JM14
Well-known member
It’s not dishonest it’s entirely in the rules which is why it was sanctioned by the premier league
Newcastle Arabia
- Thread starter Badonde
- Start date
Jedi boro
Well-known member
So not dishonest they had to settle it in court.
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
Accepting funds from Saudi Arabia shows a lack of integrity, lacking integrity falls within the definition of being dishonest.
Dishonesty is cheating, ergo, Newcastle are cheating by accepting funds from Saudi Arabia.
Not that the cheating element is the major thing, the moral aspect of it is the sickener.
JM14
Well-known member
So is it Ashley you’re accusing of lacking integrity for selling? I don’t think he was overly bothered provided he got his money. The fans can’t exactly do much, not like they had a say in any of it
Football is fully of money from questionable sources, why are you only questioning newcastle?
JM14
Well-known member
What was the outcome?
BobUpnDown
Well-known member
We all know where the money comes from & how rained it is: dripping in blood & oppression..
Players, managers & to a lesser degree fans may shrug their shoulders, turn a blind eye & go mute about 40 year sentences for a tweet & mass executions.. however it will stick in the minds of everyone else.
I do think the failure to back western world v Russia will eventually come back to bite them, the USA will not come to their rescue in decades ahead when oil is less important & Iran is causing havoc inside their borders..
Players, managers & to a lesser degree fans may shrug their shoulders, turn a blind eye & go mute about 40 year sentences for a tweet & mass executions.. however it will stick in the minds of everyone else.
I do think the failure to back western world v Russia will eventually come back to bite them, the USA will not come to their rescue in decades ahead when oil is less important & Iran is causing havoc inside their borders..
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
Of course the Newcastle fans could have stopped Saudi Arabia from buying the club or they could force him to sell now. The fans lack integrity.
He bought Newcastle to sportswash his murderous regime. Newcastle fans could boycott games, they could protest, a load of banners highlighting the human rights abuses would soon chase Saudi Arabia out of the club.
Newcastle are the subject of this thread. You are right in that there is a much broader issue in terms of unfit owners taking control of clubs, it's a massive issue.
JM14
Well-known member
Would you just never go to another game in your life if you didn’t like the owner? Football is a way of life for so many people it’s completely naive to think any fan would just suddenly stop going in protest. A protest that would just do nothing because someone else would just take your seat considering they have a waiting list for tickets.
Ultimately fans have very little power over their ownership, look at what Man Utd fans have done for years, it’s made zero difference to their ownership. It’s all worth billions they won’t care what a selection of the supporters think
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
Comparing the Glazers to the Saudis is a bit of an odd choice?
Some avaricious US owner would be bad enough but are you aware of the human rights abuses happening in Saudi Arabia?
Maybe Saudi chose to buy Newcastle as they gambled the fanbase would be too docile and spineless to kick up a fuss?
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
The point I was making was that both were bought out to promote their respective states, albeit for different reasons.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Putin had nothing to with Chelsea, Roman money was washing through Moscow
Not the same at all.
I would never watch the Boro again if they were taken over by an oppressive regime such as KSA. I wouldn't be alone, either.
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
I think we need to agree to disagree on this one
Jedi boro
Well-known member
He has influence no doubt but he has zero power in mother Russia, putin is a dictatorI think we need to agree to disagree on this one
Just like in the ksa
JM14
Well-known member
I’m not comparing them, I’m saying fans can make as much fuss and cause as much trouble as possible even to the extend of games being called off as seen with Man Utd, and it still makes zero difference to the clubs ownership
If you want football or even sport in general to be funded by money that’s 100% clean you will struggle to watch anything
JM14
Well-known member
Everyone says that but it would be much different if it actually happened. I certainly wouldn’t change a huge part of my life because of who owned the club and as seen with the crowds at newcastle most football fans won’t either
Jonny Ingbar
Well-known member
This describes the similarities between the two much better than I could....
So Abramovich was on Team Putin the whole time. Who knew? | Marina Hyde
With the erstwhile Chelsea boss sanctioned, many feign surprise at his links to the Kremlin. Oh come on; we’ve been turning a blind eye for years, says Guardian columnist Marina Hyde
www.theguardian.com
Colgates_shaving_foam
Well-known member
The glazer ownership is totally different. They are in it for the money.
KSA are in it purely so that they can try and throw a veneer of acceptance on their brutal regime. Therefore, if Newcastle fans protested at games with banners and chants against the regime, this would embarrass KSA and they would look to get out of the club ASAP.
Newcastle fans could take their club back if they weren't so gutless.
JM14
Well-known member
Don’t be daft, I hardly doubt a few banners and protests would force the owners to sell.
When they are throwing hundreds of millions at the club and many more millions into the area why would their fans protest anyway if it’s deemed legal and acceptable by the premier league? I highly doubt you would have any set of fans protesting that if they found themselves in the same position