Newcastle United Discussion

[Rucksackfranzose]

23 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

the US has the death penalty but it's hardly used, America has a unsustainable incarceration problem with far to many convicts.  instead of culling the herd or building bigger prisons, they just turned country into a prison.

America's rampant lawlessness is attributed to a corrupt government, failing legal system and diminishing law enforcement, while the population is going up, ie more people, less cops per person.

Germany is a tiny population relative to the US.

Doesn't change the fact the murder rate is 0.7 per 100´k inhabitants, while the murder rate in the US is 5.0 per 100k inhabitants. You see the gulf is still massive even, if you don't only count the cases but also their relative occurence.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Rucksackfranzose

[OrangeKhrush]

Just now, Spike said:

That is completely wrong. The USA wants a high incarceration rate for the industrial prison complex. It’s a business like any other. It’s entirely by design to create a lower class of people with no chance of rehabilitation, just to exploit them. They are saddled with a debt to the prison, no skills, emotional damage, and very little employment opportunity. It creates a cycle of ignorance that exploits prison labour and ensures that there is always an excess of labour in the occupational fields that they can enter.

Do you ever think how fucked up it sounds when you type out shit like ‘cull the herd’? Straight out a chattel  slavery guidebook. 

America is interested in selling war and geopolitical destabilization and creation of colonialism by proxy, anyone that talks out about it or brings out the dirty laundry is imprisoned and exiled or those that do not eat from the hand of the military industrial complex are persecuted.   The US is a perfect technocracy, where a single corporate controls both aisles and no matter who wins, the agenda is the same.

the prison complex is just the government turning the country into a gulag. 

if we are going to talk about countries that are going backwards, the US is prime case.  the adoption of a parliament commission which panders as a court of law despite being a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, parliament using judicial powers beyond their scope in order to remove opponents, shades of the 1952-58 constitutional crisis in South Africa when the government created a fake court to pass laws and circumvent the Appellate Division judicial oversight.

poverty is growing because of political corruption and they have no intention to change.  Baltimore has been under one party rule for half a century and the demographic remains poor and education is substandard, this is similar in Chicago, new York, Oakland, Oregon, Virginia, Los Angeles.   while certain people get poor, the connected get richer.    

I think we can agree that the world is a bad place and the problem with America in its current state is that it can escalate to war and other major problems.   Saudi Arabia has had its laws from well before western society and over the last 30 thry have reformed a lot of laws.

I still fail to see how a football club that generates all its money from football operations is linked to Saudi Arabia, if investing is a link to politics then SaudiArabia owns America as they are invested into everything.

[Spike]

@Dr. GonzoRemember when I was complaining about how Twitter users couldn’t differentiate between the use of federal and public wealth and private wealth? It happened again 

[Dr. Gonzo]

13 hours ago, N U F C said:

What exactly do you want Newcastle fans to do about it? Stop supporting their club? 

Maybe protest being owned by a public fund of a fucked up dictatorship in the stands… even if it ends up being half as much effort as it was when fans were protesting Ashley being a cheap fuck.

[Stan]

See, simple to do. 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

18 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Germany is a tiny population relative to the US.

Germany's population is more than double Saudi Arabia's, yet you still compared them to the US.

[Dr. Gonzo]

17 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

America is interested in selling war and geopolitical destabilization and creation of colonialism by proxy

If you think that's bad, wait til you learn who's the biggest financial backer of... Al Qaeda and ISIS!

[Spike]

43 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If you think that's bad, wait til you learn who's the biggest financial backer of... Al Qaeda and ISIS!

Todd Boehly?

[Dr. Gonzo]

15 minutes ago, Spike said:

Todd Boehly?

Nah, although PIF does own a minority share in the company that's majority shareholder of Chelsea (which is weirdly somehow not a conflict of interest in the eyes of the league). But the same country that thinks it's alright to dismember critical journalists while they're still alive is strangely one of the biggest backers of those two groups that are intent on selling holy war and creating geopolitical destabilization.

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Nah, although PIF does own a minority share in the company that's majority shareholder of Chelsea (which is weirdly somehow not a conflict of interest in the eyes of the league). But the same country that thinks it's alright to dismember critical journalists while they're still alive is strangely one of the biggest backers of those two groups that are intent on selling holy war and creating geopolitical destabilization.

They hold under 10% shares in clearlake which is not a conflict of interest per the FA and UEFA rules.   

Why will they fund religious fundamentalists for the Iran/Syria State when Iran is not a political ally,  maybe Al Qaeda once upon a time though Al Qaeda was backed by the UK, Europe, the US so it's all academic. 

