Newcastle United Discussion

[Spike]

9 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

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.

Anyway it’s not like a person has to support a club to watch the sport. I don’t support any clubs.

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

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.

Just being realistic. Man City, PSG and Newcastle's owners have coped just fine and the proportion of "proper" principled fans with links to the roots of the club in those fanbases is a lot larger than the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd who have ten bazillion global social media fans to fall back on even if a substantial number of the local and/or match-going core were to take the hump.

We all might feel strongly about our football clubs but most people follow the sport so that they can watch it as a hobby every weekend and 99% of their interaction with the sport and their clubs isn't affected by the board room or the ownership. Sometimes that percentage comes down if a club's competitiveness is spiralling out of control due to incompetent ownership but generally, people go to the ground or switch on the television, get invested in the football for 2 hours and then go about their lives for another week. The number of people who care SO MUCH about their football club that they'll go out in even more of their spare time and organise or attend protests against the ownership which doesn't really affect their matchday experience is absolutely microscopic sadly.

[OrangeKhrush]

15 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

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.

I for one accept that there complexities of geopolitical debate means there are often two sides to each story and with the way mainstream media operates,  the narrative received is not entirely truthful if not just abject lies,  these are proxy bodies trying to pressure western normative standards for political gain.    

There are international bodies able to adjudicate on claims of unfair trials,  until that is established it is speculative,  that being said I am rather non negotiable on the element of equality before the law,  ie: the right to a fair trial.   Despite the noise there has been nothing forthcoming and speculation is not admissible evidence.   Until something conclusive arises I can only accept that it is western bias against gulf states and Israel while they exhibit no condemnation of Palastine, Syria, Iran.   

They were trialed and convicted from sedition and in one case premeditated murder (shooting a security guard executioner style),  I fail to see what the problem is,  these people were not forced to do what they did,  that said I would say the minimum acceptable penalty should be life in prison with possible rehabilitation and parole. 

Until the west sorts it's growing list of problems,  I don't think we should be screaming from our ivory towers. 

[OrangeKhrush]

11 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Just being realistic. Man City, PSG and Newcastle's owners have coped just fine and the proportion of "proper" principled fans with links to the roots of the club in those fanbases is a lot larger than the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd who have ten bazillion global social media fans to fall back on even if a substantial number of the local and/or match-going core were to take the hump.

We all might feel strongly about our football clubs but most people follow the sport so that they can watch it as a hobby every weekend and 99% of their interaction with the sport and their clubs isn't affected by the board room or the ownership. Sometimes that percentage comes down if a club's competitiveness is spiralling out of control due to incompetent ownership but generally, people go to the ground or switch on the television, get invested in the football for 2 hours and then go about their lives for another week. The number of people who care SO MUCH about their football club that they'll go out in even more of their spare time and organise or attend protests against the ownership which doesn't really affect their matchday experience is absolutely microscopic sadly.

Pretty much how I see it,  and treat it.  I am only interested in the football club not Saudi Arabia.   Under the new ownership structure having English people in positions to make footballing decisions and qualified to do so is the reason why we are doing well.    Saudi Arabia buying out 80% ownership freed us of a tyrant that abused COVID loopholes to not pay people amongst his other nefarious actions from accounting fraud to money laundering.    Saudi/Rueuben/Staveley consortium allowed the club to be set up like a football club again.   

Current UEFA and FA rules mean that neither body can inject personal wealth into the club and therefore the 13% growth year to year 2021-2013 is down to effective sport management,  not Saudi Arabia and their stance on penal systems. 

[OrangeKhrush]

2 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

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.

If this Jassim is just a private individual are you going to stop supporting your club?  I could understand your choice if it turns out to be another front like PSG and they then try to infect the FA by putting there own people in positions to manipulate league rules etc,  however if it is just Jassim as a sole owner then surely you wont. 

[RandoEFC+]

36 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Pretty much how I see it,  and treat it.  I am only interested in the football club not Saudi Arabia.   Under the new ownership structure having English people in positions to make footballing decisions and qualified to do so is the reason why we are doing well.    Saudi Arabia buying out 80% ownership freed us of a tyrant that abused COVID loopholes to not pay people amongst his other nefarious actions from accounting fraud to money laundering.    Saudi/Rueuben/Staveley consortium allowed the club to be set up like a football club again.   

Current UEFA and FA rules mean that neither body can inject personal wealth into the club and therefore the 13% growth year to year 2021-2013 is down to effective sport management,  not Saudi Arabia and their stance on penal systems. 

