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

[Smal]

17 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

All due respect, I was part of a group that couldn't talk the majority of the fanbase into protesting against Mike Ashley despite him being universally loathed. You'd have more joy selling garlic in Transylvania than protesting against this lot in Newcastle. 

 

 

 

I can think of no greater example of this being the case than United with Pride's welcoming statement. If even they wouldn't condemn the takeover then...

 

2 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Like everyone knows this is the case, but what do people like you get out of repeating yourself like this?

 

Genuine question and I'm not trying to be a prick (for once), I have issues with it myself.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "people like you", which certainly makes it sound like a loaded question tbh , but if someone is likening it to any other international fixture as though there's no difference to, for example, Brazil playing at Arsenal's ground, then I thought they perhaps might need it spelling out again with emphasis. 

 

3 minutes ago, Barnes23 said:

The degree of separation between the actions of a regime and a national football team

 

Of course the Saudi football team have nothing to do with the actions of their state and nobody is suggesting such. But, you know, why else would their national team be playing at our ground if not because of the obvious links between the club and their state? If their state didn't own our football club the Saudi Arabia NT would not be playing at St James'.

[Dr.Spaceman]

23 minutes ago, Smal said:

I can think of no greater example of this being the case than United with Pride's welcoming statement. If even they wouldn't condemn the takeover then...

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "people like you", which certainly makes it sound like a loaded question tbh , but if someone is likening it to any other international fixture as though there's no difference to, for example, Brazil playing at Arsenal's ground, then I thought they perhaps might need it spelling out again with emphasis. 

 

 

Of course the Saudi football team have nothing to do with the actions of their state and nobody is suggesting such. But, you know, why else would their national team be playing at our ground if not because of the obvious links between the club and their state? If their state didn't own our football club the Saudi Arabia NT would not be playing at St James'.

 

Apologies, I meant boring twats who repeat themselves from their high horse.

 

Barnes23 knows that, and you know he knows that. So back to my question, what do you get out of repeating yourself like that?

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Dr.Spaceman

[ExiledGeordie]

Holt will be all over this. Fwiw human rights should absolutely be reported on and acknowledged but the one sided bias from journos (E. holt) to fit their agenda is ridiculous. Nobody gave a shit about the region when Ashley was here and now apparently plenty of them are ready to stick the boot in now.

[Kid Icarus]

21 minutes ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said:

very well said, seems some people’s opinions matter more than others in they’re opinion

 

not one person on here agrees with civil or human rights abuse I wouldn’t of thought however the “inference” any fan / follower is in anyway complicit or agrees with any regime, dictatorship or other is just plain daft, you can debate til the cows come home but it won’t ever change a single thing in respect of this, we are where we are and from an entirely selfish point of view I’m delighted where we are as a team / club which is the only thing I’m concerned with.

 

I'm not looking for an argument, but this is a very much sanitised version of what's happened in the last couple of years imo.

 

I totally agree with the majority view being the bit that you've put in bold, but what's missing there imo is just how powerful that is in the fanbase and how far that can be taken. Imo it is the most brilliant example of how powerful material interests are, where in this case the material interest of the football club people support is driving them to do things like openly abuse Jamal Khashoggi's partner or Amnesty International. I'm sure the vast majority will say that they don't want to defend the regime, dictatorship etc as you say, but when some of the same people then go and act like that, it sure does either look like that's what they're doing, or that they've got their priorities all wrong. 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[Smal]

13 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Apologies, I meant boring twats who repeat themselves from their high horse.

 

Rocker knows that, and you know he knows that. So back to my question, what do you get out of repeating yourself like that?

I don't get anything from it. Apologies if I've upset you. 

[arnonel]

For the 1000000th time

 

Wish people would stop being so binary

 

You can and should hate the atrocities in Saudi

You can and should LOVE the investment in the club and city

 

You dont have to pick only 1

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, arnonel said:

For the 1000000th time

 

Wish people would stop being so binary

 

You can and should hate the atrocities in Saudi

You can and should LOVE the investment in the club and city

 

You dont have to pick only 1

 

tbf I think it's that it's clearly NOT binary that's lead to this thread being 93 pages like. It's obviously very complicated, you'd be daft to suggest otherwise. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Hosting the Saudi team and wearing the Saudi kit is unfortunate IMO. Even seeing Yasir talk was a bit uncomfortable, maybe just because he looks more like a Saudi diplomat. 

