• 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.

ALL NUFC and Sportwashing stuff in here. (Threads will be merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.

UpTheDuff said:
Not research, just a lot of years reading the Financial Times and similar so I know about these things.

It doesn’t affect me at all unless Newcastle want to pay Cheltenham £20m for one of our youth prospects!

I completely agree it is sportswashing and the footage of fans waving Saudi flags was unpleasant. As much as I hate the idea of the Saudi state being involved in football ownership, my point is that I see no justification for singling out Newcastle ahead of all the other investment from and trade with the Saudis.

The fact England will be playing a world cup in stadia built by bonded labour slaves, hundreds (probably thousands by now) of who died on construction sites is equally abhorrent.
Click to expand...

I am not sure you are a good advert for the Financial Times as you don't know the difference between the primary and secondary markets ("People seem to forget that the Saudi PIF have been pumping cash into Man U and have sizeable stakes in Facebook and Uber") . Uber aside, all of the other investments were in the secondary market where the only person who benefits is the prior share holder. In addition Saudi have no current holdings in FB (The 13F filed in March 2020 shows an investment of 3,128,653 in FB at 166.8. They sold their stake somewhere between the end of June 2020 and Sept 2020 when the price was 227.07 upwards. Making a profit of $188bn+). The current stake in Uber is 3.83%. The reputedly invested $3.5bn (direct as they were not quoted then) back in 2015 and the holdings are currently worth $3.65bn making $150m of paper profit.

Current equity holdings at
You must be logged on to see external links
and
You must be logged on to see external links


This is the sum of all equity holdings is USD 150.3bn. Much of these are in Saudi companies (column EXCH) and total 125.4bn and the Tadawul would collapse if they started to sell as their holdings are so big. Leaving 25bn elsewhere, 14.7bn is in US equities. The rest of the Daily Mail quoted 700bn then has to be in (illiquid) physical investments.
 
safccfas said:
anyone else think the woman grinch is just another Stuart Donald but on steroids.... ? Already stories coming out that she’s had to lend money to get this over the line, they’ve ‘only’ got £50m to spend in January etc. Bruce is still here as it will cost £8m to get rid of him. At first I thought they were going to be another Man City but there’s already noise to suggest not ...... or am I still in denial 🤣🤣
Click to expand...
It would ring alarm bells. Christ even Donald sacked Coleman as he was coming in. It’s mental they didn’t even go with a caretaker. I’m probably clutching like but it doesn’t seem right.
 
Dogbark said:
Unfortunately, it sounds like utter twaddle to me. No club would be daft enough to announce their true transfer budget to all and sundry.
Click to expand...
This is Staveley though, she is a total gobshite and it seems fairly clueless, she's repeatedly talked of £250M over 5 years. Can't recall which but one of today's rags reporting she's about to be disappointed as not getting the CEO gig, that's a shame if true. The new regime aren't coming across as particularly well organised thus far.
 
garyswc said:
This is Staveley though, she is a total gobshite and it seems fairly clueless, she's repeatedly talked of £250M over 5 years. Can't recall which but one of today's rags reporting she's about to be disappointed as not getting the CEO gig, that's a shame if true. The new regime aren't coming across as particularly well organised thus far.
Click to expand...

most women usually are gobshites
 
Ashley stated he had a bigger offer . Why have I not heard the slugs going on about that.

Just seems as though they prefer this regime, theres no other reason.
 
jlaws said:
I am not sure you are a good advert for the Financial Times as you don't know the difference between the primary and secondary markets ("People seem to forget that the Saudi PIF have been pumping cash into Man U and have sizeable stakes in Facebook and Uber") . Uber aside, all of the other investments were in the secondary market where the only person who benefits is the prior share holder. In addition Saudi have no current holdings in FB (The 13F filed in March 2020 shows an investment of 3,128,653 in FB at 166.8. They sold their stake somewhere between the end of June 2020 and Sept 2020 when the price was 227.07 upwards. Making a profit of $188bn+). The current stake in Uber is 3.83%. The reputedly invested $3.5bn (direct as they were not quoted then) back in 2015 and the holdings are currently worth $3.65bn making $150m of paper profit.

Current equity holdings at
You must be logged on to see external links
and
You must be logged on to see external links


This is the sum of all equity holdings is USD 150.3bn. Much of these are in Saudi companies (column EXCH) and total 125.4bn and the Tadawul would collapse if they started to sell as their holdings are so big. Leaving 25bn elsewhere, 14.7bn is in US equities. The rest of the Daily Mail quoted 700bn then has to be in (illiquid) physical investments.
Click to expand...
p.s. 14.7bn in US equities and a 15bn loan to repay in August 2022 -
You must be logged on to see external links
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MagAmongtheCats said:
Because he was a detriment to our club so of course we wanted rid of him. Doesn't mean I agree with acts commited by the Saudi government. That's why I asked what you would do if they had bought Sunderland, which you didn't answer.
Click to expand...
I can honestly say that if they had bought Sunderland, I would walk away from the club. Especially if we had knackers embracing and celebrating Saudi like your fans have been doing with the tea towels, Saudi flags etc. Why would I want to sit in a stadium with such morally bereft human beings. You can argue all day long that Sunderland fans wouldn’t walk away and we would have reacted exactly like your fans have, bull shit. This message board alone would be filled with posts opposing the takeover, fans arguing between themselves over what is right and what is wrong, where’s yours, they don’t exist!
 
Papa Smurf said:
I can honestly say that if they had bought Sunderland, I would walk away from the club. Especially if we had knackers embracing and celebrating Saudi like your fans have been doing with the tea towels, Saudi flags etc. Why would I want to sit in a stadium with such morally bereft human beings. You can argue all day long that Sunderland fans wouldn’t walk away and we would have reacted exactly like your fans have, bull shit. This message board alone would be filled with posts opposing the takeover, fans arguing between themselves over what is right and what is wrong, where’s yours, they don’t exist!
Click to expand...
Exactly the same with you. Its easy for us to say but I am certain I would have to walk away if such a brazen evil murderer took over at Sunderland. They haven't got their club back they've lost it to a murderer. What shocks me is that there doesn't seem to be this debate going on amongst Mag fans.
 
Thatheaderman said:
Ashley stated he had a bigger offer . Why have I not heard the slugs going on about that.

Just seems as though they prefer this regime, theres no other reason.
Click to expand...

Well Holly Blades from whatever fanzine didn't disappoint on BBC Breakfast News.

She's delighted that her club is back after the toxic regime (said without a hint of irony) of Mike Ashley.

When asked about human rights , she feels for people who've suffered ( helps if you keep it generic Holly so you don't have to think about real people being victims of your true owner ) but she's impressed by the work that Jamie Reuben and Amanda Staveley are doing with local charities.

The Premier League have a fit and proper owners test so they obviously don't feel that's an issue ( is that the Premier League that's corrupt or the one that lets you have a murdering regime as owner)

The ideal partners to be Sportswashed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top