyone who pretends they did is talking shite’.  It’s the assumption that everyone has the same interests in what goes on outside of the NE / UK.  The first part of that sentence is an honest one - no issues really if someone doesn’t give a shite.  Just don’t assume that what might apply to you and your mates applies to everyone else.  

[Pata]

It’s a fact that I can’t prove that the number would be very different if we were owned by someone decent instead of Ashley when PIF came knocking on our door. Everyone was just desperate to get rid of Ashley.

[OverThere]

Seems to me we are talking about Saudi way more than we ever did so not sure how the sports washing is painting them in a more favorable light. You would think the best course of action would be to maintain a much lower profile?

[ohmelads]

17 hours ago, Tiresias said:

Pretty much agree with everyone above, am skeptical of influence the other way to Saudi Arabia but I could be wrong.

 

There are two very intertwined, but also sometimes confused issues here. 

 

Money and Geopolitical involvement in sport. Just to illustrate distinction, if Saudi Arabia bought us for sportswashing but made no investment whatsoever it still would be wrong. I would also argue, that any nation state no matter their benevolence on the global scale should not buy football clubs to advertise themselves, even if everyone agrees how wonderful they are. To illustrate I think it's handy to think through what a football club is and ought to be, because it's not an advertising board for regimes, but also they aren't truly businesses either. They are too embedded and important to communities. To illustrate this immagine the sentimental community side of football was all bollocks, that it is just a paid piece of entertainment like Game of Thrones, then NUFC would have been cancelled 5 years into the Ashley regime, noone would go. 

 

Football clubs should be run and regulated with that in mind, but they are instead run to maximise profits or to be propaganda outlets. It's obscene. 

 

And then we get on the is it wrong for one club to be much richer than the others. Yes of course it is, a competitive league is absolutely integral to the quality of the league. It is slightly more complicated in that I do understand, the league wants the best players in it, and to get them you need to have more money in the league than other leagues, and we can't run it like a closed shop unless all the leagues accross europe all agreed to the same rules, but the super league idea which would have cemented the same 6 clubs into their position at the top would have killed the league. Clubs that are run really well like Brighton absolutely should have a chance of transfering that competence into challenging for the league and yet there is very very little chance of doing so, or even of getting top 4. Clubs run like Man U or Chelsea that make continuing mistakes or changes of direction but just spend their out of it should be punished. 

 

This is slightly why I am a bit less critical of the current Financial Fair Play rules, which are awful and seem geared to preventing clubs like us competing, they should do a lot more to limit some nonsense elsewhere, but, even if we would have done it this way anyway, I am happy to see us succeed by spending sensibly, buying players with sell on, looking to build academy, all stuff that is what should be done.

 

Unfortunately noone, not the league, not uefa, not the government, not the fa are interested in tackling these issues, because as discussed above, football is not a random tv show that will be cancelled if it is bad, everyone is too invested to take serious action so instead it is ruthlessly exploited to suck money out of it and to make Saudi Arabia look good. I sympathise a lot with a lot of football pundits who are appalled that football allowed us to be bought by saudi arabia, but they sometimes direct their ire at us as if we are the only ones who 'should' be boycotting football, as if that is a reasonable ask. 

 

 

Fair points.

 

The Saudi takeover is a symptom of a much, much bigger problem that you outline well there. The pundits you mention love to focus on it because it's a handy deflection from the corrupt and broken system which has rewarded them so handsomely. I'm sure we'll be hearing from them during the Qatar World Cup as they enjoy their slice of that pie as well. Call me a cynic, but if the Saudis weren't putting money in and we were harmlessly languishing around the relegation places, rival fans and pundits wouldn't care. People might say that's hypothetical, but look at Sheff United. 100% owned by a Saudi Prince since 2019, part owned by him since 2013. They even released their own 'Saudi' kit. No one talks about it and many don't even seem aware of it.