[OrangeKhrush]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

Todd Boehly?

He is waging a jihad on Chelsea. 

[Cicero]

16 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

They hold under 10% shares in clearlake which is not a conflict of interest per the FA and UEFA rules.   

Why will they fund religious fundamentalists for the Iran/Syria State when Iran is not a political ally,  maybe Al Qaeda once upon a time though Al Qaeda was backed by the UK, Europe, the US so it's all academic. 

1.5% share, of which these assets are being managed in a separate portfolio. 

During the sanctions the Premier League did their investigation to see where the Clearlake funds were coming from. 

[OrangeKhrush]

Just now, Cicero said:

1.5% share, of which these assets are being managed in a separate portfolio. 

During the sanctions the Premier League did their investigation to see where the Clearlake funds were coming from. 

I think it is all above board, however I am not sure I like the idea of the PIF helping Chelsea out by bailing them out of hamstringing contracts. 

[Cicero]

.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Cicero

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, OrangeKhrush said:

They hold under 10% shares in clearlake which is not a conflict of interest per the FA and UEFA rules.   

Why will they fund religious fundamentalists for the Iran/Syria State when Iran is not a political ally,  maybe Al Qaeda once upon a time though Al Qaeda was backed by the UK, Europe, the US so it's all academic. 

They fund ISIS because they fund wahhabi terror groups - which are very different from the terror groups Iran funds, because they're a completely different sect of Islam. Wahhabis are Sunni extremists believe that Shias (most of Iran's population) are all heretics that deserve to die, so ISIS is an interesting group in that they're an enemy to the west... as well as an enemy to Iran. Iran funds Shia extremists because they're... Shia extremists. I think you've got Al Qaeda also confused with the Mujahideen of Afghanistan. Now Al Qaeda's still backed by the Saudis and gets some assistance from the US/UK/EU with the Saudis war on the Houthis in Yemen.

Anyways to answer your question, even though you've got... all the facts wrong... is they fund these extremists to reduce Shia influence over Syria (because while Syria's mostly Sunni, Assad's got closer ties to Iran and Russia than to the rest of the Islamic world) and to reimpose their puppet government over Yemen (which the Houthis challenge with their civil war).

In any case, the Saudis are just as guilty of what you've accused the US of doing (and which the US does do all the time)... prime difference being there's no football team in the UK owned by the public fund of the US government, whereas there is a football team owned by the public fund of Saudi Arabia. My respect for Newcastle United fans would be so much higher if the fanbase at large wasn't willing to twerk for this government just because Mike Ashley was a cunt.

A large chunk of the fanbase is just saying human rights abuses don't matter to them as long as the football club is good. It's disgraceful.

[Spike]

 

[RandoEFC+]

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

My respect for Newcastle United fans would be so much higher if the fanbase at large wasn't willing to twerk for this government just because Mike Ashley was a cunt.

The problem is any fanbase would be pretty much the same no matter how much you want to believe otherwise that your club or fanbase is 'special' or more morally upstanding. You can only deal with individuals one at a time rather than criticising a full fanbase for it. Social media and the horrid football "banter pages" and shit Paddy Power memes have created an environment where your team having the bragging rights just right now is more important than acknowledging that the reasons they have them are a bit dodgy. I'd deem Everton to be a football club with a fanbase that have genuine morals and wouldn't just roll over to have their tummies tickled if the club was bought by a dictator or something, but Alisher Usmanov, a known dodgy bastard and Putin affiliate, was involved with us in the background for a while until he was sanctioned and there was no shortage of Evertonians on Twitter calling for him to sponsor the new stadium or whatever to cause a Man City-esque cash injection to the club that subverted FFP.

And that's another problem in itself, as soon as one club does what City have done with their financial "peculiarities", got away with it and been rewarded with trebles and domination of the English game, why should any other fanbase feel bad about doing the same thing? It just gives any fan such an easy excuse to say 'well our club might be doing this but look over there'. 

You might like to think Liverpool fans would be different and you'd hound out any Saudi or Emirati owners but as soon as they bought you Mbappe or something you'd get enough people on social media saying "it's not ideal but this is what we need to stay competitive" and "I don't care what happens off the pitch, I just support this football team" and "City and Newcastle have done this so why should we feel bad about it" and then you all get tarred with the same brush of defending the corrupt owners or regime.

