• 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.
Biffo The Bear said:
I agree the rules need to be changed. I do not support the sale. The issue I have is, prior to the Saudi's, we had Abu Dhabi and the Russians. I do not recall, but will stand correction, the likes of Man United & LFC challenging the rules when Roman bought Chelsea or them requesting changes to the rules when City's new owners arrived.
What has changed?
Is it a case of NUFC's new owners have crossed an imaginary line of abhorrence or is it that the 'usual hierarchy' might change?
Click to expand...

This is flawed on a number of levels, not least that the FA - as an organisation - are allowed to reflect on past decisions and adapt their future decisions based on that hindsight. We all do that, every day of our lives, sometimes with big stuff, sometimes with minor stuff.

Effectively you are saying, 'the issue I have is, prior to Biffo shitting his pants today, we had Baffo and Beffo shit their pants earlier this week, but I don't recall anyone running over with a pack of wet wipes''. The wet wipes are a symptom of what's gone before and an organisation more prepared to deal with it.

There is no imaginary line, it is a series of new gates that are designed to stop the same issues persisting indefinitely.
 

ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
In that case they only need look at us. It is one thing to have a good forward line but it is the back where you start. If you can't shore up the back then I think you can't win games.
Click to expand...
Fonseca is pretty ‘anti-defence’, always insists on his teams attacking from the off and never sitting back, which works brilliantly at Shakhtar Donetsk, doesn’t really work at Roma, and could be a disaster for a team with a very bad bunch of defenders.
 
Biffo The Bear said:
I agree the rules need to be changed. I do not support the sale. The issue I have is, prior to the Saudi's, we had Abu Dhabi and the Russians. I do not recall, but will stand correction, the likes of Man United & LFC challenging the rules when Roman bought Chelsea or them requesting changes to the rules when City's new owners arrived.
What has changed?
Is it a case of NUFC's new owners have crossed an imaginary line of abhorrence or is it that the 'usual hierarchy' might change?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's because none of Man U, Chelsea, Man City or Liverpool for that matter were bought a murderous, terrorism sponsoring the state. But you knew that didn't you?
 
Georgewhitt said:
Thats not what I'm saying, and you know it's not.
Taking your argument to it's conclusion, you are basically saying "our murderous abhorrent regime is better than their abhorrent regime"
By saying you are not the first example of sportwashing, which is a ridiculous made up term anyway, doesn't absolve your involvement with the regime. It entrenches you in the filth of trying to normalise and enforce respectability of what they are, and what they stand for. All for the want of an FA Cup, or Europa League place.
Click to expand...
No.
Either I am not explaining myself well enough or you are not comprehending my comment.
I am saying all of these regimes are bad, and have no place in the game.
The question I am asking is why now?
Why not when Roman came to Chelsea?
Why not when Abu Dhabi bought City?
Why now?
It seems like, whilst we all knew they were abhorrent, they were just not abhorrent enough. Thus my comment about the imaginary line.
 
Leonard osbourne said:
He didn't get a chance from the start because he has a piss poor record as a manager, not what anyone needed or wanted, he had a worse win percentage than any of our last 5-10 managers, most of who had managed over 500 games....
Click to expand...
Part of the reason he didn't get a chance from the start was that he had previously managed little old Sunderland, so how come someone who had managed such a small, insignificant club be fit for purpose to manage the mighty Newcastle United?
 
Thatheaderman said:
Irrelevant iirc. As long as Newcastle fans win some games they won’t give a fuck - precisely why sportswashing is successful.

I saw someone today comparing how much Bruce would get as a pay off to what a nurse earns and saying it was a disgrace. They haven’t mentioned anything to do with Saudi war crimes though - so presumably they’re ok with that.
Click to expand...
Wor crimes?
 
Bear said:
The Wallsend One sounds very hurt

Steve Bruce to
You must be logged on to see external links

: “I think it might be my last job. It has been very, very tough. To never really be wanted, to feel that people wanted me to fail & saying I would fail, that I was useless, a fat waste of space, a tactically inept cabbage head”.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what he is though. I’ve never known anyone feel sorry for themselves like Bruce does :lol:
 
Biffo The Bear said:
At the risk of being charged with 'Mag' insults... why should this matter?
Others are bad, and hideously wealthy, just not as wealthy as the Saudi's. So I repeat, is there an imaginary line of wealth, abhorrent behaviour, a combination or simply because the money is not going to one of the 'big clubs'?
Click to expand...

There's a very real behavioural line. It's called executing people because they have the "wrong" sexuality, extra-judicial murder, and war crimes.
 
Biffo The Bear said:
No.
Either I am not explaining myself well enough or you are not comprehending my comment.
I am saying all of these regimes are bad, and have no place in the game.
The question I am asking is why now?
Why not when Roman came to Chelsea?
Why not when Abu Dhabi bought City?
Why now?
It seems like, whilst we all knew they were abhorrent, they were just not abhorrent enough. Thus my comment about the imaginary line.
Click to expand...

Abramovich is an individual owner. You've essentially been purchased by a state. It is completely different. It's like the UK Royal Family setting up a wealth fund and buying Barcelona if our Royal family was still in power.
 
Biffo The Bear said:
At the risk of being charged with 'Mag' insults... why should this matter?
Others are bad, and hideously wealthy, just not as wealthy as the Saudi's. So I repeat, is there an imaginary line of wealth, abhorrent behaviour, a combination or simply because the money is not going to one of the 'big clubs'?
Click to expand...

More likely 18 months of writing to MP's, putting Saudi flags on social media profiles, going to Parliament square, telling everyone you are going to be the richest team in the world, harassing sponsors, harassing the EPL, calling everyone involved as corrupt....(need I go on?)...got up everyones nose.

More seriously if NUFC have the full might of the KSA economy behind them then what's the point anymore? Do we just get a league where different Sovereign Wealth Funds/Countries enter into a dick measuring contest? It really is and seismic moment in top level football that the Premier League have just woken upto but they are closing the doors after the horse has bolted and should not have approved the takeover.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bear said:
The Wallsend One sounds very hurt

Steve Bruce to
You must be logged on to see external links

: “I think it might be my last job. It has been very, very tough. To never really be wanted, to feel that people wanted me to fail & saying I would fail, that I was useless, a fat waste of space, a tactically inept cabbage head”.
Click to expand...
It’s never your fault
It’s never your fauuulllltttt
You fat geordie bastard
It’s never your fault
 
Biffo The Bear said:
No.
Either I am not explaining myself well enough or you are not comprehending my comment.
I am saying all of these regimes are bad, and have no place in the game.
The question I am asking is why now?
Why not when Roman came to Chelsea?
Why not when Abu Dhabi bought City?
Why now?
It seems like, whilst we all knew they were abhorrent, they were just not abhorrent enough. Thus my comment about the imaginary line.
Click to expand...
For 'imaginary line' read "kidnap, murder, dismemberment and burning of a journalist"
 
ned_werby said:
Perhaps it's because none of Man U, Chelsea, Man City or Liverpool for that matter were bought a murderous, terrorism sponsoring the state. But you knew that didn't you?
Click to expand...
I doubt Roman obtained his wealth without assistance, and real assistance, from Putin's regime. If you believe that is not a murderous, terrorism sponsoring state then you are daft.
City are owned by a state not as bad as Saudi but bad enough.
Might point is, as I know you know, why now. Will Man Utd and Chelsea be in a state of uproar if the Saudi'd announced they intend to follow the Ashley model of saw investment..... I seriously doubt it.
They are afraid there is 1 fewer seat at the table soon, which I personally doubt. They do not give a shit about the source of the wealth just whether it challenges their position in the queue for handouts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top