 

I'd happily see the Saudis gone IF the whole cartel system with European money was demolished and a regulated, fairer, sustainable system put in place (what they could look like is another debate entirely). As it is, we and 13 other Premier League clubs find ourselves permanently caught up in a rigged system in which the only way to lay a glove on the "big six" is with massive outside investment. Even then, if you don't spend it wisely, it can all backfire because of FFP (look at Everton). As you rightly point out, without outside money, you can be run far better than Man U yet you'll never get near them. We may become part of that cartel, or we may not, but the system is just as broken either way. Getting the Saudis out of Newcastle does absolutely nothing to fix football.

 

Incidentally, on the subject of FFP, it could have been and could yet be our undoing (let's see what other barriers are put in place by the big six), but so far it's done us a favour because the owners are being forced to come in and look at how they can grow the club sustainably.

[Darth Crooks]

A Saudi Prince is a different prospect to the crown Prince of the country and the sovereign wealth fund mind. I agree there’s a significant element of the ‘big 6’ bristling but my admittedly limited understanding of ‘Prince’ in Saudi terms is more akin to the landed gentry rather than a royal family and influence as we have it. To bring it back from that tangent - I agree on the deflection from corruption aspect/broken game factor and critique of the discourse and some of the intentions of the most vocal or notorious critics.
 

I find that criticism a bit of deflection from the issue itself and looking forward there’s going to be a point where much like the Chelsea Russian oligarch situation, we may have a difference of policy as a nation as the world (including KSA) diversifies away from reliance on ME oil and traditional foreign policy alliances are less significant as a result and then the vacuum left by that brings other issues to the fore.

 

This links to wider geopolitics in the region including the role of alliances with Russia, China and the increasing divides in the world. This is or course a mess and somewhat unpredictable.

 

Theres a widely held view that football and politics should be kept separate and I’ve made inferences to things that may not happen and are someway off if they do but it’s exactly the sort of significance foresight the Ashley era has ingrained into me. This is the biggest example of politics and football meeting you’ll ever see - our third kit is a Saudi national flag a season in. If you’re not concerned about the issues posed by the Chelsea example then I don’t think you are considering the full implications.

Ad hominem attacks of critics and intentions ignores the green and white elephant in the room that it’s not an ultimate good and a big example, if not the biggest of the problems with the beautiful game. We’ll be part of a super league proposal within a decade probably and where will our principles be then? I also don’t have any specific prejudice re Saudi Arabia beyond what the scale of this represents. I’d be the same of any other sovereign state. Not too thrilled France and China own lots of stake in our utilities for instance for similar reasons. Another point as to why this football/politics separation has been blown out of the water by this.
 

I realise this is all conjecture but for me it’s why my full throated support for NUFC hasn’t returned in the way it was when I was protesting Ashley and in the halcyon days of being a 1992’er.

 

(born in 86 - soz mackems ?)

 

We’ll see success and great days and players in the short-medium term and that for many is true priority. I also get that - people have so much strife, priority and bandwidth in their lives - it’s not always a case of ‘education’. I actually think quality of discourse is a far more constructive factor in these matters than ‘the need for education/information’. I think the fact there’s prominent space on this forum for it is a net good and people though fairly partisan on this by and large keep a healthy debate. One that more disingenuous critics don’t take the time to see or find.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Darth Crooks

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

56 minutes ago, Darth Crooks said:

A Saudi Prince is a different prospect to the crown Prince of the country and the sovereign wealth fund mind. I agree there’s a significant element of the ‘big 6’ bristling but my admittedly limited understanding of ‘Prince’ in Saudi terms is more akin to the landed gentry rather than a royal family and influence as we have it. To bring it back from that tangent - I agree on the deflection from corruption aspect/broken game factor and critique of the discourse and some of the intentions of the most vocal or notorious critics.
 

I find that criticism a bit of deflection from the issue itself and looking forward there’s going to be a point where much like the Chelsea Russian oligarch situation, we may have a difference of policy as a nation as the world (including KSA) diversifies away from reliance on ME oil and traditional foreign policy alliances are less significant as a result and then the vacuum left by that brings other issues to the fore.

 

This links to wider geopolitics in the region including the role of alliances with Russia, China and the increasing divides in the world. This is or course a mess and somewhat unpredictable.

