Would you be happy if Mohammed Bin Salman was bankrolling our club?

[SiJ]

The game in this country has been going on this slippery slope for years.

 

At the end of the day, the whole PL brand has been built on excess and greed. 

 

Newcastle now funded by the Saudi state, like City have been by the UAE for the last decade. It's all pretty grim, but here we are.

 

The delicious irony is the PL may have signed their own death warrant with this latest takeover. That big 6 are not happy and they'll be even less happy when the new Man City on steroids start winning titles and taking Champions League spots.

 

Might be dusting off those Super league plans as we speak.

Edited October 9, 2021 by SiJ

[HarrowbyOwl]

21 hours ago, davetherivelinowl said:

Personally I think this would rip out the emotional attachment I have for the club. I'd feel so conflicted I couldn't enjoy whatever success may come. It's a no from me.

 

BTW it's all gone quiet about the fact that United's Saudi prince was funded by a loan from the Bin Laden family. I couldn't have stomached that either.

 

 

Been obvious for some time that you can get away with murder under the owners and directors test. With Chopper Bin Salman its become official

[Owl Be Back]

17 minutes ago, Tewkesbury said:

Bin Salman is actually pretty progressive, for his position.

The Saudi royal family is huge, with a lot of internal conflict. His rule is not as solid as it looks.

Saudi Arabia is the seat of Mecca, and a theocracy, and as such has to be seen to adhere to the stricter laws of Islam. If not, the other half of the family get power, and they'll make him seem like Caroline Lucas. They're the ones supporting terrorism.

BTW, women being allowed to drive, recent female concerts etc. All his work. Things are improving, but they're walking a tightrope.

 

It's pretty much a given that he authorised/approved the execution of Kashoggi and executions have increased under his tenure - executions of moderate, truly progressive Saudi people, as well as his political opponents. So, he's a murderer. It's an interesting insight and viewpoint you've expressed but not quite sure what you're trying to say with regard to rejecting Saudi wealth fund involvement with a football club. Even if everything you said above is factual it would still be a big 'no, f*k off' from me, it isn't for you (perhaps, I'm inferring here on that point). But my first post content still stands; we make decisions all the time and it's fine to take small steps along a more ethical path. You can perhaps justify acceptance of such a situation by saying "he's the lesser of two evils" (I would reject your description of him as a progressive) but he's still a bridge way too far for me. He's not even close to being acceptable or even a pragmatic option, especially when it comes to simply blocking involvement with a football club. If we're so easily bought then we really are getting to the point where our values as a people and country are being undermined in fundamental ways.

[FreshOwl]

Genuine question: 

 

If a company has worldwide appeal and generates revenue across the world, do they not expect it to grow? 
 

Why would clubs purposefully lower their ability to generate revenue and grow, all to preserve this idea of the ‘people’s game’? 
 

In other sectors, we applaud businesses which exceed expectations and grow. Why not in football? 

Edited October 9, 2021 by FreshOwl

[Tewkesbury]

11 minutes ago, Owl Be Back said:

 

It's pretty much a given that he authorised/approved the execution of Kashoggi and executions have increased under his tenure - executions of moderate, truly progressive Saudi people, as well as his political opponents. So, he's a murderer. It's an interesting insight and viewpoint you've expressed but not quite sure what you're trying to say with regard to rejecting Saudi wealth fund involvement with a football club. Even if everything you said above is factual it would still be a big 'no, f*k off' from me, it isn't for you (perhaps, I'm inferring here on that point). But my first post content still stands; we make decisions all the time and it's fine to take small steps along a more ethical path. You can perhaps justify acceptance of such a situation by saying "he's the lesser of two evils" (I would reject your description of him as a progressive) but he's still a bridge way too far for me. He's not even close to being acceptable or even a pragmatic option, especially when it comes to simply blocking involvement with a football club. If we're so easily bought then we really are getting to the point where our values as a people and country are being undermined in fundamental ways.

The Middle East is a different world, with different rules.

For there, he is progressive. So he has to be strong. Strength there is through fear.

He's executed a few people.  It's how they deal with things.

 

He's trying to align SA with a more progressive approach and if he's seen as weak, he's dead.

 

Now look up what Nestle did in Africa with Baby Milk. In my eyes that's much worse, but you'll still happily munch on Smarties.

[Owl Be Back]

7 minutes ago, Tewkesbury said:

Now look up what Nestle did in Africa with Baby Milk. In my eyes that's much worse, but you'll still happily munch on Smarties.

 

No actually, I don't.

 

Also... we're not talking about long term geo-political views and saving lives over decades etc. We're talking about a football club where money has been flashed by a bunch of terrorist supporting murderers. It's so easy to say no to that and yet some of us aren't.

[Tewkesbury]

2 minutes ago, Owl Be Back said:

 

No actually, I don't.

 

Also... we're not talking about long term geo-political views and saving lives over decades etc. We're talking about a football club where money has been flashed by a bunch of terrorist supporting murderers. It's so easy to say no to that and yet some of us aren't.

The buying of Newcastle is a long term geo political view though. It's as much to align them with us as us with them.

[Owl Be Back]

Just now, Tewkesbury said:

The buying of Newcastle is a long term geo political view though. It's as much to align them with us as us with them.

 

It is for them, not for us, and therefore not one we need to entertain. Unless you're suggesting the British government is involved in procurement and advised/brokered the deal.

[Tewkesbury]

1 minute ago, Owl Be Back said:

 

It is for them, not for us, and therefore not one we need to entertain. Unless you're suggesting the British government is involved in procurement and advised/brokered the deal.