Yeah see we have some common ground here but in your shoes I'd still be more willing to acknowledge that yeah regardless of the ins and outs, this improvement wouldn't have happened without investment from some pretty unsavoury people. You can say that and still agree with the rest and acknowledge that it has been achieved so far by smart recruitment and strategic decision making rather than pouring billions into the squad.

[Spike]

1 hour ago, RandoEFC said:

Just being realistic. Man City, PSG and Newcastle's owners have coped just fine and the proportion of "proper" principled fans with links to the roots of the club in those fanbases is a lot larger than the likes of Liverpool and Man Utd who have ten bazillion global social media fans to fall back on even if a substantial number of the local and/or match-going core were to take the hump.

We all might feel strongly about our football clubs but most people follow the sport so that they can watch it as a hobby every weekend and 99% of their interaction with the sport and their clubs isn't affected by the board room or the ownership. Sometimes that percentage comes down if a club's competitiveness is spiralling out of control due to incompetent ownership but generally, people go to the ground or switch on the television, get invested in the football for 2 hours and then go about their lives for another week. The number of people who care SO MUCH about their football club that they'll go out in even more of their spare time and organise or attend protests against the ownership which doesn't really affect their matchday experience is absolutely microscopic sadly.

I know what you mean but giving up and letting things just happen is just sad. There has to be a resistance no matter how seemingly insignificant.  These things happen and a difference can be made, Liverpool is evidence as a city. Sure The Sun still exists but the people fucked them off, didn’t they?

[OrangeKhrush]

47 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Yeah see we have some common ground here but in your shoes I'd still be more willing to acknowledge that yeah regardless of the ins and outs, this improvement wouldn't have happened without investment from some pretty unsavoury people. You can say that and still agree with the rest and acknowledge that it has been achieved so far by smart recruitment and strategic decision making rather than pouring billions into the squad.

I am not sure why the Reuben's could not have bought us outright as they have a net worth of 25 Billion,  it was however the conditions that the Saudi's wanted the overwhelming majority.  The people running the club don't' seem to be unsavory,  if it is a reference to the Crown Prince,  he doesn't run the club,  nor has he even been to the club and there is no evidence that Al-Rumayyan is "unsavoury".  Even in such instance,  Bin Salman was acquitted on all charges relating to Keshoggi.    

I do accept that customs in Islamic States do not conform with standards in Western normative systems,  but it is not my place to judge a culture that is different to my own. I do however not condone torture and unfair trails,  but I don't accept on face value without substantive proof of such given the bias of Western media.    Islam clashes with modern western systems because they do not endorse certain "practices" and therefore are political targets,  along with the fact that they potentially are gatekeepers to a shift in the control of vital resources which have long been under the thumb of western proxy colonialism.   The rise of BRICS is a major political reason why Saudi Arabia are the annoyance of the West. 

[Spike]

The cope is unreal

[Rick]

Yeah, if Liverpool become state owned I’m also gone. I’ll still watch football as a neutral. 

[N U F C]

It’s easy to say when it hasn’t actually happened 

[Rick]

33 minutes ago, N U F C said:

It’s easy to say when it hasn’t actually happened 

It will be heart wrenching, but I can’t support human right abusing serial killers. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 hour ago, N U F C said:

It’s easy to say when it hasn’t actually happened 

Is it? Plenty of people were ready to ditch Liverpool and Man Utd when the super league news broke - it's part of the reason English clubs caved on that idea as quickly as they did. The Super League is distasteful, but not as distasteful as doing your best to ignore serial human rights abuses while a regime is using you in its sportwashing efforts.

[DeadLinesman]

17 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

If this Jassim is just a private individual are you going to stop supporting your club?  I could understand your choice if it turns out to be another front like PSG and they then try to infect the FA by putting there own people in positions to manipulate league rules etc,  however if it is just Jassim as a sole owner then surely you wont. 

He’s a private individual with £1.5billion in the bank. How’s he affording it? Twitter melts angry that Radcliffe will borrow against Ineos and not take the club immediately out of debt. How’s Sheikh Jassim making us debt free and taking over with £500million? Let’s not kid ourselves. This is a state puppet backed by state banks. 

[Stan]

17 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I do however not condone torture

'generally, torture is bad'

[OrangeKhrush]

3 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

He’s a private individual with £1.5billion in the bank. How’s he affording it? Twitter melts angry that Radcliffe will borrow against Ineos and not take the club immediately out of debt. How’s Sheikh Jassim making us debt free and taking over with £500million? Let’s not kid ourselves. This is a state puppet backed by state banks. 