 

Theres a widely held view that football and politics should be kept separate and I’ve made inferences to things that may not happen and are someway off if they do but it’s exactly the sort of significance foresight the Ashley era has ingrained into me. This is the biggest example of politics and football meeting you’ll ever see - our third kit is a Saudi national flag a season in. If you’re not concerned about the issues posed by the Chelsea example then I don’t think you are considering the full implications.

Ad hominem attacks if critics and intentions ignores the green and white elephant in the room that it’s not an ultimate good and a big example, if not the biggest of the problems with the beautiful game. We’ll be part of a super league proposal within a decade probably and where will our principles be then? I also don’t have any specific prejudice re Saudi Arabia beyond what the scale of this represents. I’d be the same of any other sovereign state. Not too thrilled France and China own lots of stake in our utilities for instance for similar reasons. Another point as to why this football/politics separation has been blown out of the water by this.
 

I realise this is all conjecture but for me it’s why my full throated support for NUFC hasn’t returned in the way it was when I was protesting Ashley and in the halcyon days of being a 1992’er.

 

(born in 86 - soz mackems ?)

 

We’ll see success and great days and players in the short-medium term and that for many is true priority. I also get that - people have so much strife, priority and bandwidth in their lives - it’s not always a case of ‘education’. I actually think quality of discourse is a far more constructive factor in these matters than ‘the need for education/information’. I think the fact there’s prominent space on this forum for it is a net good and people though fairly partisan on this by and large keep a healthy debate. One that more disingenuous critics don’t take the time to see or find.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are top 6 & the hitherto unchallenged big 6 know that 

[arnonel]

Has anyone ever actually seen the list of PIF holdings? 

 

Its really staggering. To list a few: Starbucks, Uber, Facebook, Bank of America, Game companies such as EA, Capcom etc

 

Looking forward to people boycouting Fifa 23

[Chris_R]

58 minutes ago, Darth Crooks said:

A Saudi Prince is a different prospect to the crown Prince of the country and the sovereign wealth fund mind.

 

Where do you think the Saudi Prince got his money from?

 

It's only different in scale, and perhaps more importantly in impact to the supporters of other clubs. Ultimately hardly anybody cares about any takeover provided it doesn't negatively impact their own clubs' finishing position.

 

See how little uproar there's been about them "sportswashing" by having a Saudi Grand Prix - A few noises were made, but ultimately nobody really cared because nobody's "team" was negatively impacted even though the intent - to sportswash their country's reputation - is identical to their reason for taking over at Newcastle. So why the comparative silence? Same with boxing fights being held there, a little noise but nothing major. Same reason.

 

The overwhelming amount of noise is just fear that their team will be "unfairly" pushed down a peg, maybe out of the CL places or maybe out of the league. Supporters of teams we cannot affect - Championship and down (excepting the mackems because they're terrified of seeing us win stuff) don't really care to anywhere near the same extent. If there was equal uproar from the same people about all Saudi sportswashing projects, then fair enough, I could take it seriously. But it's targetted mainly - often exclusively - at us and there's a very good reason for that, and it has very little to do with human rights concerns. And because that targetted criticism is so provably disingenuous, it should be treat with a certain level of contempt.

 

This doesn't mean us being taken over by the Saudis is good. It isn't, on many levels. I'm very clear that I'd far rather have benevolent owners IF everything was fair across the league. But given the ownership models at every other "competitive" club at the top end of the league, this is the only way I'll ever get to see Newcastle challenge for anything, so bring it on. I welcome it, openly, for pure football reasons. I'm 45 now and in over 30 years of going to matches I have seen us win the square root of fuck all. Meanwhile, many other clubs have been bankrolled by foreign investment and have pulled clear of us. Now they want to pull the ladder up and keep their little club just for themselves. Fuck them. I want to see us lift a trophy or two. I want to enjoy those same good feelings they've had. I'm sick of being told we don't deserve it. That we're nothing. That existing in the same league, fighting for scraps from their table should be enough, and that I should be grateful for that.