I don't know many Newcastle fans so I can't judge what sort of proportion of their fanbase is doing these mental gymnastics to convince themselves and others that the Saudis aren't as unpleasant as they are. Some people put a lot of effort into it though and anyone incapable of condemning them should be challenged on an individual basis.

[N U F C]

On 19/06/2023 at 07:26, Dr. Gonzo said:

Maybe protest being owned by a public fund of a fucked up dictatorship in the stands… even if it ends up being half as much effort as it was when fans were protesting Ashley being a cheap fuck.

And Liverpool fans would do that would they? Aye right.

[Honey Honey]

2 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

I don't know many Newcastle fans so I can't judge what sort of proportion of their fanbase is doing these mental gymnastics to convince themselves and others that the Saudis aren't as unpleasant as they are. Some people put a lot of effort into it though and anyone incapable of condemning them should be challenged on an individual basis.

I can tell you now that offline no one really talks about it. People are only talking about the football. Even other fans don't talk about anything but the football to you. It had its moment when the takeover was happening, then the topic moved on, it only pops up as the occasional open chat, not the aggressive closed chat online.

It's not really possible to follow Newcastle online any more in a cross-fan environment. Have you ever wondered why a fanbase as big as Man City's only ever had 1 representative on here, someone who had to adopt an odd personna to shut down the constant drag on his clubs threads? Including by me in the past.

That's us now. That's the us you are going to see. The environment encourages the queer and the novel.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, N U F C said:

And Liverpool fans would do that would they? Aye right.

I’d ditch the club if Saudis bought them

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

The problem is any fanbase would be pretty much the same no matter how much you want to believe otherwise that your club or fanbase is 'special' or more morally upstanding. You can only deal with individuals one at a time rather than criticising a full fanbase for it. Social media and the horrid football "banter pages" and shit Paddy Power memes have created an environment where your team having the bragging rights just right now is more important than acknowledging that the reasons they have them are a bit dodgy. I'd deem Everton to be a football club with a fanbase that have genuine morals and wouldn't just roll over to have their tummies tickled if the club was bought by a dictator or something, but Alisher Usmanov, a known dodgy bastard and Putin affiliate, was involved with us in the background for a while until he was sanctioned and there was no shortage of Evertonians on Twitter calling for him to sponsor the new stadium or whatever to cause a Man City-esque cash injection to the club that subverted FFP.

And that's another problem in itself, as soon as one club does what City have done with their financial "peculiarities", got away with it and been rewarded with trebles and domination of the English game, why should any other fanbase feel bad about doing the same thing? It just gives any fan such an easy excuse to say 'well our club might be doing this but look over there'. 

You might like to think Liverpool fans would be different and you'd hound out any Saudi or Emirati owners but as soon as they bought you Mbappe or something you'd get enough people on social media saying "it's not ideal but this is what we need to stay competitive" and "I don't care what happens off the pitch, I just support this football team" and "City and Newcastle have done this so why should we feel bad about it" and then you all get tarred with the same brush of defending the corrupt owners or regime.

I don't know many Newcastle fans so I can't judge what sort of proportion of their fanbase is doing these mental gymnastics to convince themselves and others that the Saudis aren't as unpleasant as they are. Some people put a lot of effort into it though and anyone incapable of condemning them should be challenged on an individual basis.

Tbh for me it’s a bit personal, I could never support a club that’s basically just an advert for an evil family that thinks half of my family are subhuman.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, N U F C said:

And Liverpool fans would do that would they? Aye right.

Other’s inaction doesn’t justify inaction

[RandoEFC+]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Tbh for me it’s a bit personal, I could never support a club that’s basically just an advert for an evil family that thinks half of my family are subhuman.

Well that's fair enough. I was about to say "it's easy to say that when it's hypothetical" but I forgot that you have family links to that part of the world.

You'd still be in a tiny minority though and not enough people would wash their hands of the club to make up even a small percentage of the fanbase.

[Spike]

9 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Well that's fair enough. I was about to say "it's easy to say that when it's hypothetical" but I forgot that you have family links to that part of the world.

You'd still be in a tiny minority though and not enough people would wash their hands of the club to make up even a small percentage of the fanbase.

It doesn’t matter. Any stand worth taking should be. Everything starts off small and from those little things big things happen. Change doesn’t happen by giving up at the start.

[DeadLinesman]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I’d ditch the club if Saudis bought them

Yup. If Qatar is in at United, I’m out. I know there’s the inevitable “oH tHyLL miSs yOu aS oNe SuPpOrTeR”. For me, it’s a personal choice. I’ve long stated clubs shouldn’t be state owned.