I don't get the Radcliff hate.  it seems to be related to allowing the glazers to maintain minority share but nothing to do with the model he wants to adopt.

the sad thing is this should have been sorted months ago and it puts man United on the back foot this summer.  they are losing out on targets made even worse by Saudi clubs flashing the cash.

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

'generally, torture is bad'

generally it is, but that doesn't stop NATO and US from doing it.

[Dave]

20 hours ago, N U F C said:

It’s easy to say when it hasn’t actually happened 

I think it comes down to personal preference. It doesn't make you any more or less committed as a fan, or any better or less as a person.

I made a long post last year about if Palace had kept Kouyate on I would have had to make a difficult decision, whilst at the same time all the Twitter tadpoles were getting excited over the possibility of signing Ismalia Sarr. So it really comes down to what a person is comfortable with.

[N U F C]

2 hours ago, The Palace Fan said:

I think it comes down to personal preference. It doesn't make you any more or less committed as a fan, or any better or less as a person.

I made a long post last year about if Palace had kept Kouyate on I would have had to make a difficult decision, whilst at the same time all the Twitter tadpoles were getting excited over the possibility of signing Ismalia Sarr. So it really comes down to what a person is comfortable with.

I agree.

I think it’s very easy to say you’d sack your team off when you don’t actually have to make that decision.

I don’t support or agree with anything Saudi Arabia do but that doesn’t mean I can’t support Newcastle United.

[Spike]

I’ve sacked off three teams. It’s remarkably easy.

[Spike]

Chicago Cubs - Family are real estate tycoons, gentrifying Chicago, pumping money into Trump campaigns, flagrantly anti-fan by pay walling the team’s games behind their own network and constantly raising prices. 

Brisbane Broncos - owned by Newscorp. Evil.

Chelsea - I was okay with it for a long time but Abramovic’s billions are at the cost of the Russian people, an oligarch that sucked up vast amounts of natural resources that should belong to the people of Russia, not one man. A callous man, murderer, and Putin stooge.

and the Chicago Blackhawks and Bears push my patience too, they tread a razor wire.

[DeadLinesman]

21 hours ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I don't get the Radcliff hate.  it seems to be related to allowing the glazers to maintain minority share but nothing to do with the model he wants to adopt.

the sad thing is this should have been sorted months ago and it puts man United on the back foot this summer.  they are losing out on targets made even worse by Saudi clubs flashing the cash.

70% of ST polled from MUST and UWS voted in favour of Ratcliffe. Twitter is against this because it’s a bunch of glory hunting Fifa bumming melts that have zero association with the club and want type mBBapPe sUIiiiii to get some reactions. 
 

Ratcliffe proposed Glazers stay as minority shareholders with guaranteed stock sale in 2 years at a fixed price. They’d be fucked off either way. Your average Twitter Bellend doesn’t get this though. 

[N U F C]

11 hours ago, Spike said:

Chicago Cubs - Family are real estate tycoons, gentrifying Chicago, pumping money into Trump campaigns, flagrantly anti-fan by pay walling the team’s games behind their own network and constantly raising prices. 

Brisbane Broncos - owned by Newscorp. Evil.

Chelsea - I was okay with it for a long time but Abramovic’s billions are at the cost of the Russian people, an oligarch that sucked up vast amounts of natural resources that should belong to the people of Russia, not one man. A callous man, murderer, and Putin stooge.

and the Chicago Blackhawks and Bears push my patience too, they tread a razor wire.

How many Chelsea games had you been to? 

[Spike]

25 minutes ago, N U F C said:

How many Chelsea games had you been to? 

None. But I used to buy merch all the time and pay to watch. I hope you aren’t building up to a ‘gotcha’, I don’t need your validation on my worth as a fan of something. I also never went to a Broncos game despite living there for two years.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Spike

[OrangeKhrush]

1 hour ago, DeadLinesman said:

70% of ST polled from MUST and UWS voted in favour of Ratcliffe. Twitter is against this because it’s a bunch of glory hunting Fifa bumming melts that have zero association with the club and want type mBBapPe sUIiiiii to get some reactions. 
 

Ratcliffe proposed Glazers stay as minority shareholders with guaranteed stock sale in 2 years at a fixed price. They’d be fucked off either way. Your average Twitter Bellend doesn’t get this though. 

it's peddled by people like Stephan Howson, Strettforf Paddock and sometime Mark Goldbridge they keep the "Qatar or bust" narrative