 

On a different note, I also have a hope on some level that the sportswashing works both ways. Ultimately, if we shun states and make them pariahs they can just do whatever they want behind closed doors a la North Korea, China and Russia. But if Saudi Arabia owning Newcastle means they think twice next time they want to do something abhorrent, like chop up a journalist or behead someone for being gay, then maybe some good can come of it. If they know that these actions will be blown all over the press because of their ownership of Newcastle, or that it might even ultimately jeopardise that ownership, then they might moderate their actions somewhat and that is surely a good thing. Those that think this is a pipe dream should remember that the Saudis paid £1bn to their mortal enemies Qatar to settle the piracy dispute, just so they can push this takeover through. They want it to be a success, and they're willing to go to great lengths to make and protect that investment. They'll absolutely want to behave themselves going forward and keep their noses clean.

 

Also, by exposing the Saudi populace to our culture and way of life, you can in a small way start to make them a little more liberal. As someone who has been to Saudi 10 times for work, often for over a month at a time over the last 10 years, I've seen a gradual liberalisation there. It's come on so much from how it was back in 2012 and I hope that continues. Maybe in a small way, ownership of our club can help accelerate that.

 

Ultimately though my fifth paragraph is the main one for me. If we're not going to be allowed to compete "fairly", I'm more than happy for us to be bankrolled. I'm not a politician, I'm a football fan. I'll judge the owners of my football club on how they run that football club, not on what else they do. That's for people in those fields to look at. And if the government are happy to work with those owners, I don't see why I should lose a single moment's sleep over them running my football club.

[Darth Crooks]

I guess people don’t hold the same regional and heritage ties in a sport like the Grand Prix. There’s a very apparent set of hypocrisies at play which is fine to point out  and is valid.- but ultimately doesn’t address any part of that issues. What can be done about is beyond fans but I don’t subscribe to the view of I can’t change it so why bother worrying. Systemically it’s a problem down the line and we’re now the apex of it.

[Chris_R]

Ultimately, fans of other clubs want Newcastle fans to be more angry about the ownership of Newcastle than they themselves are willing to be about the Saudi Grand Prix or Saudi boxing fights.

 

Because ultimately it's not about concerns over sportswashing at all, it's just about knowing there's nothing they can do over our ownership and likely future investment and so they're wanting us to do what they can't: To force our owners out, to shoot ourselves in the foot so they can pull the ladder up again, and so that we can go back to where they think we "belong".

 

When we refuse to do this, they get angry. I get it. I've been angry at every "suger daddy" takeover in the league since Jack Walker. But let's recognise their anger for what it is and dismiss it accordingly.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Chris_R

[St. Maximin]

2 hours ago, arnonel said:

Has anyone ever actually seen the list of PIF holdings? 

 

Its really staggering. To list a few: Starbucks, Uber, Facebook, Bank of America, Game companies such as EA, Capcom etc

 

Looking forward to people boycouting Fifa 23

An argument I've seen is they don't control the majority of those companies like with NUFC. The flip side is they are much bigger and therefore far more Saudi money has gone into them. Ultimately people can choose their position and what they feel happy with or not and I'm fine with that. More an issue when people start telling people what to think or try to influence a takeover to be blocked due to 'sportswashing'. It's fine to be concerned about that, but it's a subjective take on a situation rather than a legal issue and therefore not a reason to prevent a business transaction.

[Tiresias]

But buying a football club should be more than a 'business transaction'. So many clubs are bought and looted they are community assets not pure businesses. They are built on community loyality and tradition and so have been exploited. The reasons I have outlined a few posts back. The idea that buying it is purely a legal issue and therefore noone should be able to stop it is poor in my opinion. 

 

They have invested far and wide because partially if they are embedded in western economies it is harder for them to be sanctioned, partially I am sure it is to make money somewhere, partially to exert some influence on businesses they have invested in. 

 

I have no problem with anyone not being concerned about the sportwashing, as outlined above, it's not a business one can expect people to just stop going to, it is embedded in the fabric of peoples lives too much. If the argument from our fans though is they're not sportswashing though I would challenge that because that implies somewhat that you would have a problem with it if it is sportwashing, and i don't really know what definition of sportswashing there is apart from what is going on with our club. 

 

I would argue perfectly reasonable to also argue it is sportswashing but it doesn't work, all it does is keep the conversation about saudi araba having issues in their governance in the public sphere. I am not sure where i stand on that but I am resolved if I am going to enjoy the benefits to try and publically not be taken in by them.