• 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.
The Fish said:
There's a couple of things there. There are dozens of twitter accounts with Saudi flags and there were a handful of daft lads wear headscarves and the like. But the ground holds 50,000 odd Newcastle fans and an overwhelming majority were not doing the same. So, to paint the fanbase off the back of a few, is ridiculous.

The fans are excited by the prospect of a future propped up by the untold riches of the new owners. Of course they are, literally every club without that kind of money would want that kind of money.

The new majority owners are murderers and bigots and tyrants. So every signing, every development, every 'success' will come with a big f***ing asterisk. And rightly so.

But almost every single Newcastle fan I've spoken to about this says they're conflicted.

To suggest that Newcastle fans as a collective are somehow in favour of beheading gay people, or bombing Yemenis (not sure if that's the right term), is f***ing silly.

They are two very distinct things.

One is an indefensible regime. The other is a fanbase that you're accusing collectively of supporting an indefensible regime. And you're doing that without rational thinking, because you support Sunderland and think that hating Newcastle and it's fans is part and parcel of that support.
Click to expand...
The whataboutery isn’t a small section of the support imo - it’s people trying to absolve themselves from any moral conflict.
 

Zweiguys said:
Premier League to consider locking the stable door now that the horses got loose.
Newcastle United: Premier League agrees to meet Amnesty International
You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...
Jeez, PL might as well let any fucker in now, they’ve already hit the bottom. Might as well revel in the moral cesspit that it’s become, at least there’d be some honesty about it.
 
You must be logged on to see external links

Martinez has always come across as a decent fella so I can't see him wanting to be associated with murderers. If he is morally Bankrupt I will console myself that he's a shit Club manager.
 
The Fish said:
There's a couple of things there. There are dozens of twitter accounts with Saudi flags and there were a handful of daft lads wear headscarves and the like. But the ground holds 50,000 odd Newcastle fans and an overwhelming majority were not doing the same. So, to paint the fanbase off the back of a few, is ridiculous.

The fans are excited by the prospect of a future propped up by the untold riches of the new owners. Of course they are, literally every club without that kind of money would want that kind of money.

The new majority owners are murderers and bigots and tyrants. So every signing, every development, every 'success' will come with a big f***ing asterisk. And rightly so.

But almost every single Newcastle fan I've spoken to about this says they're conflicted.

To suggest that Newcastle fans as a collective are somehow in favour of beheading gay people, or bombing Yemenis (not sure if that's the right term), is f***ing silly.

They are two very distinct things.

One is an indefensible regime. The other is a fanbase that you're accusing collectively of supporting an indefensible regime. And you're doing that without rational thinking, because you support Sunderland and think that hating Newcastle and it's fans is part and parcel of that support.
Click to expand...
A handful wearing tea towels? You must have big hands. You would have got away with that before the days of social media and video phones not now, nice try though.
 
Roker Mackem said:
Maybe so. But the Bonesaw men will be bullet proof as the PIF "arent connected" to KSA. That and the Tories love tha toon now.
Click to expand...
This may have been asked before and I missed it, but even if PIF is totally seperate from the state, how is the chairman of PIF not subjected to the test. Or are they now claiming that the chairmen of the company has nothing to do with the decision making within the company?
 
Mr B said:
This may have been asked before and I missed it, but even if PIF is totally seperate from the state, how is the chairman of PIF not subjected to the test. Or are they now claiming that the chairmen of the company has nothing to do with the decision making within the company?
Click to expand...

Nothing makes any sense as theyve obviously just blindly passed it on BJs orders
 
Mr B said:
This may have been asked before and I missed it, but even if PIF is totally seperate from the state, how is the chairman of PIF not subjected to the test. Or are they now claiming that the chairmen of the company has nothing to do with the decision making within the company?
Click to expand...

This has already been discussed and answered by the PL:

"The REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED REDACTED and REDACTED, REDACTED. REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED, or REDACTED, REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED. Ultimately REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED Uber."
 
The Fish said:
The Saudi bid was the only bid accepted. It was the only one that the PL was stalling until they sorted the piracy.

How could we demand the PL stop stalling a non-existent bid?
Click to expand...
Unless you have any different info, I thought the PL were waiting for the saudi’s to submit the details for the directors test, which they didn’t because of the piracy. the PL waited and waited then the saudi’s walked away. How does that become “the pl were stalling”?
 
Mr B said:
This may have been asked before and I missed it, but even if PIF is totally seperate from the state, how is the chairman of PIF not subjected to the test. Or are they now claiming that the chairmen of the company has nothing to do with the decision making within the company?
Click to expand...
Seems he made some other decisions in 2018.
You must be logged on to see external links
 
Some direct questions for @mag in peace and @The Fish and any other resident mags

1. Do you believe that the chairman of the Saudi Investment fund, (a certain Mr Mohammed Bin Salman), the Company now the majority shareholder in Newcastle, will have anything to do with Newcastle?

2. Is MBS the second in command of a murderous despot regime, where the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia have absolute power?

3. Will Yasir Al-Rumayyan have absolute or major power in how the money of the Saudi Investment Fund is spent on the running of Newcastle or will he be taking orders from MBS ?

4. Are you happy with the current new owners of Newcastle?

5. Do you believe the new owners tarnish the reputation of Newcastle United, the city and the region as a whole?

6. Will you actively seek and campaign for the removal of the Saudi Investment funds involvement in Newcastle United.
 
Donnybrook said:
got to be fishing ..or a mag
Click to expand...
Again no. We cannot hold ourselves as paragons of virtue. Boris obviously had a hand in pushing through the Mag deal for his Saudi bedfellows and then there's Blair (strangely enough a Mag) starting a war with lies (WMD) killing thousands.

Im just not bothered what happens over there. If their money was available to benefit our club, town, I'd take it. If that offends you so be it. I'd rather look after our own.
 
I'm Spartacus said:
110,000 of them signed a petition crying about not being allowed to be taken over by a despotic murderous regime. They’re complicit and they’re fooling no one.
Click to expand...
They went to London and protested, they # anyone that sponsored the PL on twitter, they danced in tea towels.
Now, when it’s criticised instead of saying yes we know what they are they double down with what about Uber, what about Disney what about just about anything to justify who owns them.
They have no argument NONE for saying it’s not their fault, they didn’t ask for them to own them, they begged for it.
 
Ohnonotagain said:
Again no. We cannot hold ourselves as paragons of virtue. Boris obviously had a hand in pushing through the Mag deal for his Saudi bedfellows and then there's Blair (strangely enough a Mag) starting a war with lies (WMD) killing thousands.

Im just not bothered what happens over there. If their money was available to benefit our club, town, I'd take it. If that offends you so be it. I'd rather look after our own.
Click to expand...
they have yet to get a manager, maybe no manager will touch them , ever think of that.. you might not give a toss about the kind of people who own the mags but i think you will find in wanting them to own sunderland you are in a minority of 1
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top