• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
The answer to why now, is that at some point it has to stop. And any rulings will effect Chelski, Man City, and anyone else getting involved with disparate regimes.
Unfortunately for you, I think because it is Newcastle who are now involved, your "everyones second team" and media darling status, is coming back to bite you on the arse. People have been spoonfed a mythical magical world of the footballing purity and standards that you supposedly stand for, and now find that actually you are not quite as perfect as the media painted you to be.

No amount of whataboutery is going to change that, and you need to get used to it I'm afraid.
 

Not a fan of Bruce. He had more time than others got because of him being a pretendy Skunk (a Manc fan really) rather than the reverse and he has been without class in his excuses. He went there for obvious reasons and knew it would end soon enough. He has been a 'does a job' manager but has shat on many clibs, Sheffield Wednesday being the latest.

Saint-Maximin paid him a nice tribute, which is something for him to take to heart

"You are, without a doubt, one of the most gentle people that I have ever met in the world of football," ...
"You have been a man of your word, a caring man and a fair man who never hesitated to protect us. I will never forget how you treated me, for that I will be forever grateful."

Hopefully there will be less media space for Alex Bruce now, no career without his Daddy
 
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...
I remember first hearing about ‘overpaying’ for sponsorship when Man City did it so presumably there was some discussion then. It may well be to do with keeping hierarchy & you could give bad faith motives to poorer clubs who don’t want to see bigger teams pull away. That’s irrelevant to the central point that it’s a good thing to try to stop these types of sponsorship deals
 
Exapno Mapcase said:
Not a fan of Bruce. He had more time than others got because of him being a pretendy Skunk (a Manc fan really) rather than the reverse and he has been without class in his excuses. He went there for obvious reasons and knew it would end soon enough. He has been a 'does a job' manager but has shat on many clibs, Sheffield Wednesday being the latest.

Saint-Maximin paid him a nice tribute, which is something for him to take to heart

"You are, without a doubt, one of the most gentle people that I have ever met in the world of football," ...
"You have been a man of your word, a caring man and a fair man who never hesitated to protect us. I will never forget how you treated me, for that I will be forever grateful."

Hopefully there will be less media space for Alex Bruce now, no career without his Daddy
Click to expand...
Nice to hear in this day and age, lesser people stick the boot in a similar position.
 
Georgewhitt said:
The answer to why now, is that at some point it has to stop. And any rulings will effect Chelski, Man City, and anyone else getting involved with disparate regimes.
Unfortunately for you, I think because it is Newcastle who are now involved, your "everyones second team" and media darling status, is coming back to bite you on the arse. People have been spoonfed a mythical magical world of the footballing purity and standards that you supposedly stand for, and now find that actually you are not quite as perfect as the media painted you to be.

No amount of whataboutery is going to change that, and you need to get used to it I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this. Chelsea, Man Ud and City (even though they abstained) will be effected by this now. They do not want another competitor, however long it takes, for the Champions League cash.
They are miles ahead and these new rules, which essentially benefit the top 6 or 7 (whatever Sky call it this week), far more than other team in league. This is not about anything other than trying to ring-fence the Champions League cash.
 
Biffo The Bear said:
No. You seem to have only read isolated posts.
I do not support our new owners. The question I asked, and keep asking without response, is what is the line of acceptable?
All I get in response are variations of Saudis' are the worst. I agree.
Does that mean only the worst are not fit and proper OR is it a case of the 'big clubs' will only kick up a stink it the new owners of a club are really evil AND rich beyond their clubs wealth?
Click to expand...
So on one hand you don’t support the takeover, but on the other hand you’re trying to mitigate it by saying it’s not as bad as other clubs

Logon or register to see this image
 
woodlebert said:
I remember first hearing about ‘overpaying’ for sponsorship when Man City did it so presumably there was some discussion then. It may well be to do with keeping hierarchy & you could give bad faith motives to poorer clubs who don’t want to see bigger teams pull away. That’s irrelevant to the central point that it’s a good thing to try to stop these types of sponsorship deals
Click to expand...
Can not argue with that sir.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top