They probably did tbh.

I'm going to stop here, but my point is that where pretty much all money us tainted, maybe the ones who are trying to progress aren't so bad.

It just seems hypocritical that people will happily criticise others when we aren't so clean ourselves. 

[Owl Be Back]

1 minute ago, Tewkesbury said:

They probably did tbh.

I'm going to stop here, but my point is that where pretty much all money us tainted, maybe the ones who are trying to progress aren't so bad.

It just seems hypocritical that people will happily criticise others when we aren't so clean ourselves. 

 

FFS. Right back to what I said in my first post - try and be ethical and moral; we aren't perfect and can't get it right all the time. But do it when it's easy to do (ie, not selling a footy club to a bunch of crackpot murderers). We can all acknowledge we aren't perfect but just because we aren't doesn't mean we give the f*ck up over everything. That's just f*cking moronic.

[Tewkesbury]

2 minutes ago, Owl Be Back said:

 

FFS. Right back to what I said in my first post - try and be ethical and moral; we aren't perfect and can't get it right all the time. But do it when it's easy to do (ie, not selling a footy club to a bunch of crackpot murderers). We can all acknowledge we aren't perfect but just because we aren't doesn't mean we give the f*ck up over everything. That's just f*cking moronic.

But we're only ever ethical and moral when it doesn't affect us. It's easy to preach to others.

It's the equivalent of the stars flying private jets to preach about the environment. 

 

Do as I say, not as I do.

 

If this gets a few kids in the ME into football instead of terrorism, surely that's a win?

Progress is through contact. Telling them they can't play isn't going to help.

[Owl Be Back]

Just now, Tewkesbury said:

But we're only ever ethical and moral when it doesn't affect us. It's easy to preach to others.

It's the equivalent of the stars flying private jets to preach about the environment. 

 

Do as I say, not as I do.

 

If this gets a few kids in the ME into football instead of terrorism, surely that's a win?

Progress is through contact. Telling them they can't play isn't going to help.

 

That first bit is simply not true, and I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing it; like the West is some great unethical evil regime. In at least the last 1000 years its the best we've done as the human race so just seriously quit with that kind of commentary as it simply isn't true.

 

And no, it isn't a win. It's partly legitimising a bunch of murderous terrorists. Go read truly progressive (not your use of the word) Saudi commentators who no longer live in their country due to fear of being murdered for their political views. And trying to placate such regimes didn't help with China and the Olympics. That was meant to open China up, reward them in advance and its actually had the exact opposite affect on their relationships; once they got their reward they double-downed.

 

So, no, I reject your views on this on a fundamental level. I actually find them f*cked up in many ways, to be honest.

[Tewkesbury]

2 minutes ago, Owl Be Back said:

 

That first bit is simply not true, and I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing it; like the West is some great unethical evil regime. In at least the last 1000 years its the best we've done as the human race so just seriously quit with that kind of commentary as it simply isn't true.

 

And no, it isn't a win. It's partly legitimising a bunch of murderous terrorists. Go read truly progressive (not your use of the word) Saudi commentators who no longer live in their country due to fear of being murdered for their political views. And trying to placate such regimes didn't help with China and the Olympics. That was meant to open China up, reward them in advance and its actually had the exact opposite affect on their relationships; once they got their reward they double-downed.

 

So, no, I reject your views on this on a fundamental level. I actually find them f*cked up in many ways, to be honest.

As I said, they aren't the terrorists. They have to toe the line as the ones who are will use any excuse to gain power. It's like the Game of Thrones over there. Even if they agree with sone of these commentators, they can't be seen to.

[Owl Be Back]

Just now, Tewkesbury said:

As I said, they aren't the terrorists. They have to toe the line as the ones who are will use any excuse to gain power. It's like the Game of Thrones over there. Even if they agree with sone of these commentators, they can't be seen to.

 

[Tewkesbury]

4 minutes ago, Owl Be Back said:

 

Look at it like a government. There are 2 parties. The progressive party, and the fundamentalist. The progressives do what they can, but can't ******** off too many fundamentalists as they'll be out, then it's back square one.

[Owl Be Back]

1 minute ago, Tewkesbury said:

Look at it like a government. There are 2 parties. The progressive party, and the fundamentalist. The progressives do what they can, but can't ******** off too many fundamentalists as they'll be out, then it's back square one.

 

[Tewkesbury]

2 minutes ago, Owl Be Back said:

 

Nice.

[Mr. Tom]

23 hours ago, westy365owl said:

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a completely ethical billionaire .with the way the business world is run I don't think it's possible 

Don’t care who you are or what national regime you live under, you simply can’t make that sort of money without viciously exploiting lots of people somewhere along the line. The amount of value you have to extract from others to get a slice of the pie that grotesque is mind-boggling.

[Bluey9]

Would love it

[soldierboyblue]

2 hours ago, Tewkesbury said:

Bin Salman is actually pretty progressive, for his position.

The Saudi royal family is huge, with a lot of internal conflict. His rule is not as solid as it looks.

Saudi Arabia is the seat of Mecca, and a theocracy, and as such has to be seen to adhere to the stricter laws of Islam. If not, the other half of the family get power, and they'll make him seem like Caroline Lucas. They're the ones supporting terrorism.

BTW, women being allowed to drive, recent female concerts etc. All his work. Things are improving, but they're walking a tightrope.

What a load of complete poo  Edited to say the first sentence is true 

Edited October 9, 2021 by soldierboyblue