 

It doesn't change the underlying situation that we are funded by a horrific regime, but it does make the link more explicit.

 

That said, it also doesn't change the fact that what Saudi do is nothing to do with Newcastle fans. We both shouldn't feel the need to defend them and shouldn't be blamed for supporting our club.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by AyeDubbleYoo

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, arnonel said:

For the 1000000th time

 

Wish people would stop being so binary

 

You can and should hate the atrocities in Saudi

You can and should LOVE the investment in the club and city

 

You dont have to pick only 1

 

I don't know anymore ... I think if people are not going to be able to deal with them wanting a kit in their countries colours (which is mostly being done to generate interest over there, and increase the clubs commercial income), or can't deal with them wanting their national team to play games at the club, then they shouldn't accept the ownership.

 

I think more should be done to go against the ownership in that case, because it's all too hypocritical in my opinion. You can't have them spend the money they did on the club and pour so much investment into the area and then rail against them anytime they do anything that draws attention to their country. Their never going to completely dumb down where they are from, it's just not going to happen. For the most part I think they are already very tempered in the way they conduct themselves but it will never be enough for some people.

 

Why not start a more aggressive movement to get them out then? Because ultimately i think too much is being asked of the ownership and it's really not realistic.

 

 

 

 

[ohmelads]

At the moment, most of the noise being created seems extremely cynical.

 

If you want to tackle human rights links to football, and want people to genuinely challenge states like Saudi Arabia, then you need real numbers behind you across the board and the message needs to be real and not just about fucking over rival clubs. Reality is if the Saudis were forced to sell and we were banished to the lower leagues, most rival fans would immediately stop talking or thinking about Saudi Arabia and most football fans would see the 'problem' as being solved. The BBC would stop reporting on it just as they didn't report on it before and as they almost never report on it now unless it's to do with us. That doesn't benefit anyone in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else. Sheff Utd are owned by a Saudi prince; no one cares. Arsenal will continue to get massive revenue from state-owned Emirates and have Visit Rwanda on their sleeve; nothing will be said. No one's asking Arteta about it in his post match interview. If Man U are bought out by a Qatar group, is Ten Hag going to be asked about it? No, and we all know why.

 

To get large numbers of football fans interested in human rights issues rather than fucking over their rivals, I think you need to go after the corruption at the highest levels of football and the protectionism of the established elite that forces clubs to seek outside investment (including from dodgy states) just to keep up. Newcastle fans, and fans of all clubs outside the sky 6 and their equivalents in other major European leagues, know that their club won't and can't compete without outside resources because the game's rigged against them. There's massive potential support but the Saudi ownership has become a smokescreen that turns these clubs against one another and creates a simplified narrative. It's no coincidence that the same clubs have dominated the major European leagues for decades. You'd get far more fans onside as part of a campaign to clean the whole game up rather than just getting the Saudis out to keep the sky 6 happy. 

[Wolfcastle]

1 hour ago, Smal said:

It's not just hosting any international fixture though is it. It's the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A state whose dictatorship regime commits war crimes and murders Yemeni schoolchildren, chops up journalists, executes LGBTQ people and imprisons any dissenting voices. 

 

They would be playing at SJP as a display and celebration of our club's links with that regime. 

England have played friendlies against and in Saudi Arabia. Sir Bobby famously getting the "in the name of Allah go".

 

They're fighting rebels trying to take over in Yemen who themselves are commiting those crimes. Its bad enough without the exile-esque misrepresentation of what's going on like its for no reason, deliberately targeted and they haven't been invited by the Yemeni government to help them stop an Iranian backed rebellion.

 

Having said that I'm totally against the friendly.

18 minutes ago, arnonel said:

For the 1000000th time

 

Wish people would stop being so binary

 

You can and should hate the atrocities in Saudi

You can and should LOVE the investment in the club and city

 

You dont have to pick only 1

Agree. Its a new trend of people backing themselves into corners with their stances on some things but being selective about where to apply it. Most people haven't done that so can, for example, buy trainers without ethically sourcing whether they've come from a sweatshop without meaning that they are  'pro sweatshop/slave labour' without contradiction.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Wolfcastle

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We should all be more ethical consumers ideally, in all areas where we spend money.

