• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

NUFC/Sportwashing

Status
Not open for further replies.
HeaderDownBrown said:
You quoted someone when he talked about Disney and Uber, and again it's a crap way to try and justify your takeover.
Click to expand...
Quoting someone who used Disney is not me using Disney.
I unused investment into stuff people regularly use but stand on the high moral pedestal.

It's a perfect retaliatory argument. It means we are all capable of overlooking anything if it suits us and making moral high ground massively subjective.
 

humbug said:
perhaps the saudi regime hasn't been discussed as much before on a football forum is because they've never owned a football club before?
the sportswashing issue is the only reason i can think of that they've bought newcastle. any people who think it's for the benefit of the football club, the fans and the area are wrong imo.
Click to expand...
The Reuben brothers would argue differently.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I assume now that you know you will now give up on everything you can find that you use, related to their investment....right?
Click to expand...
I've seen this all over twitter. "You're a hypocrite as you use twitter and pif have a stake in them".

A 4% minority stake in a social media platform, or a TV station isn't even close to being the same as an 80% majority controlling stake in a football club. Why do you find this hard to grasp?

They are free to invest in who they want on the stock market, as disgusting and repulsive as they are. They shouldn't be free to have a majority controlling stake in a football club that used to represent a community. Stop being so dense man.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Quoting someone who used Disney is not me using Disney.
I unused investment into stuff people regularly use but stand on the high moral pedestal.

It's a perfect retaliatory argument. It means we are all capable of overlooking anything if it suits us and making moral high ground massively subjective.
Click to expand...
It's not as simple as that, anyway you're going to repeat what you're saying as am I. Enjoy your new owners.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Quoting someone who used Disney is not me using Disney.
I unused investment into stuff people regularly use but stand on the high moral pedestal.

It's a perfect retaliatory argument. It means we are all capable of overlooking anything if it suits us and making moral high ground massively subjective.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how you twist things, no one, able to buy a PL club, has a lower moral pedestal than the Saudis.

Go on, try to name them.
 
Binxy said:
You're missing the point.
When it had nothing to do with football, football fans hardly spoke about it.
Now it has everything to do with football, football fans are talking about it.

It's pretty easy to understand,.
Click to expand...

But surely you're either outraged about human rights issues in Saudi or you aren't? You can't suddenly flick a switch and say, now I am outraged because they've bought a club I don't even support anyway.

I maintain if that lot didn't have a pot to piss in nobody would be arsed and for all we know that may well be the case if the rumours are true about them having to borrow money to buy them in the first place.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
Yep, subjective moral outrage.
The majority will be outraged whilst using the investments of the same regime.
Hypocriticalness off the scale...but we're all hypocrites. It's just a case of what brings it out.
Click to expand...

And there it goes.
The last claim that NUFC stood for something gone.

"more than club"
"It's in the lifeblood of the city"
"the heartbeat of the city"
"we bleed Black and white"
"the owner is merely a custodian, its our club"
"ya divvent understand"

You've gone from being a fan set that prided itself on the special nature of your relationship with the club being so different that "mere" football fans could not grasp it - to reducing your relationship with it to the bottom line - if a despotic regime that's killed 130,000 people in another country because 'they're the wrong type of Muslim' buys my club and spends some money and we win something I'll support them without question.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
I've seen this all over twitter. "You're a hypocrite as you use twitter and pif have a stake in them".
Click to expand...
I've never used a specific. It applies to everything to do with the very people you despise and take the moral high ground against.
North Yorks Mackem said:
A 4% minority stake in a social media platform, or a TV station isn't even close to being the same as an 80% majority controlling stake in a football club. Why do you find this hard to grasp?
Click to expand...
And how much would a 4% stake be worth in a social media platform and TV station?
Why does money percentage need to come into it?
If it's invested in it comes under the same morals if people are using those investments, no matter how it's dressed up.
North Yorks Mackem said:
They are free to invest in who they want on the stock market, as disgusting and repulsive as they are. They shouldn't be free to have a majority controlling stake in a football club that used to represent a community. Stop being so dense man.
Click to expand...
It makes no sense for yo to say that, unless you're simply trying to justify the stuff you use that is attributed to then, in any part.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
A tiny amount of shares?
What monetary value would a tiny amount of shares be?

Would it be ok if those same people only put 50 pence into Newcastle. Would that make it ok with you?


When was the last time Newcastle United did?

When was the last time Newcastle United did?
Click to expand...
At the point where the murderers have control of a company or use it to deflect bombing children.
 
Mags desperate to justify it in there own heads. After all they’ve never cared for our opinion before, this is all about clearing it for themselves. They know they’ve sold there soul, how can they ever claim to be for the “community” or “family”.
 
North Yorks Mackem said:
I've seen this all over twitter. "You're a hypocrite as you use twitter and pif have a stake in them".

A 4% minority stake in a social media platform, or a TV station isn't even close to being the same as an 80% majority controlling stake in a football club. Why do you find this hard to grasp?

They are free to invest in who they want on the stock market, as disgusting and repulsive as they are. They shouldn't be free to have a majority controlling stake in a football club that used to represent a community. Stop being so dense man.
Click to expand...
It’s an awful comparison but it’s being trotted out left right and centre by desperate mags

It’s almost as if they can’t see the difference between an investment portfolio and a blatant sportswashing operation
 
Pointless arguing he knows they are horrible bastards but he loves to argue.

Hence all the flat earth bollocks will just repeat the same thing over and over.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
If your morals are high and you're not a hypocrite then you'll look up any investment by these and give it all up, whether it's a pound or a penny.
And you should be also looking at otehr stuff you use that may be tainted with atrocities.

I'm sure you'll do all this to ensure your morals stay high...right?
Click to expand...
Wow, you really have been well and truly sportswashed if you need to say (and believe) what you writing in order to defend your new owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top