 

But football fans are particularly badly-placed to withdraw support, especially in our case since the ownership is going to make us massively successful

 

I do feel slightly weird that I was ready to completely walk away under Ashley, but now I'm 100% back in. Obviously because Ashley was destroying the club itself. But I did prove that I was prepared to walk away over ownership, he just made that particularly easy.  

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Solitude20]

1 hour ago, Smal said:

It's not just hosting any international fixture though is it. It's the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A state whose dictatorship regime commits war crimes and murders Yemeni schoolchildren, chops up journalists, executes LGBTQ people and imprisons any dissenting voices. 

 

They would be playing at SJP as a display and celebration of our club's links with that regime. 

 

Yet you didn’t raise those concerns when we spent their money on those record transfer fees.
 

Honestly I don’t get it, how can you have no issues with spending their cash to reach where we are today, enjoying their success managing the club so far, looking forward to their future investments, and getting excited by the transformation of the club under their ownership, but if their national team plays at SJP, it suddenly becomes a step too far and only then would their human rights record matter. I don’t get it honestly. 

To me, it’s all the same. You either accept all of it or none if it. I wouldn’t go and happily accept those links that directly benefit the club and draw a line against the links that don’t. 

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Well there is real hardship involved in accepting all of it isn't there?  bit of a cop out to me. 

[Tsunami]

Anyone know how much we’re getting paid to host this?

[Wandy]

We are in a partnership with the country of Saudi Arabia. They provide us with the funding to rebuild our football club and we provide them with the exposure to help them build a sporting empire, and thus increase their overall power & influence within the western world.

 

I don't have a problem with that at all. Having away kits that mimic the Saudi national team's, and hosting international games that feature their national team, is a very small concession to make.

 

This thread is not an accurate reflection of the overall fanbase. The vast majority are not uncomfortable with these people as club custodians. In fact they very much want them to be here.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The way I can sleep at night is basically, I don't choose where the money comes from, I wish it came from somewhere better.

 

Thinking of PIF as a financial investment fund who invests the money on Saudi Arabia provides a bit of separation, then the likes of Staveley provide even more. 

 

Also, the PL is full of dodgy money, so why shouldn't we have some. 

 

Also, fans are locked in and their club is something that can never belong to anyone but them.

 

It's not exactly a coherent position and I know maybe I should step away. But basically I can't, so I would rather the link to KSA was as remote as possible. 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Wolfcastle]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

We should all be more ethical consumers ideally, in all areas where we spend money. But football fans are particularly badly-placed to withdraw support, especially in our case since the ownership is going to make us massively successful

Heard an interesting take on this recently that some people will ethically source their coffee but paying into an illegal crime an slave ridden drugs trade without the slighest compunction.

[Smal]

6 minutes ago, Solitude20 said:

 

Yet you didn’t raise those concerns when we spent their money on those record transfer fees.
 

Honestly I don’t get it, how can you have no issues with spending their cash to reach where we are today, enjoying their success managing the club so far, looking forward to their future investments, and getting excited by the transformation of the club under their ownership, but if their national team plays at SJP, it suddenly becomes a step too far and only then would their human rights record matter. I don’t get it honestly. 

To me, it’s all the same. You either accept all of it or none if it. I wouldn’t go and happily accept those links that directly benefit the club and draw a line against the links that don’t. 

I have plenty of issues with them spending all this cash on transfers for us. Given how on the previous page in this thread of all threads I've already been called a "boring twat on their high horse" I think people might get a bit irked if I was in every thread on the football forum saying similar, don't you?

 

I'm glad the club has brought so much happiness to our fans after a miserable 15 years prior and that's the one silver lining, but to be clear I'd personally rather they hadn't bought the football club at all. I'm also not passing judgement on those who disagree. 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Smal

[Hanshithispantz]

I think the issue is a lot of people confuse being aware of something and thinking "I wish that wasn't the case" with being uncomfortable.

 

If you aren't actually uncomfortable with something you can quite easily pick and choose where to draw the lines, which we see here, or with chinese slave labour etc. Things are a lot more black and white when you're genuinely disturbed by something.

 

I'm not saying this to be a dick as I think people mean well, but the very vast majority of people claiming to be morally contorted by all of this aren't, they're just aware that they 'should' be in some alternate reality where we're not completely ambivalent to things we really shouldn't be.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Hanshithispantz

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, Wolfcastle said:

Heard an interesting take on this recently that some people will ethically source their coffee but paying into an illegal crime an slave ridden drugs trade without the slighest compunction.

 

Exactly, we are all hypocrites to some extent. And of course we're victims of capitalism and the market we're forced to live in. I shouldn't buy books from amazon because they don't pay tax, but I want the cheap books. 

 

Meh, I don't know what my conclusion is really, I would just rather the link to Saudi was kept low-key. But obviously that doesn't suit the owners themselves... why would it.   

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

We should all be more ethical consumers ideally, in all areas where we spend money.

 

But football fans are particularly badly-placed to withdraw support, especially in our case since the ownership is going to make us massively successful

 

I do feel slightly weird that I was ready to completely walk away under Ashley, but now I'm 100% back in. Obviously because Ashley was destroying the club itself. But I did prove that I was prepared to walk away over ownership, he just made that particularly easy.  

 

 Can walk away because the owner who doesn't buy players for the football club you support made it easy, MBS on the other hand...

 

Not having a go at you btw, we're all doing it, but it is fucked up like. I remember saying to Wullie around the time of the first bid that it really puts into perspective just how crazy football tribalism is that Mike Ashley's perceived as the baddie of the two between him and MBS. 

 

 

 

[KaKa]

2 minutes ago, Solitude20 said:

 

Yet you didn’t raise those concerns when we spent their money on those record transfer fees.
 

Honestly I don’t get it, how can you have no issues with spending their cash to reach where we are today, enjoying their success managing the club so far, looking forward to their future investments, and getting excited by the transformation of the club under their ownership, but if their national team plays at SJP, it suddenly becomes a step too far and only then would their human rights record matter. I don’t get it honestly. 

To me, it’s all the same. You either accept all of it or none if it. I wouldn’t go and happily accept those links that directly benefit the club and draw a line against the links that don’t. 

 

Pretty much how I see it too.

 

At least everything they are doing is strictly sports related. They are clearly trying to make Newcastle the most popular club for Saudi people to support, because that would have huge financial benefits.

 

Now lets say they started using SJP to host conferences or meetings outside of sports, for their regime or whatever, then of course that would be absolutely uncalled for, and would be a clear line that cannot be crossed.

 

This is strictly a sporting venture of theirs and should be completely separate from the practices that go on in their country, because ultimately this is how things ultimately work in numerous industries.

 

Having said that, if it's something that cannot be looked past, then it's better off for everyone if more efforts are put in to get them to leave.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

 

 Can walk away because the owner who doesn't buy players for the football club you support made it easy, MBS on the other hand...

 

Not having a go at you btw, we're all doing it, but it is fucked up like. I remember saying to Wullie around the time of the first bid that it really puts into perspective just how crazy football tribalism is that Mike Ashley's perceived as the baddie of the two between him and MBS. 

 

 

I do think it's a valid point though. Mike Ashley was actually killing the thing itself, and destroying the point of being a football fan. That's happening immediately to us, it's something that causes us real daily pain. 

 

Of course what KSA do is many times worse than anything Mike Ashley has done in his life, we all know that. But it never came with the same sort of conflict that this situation does. 

 

Also, I think if KSA had taken over from a decent owner we would have had a lot more protests at the time.  

[Wullie]

6 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

 Can walk away because the owner who doesn't buy players for the football club you support made it easy, MBS on the other hand...

 

Not having a go at you btw, we're all doing it, but it is fucked up like. I remember saying to Wullie around the time of the first bid that it really puts into perspective just how crazy football tribalism is that Mike Ashley's perceived as the baddie of the two between him and MBS. 

 

One of the funniest lines you see aimed unironically at journalists etc is along the lines of "You claim you care about suffering Yemeni children yet when we were the ones suffering under Ashley you said nothing!"