NUFC and other Sportswashing 2022 - Part 3

[Get Into Em]

Barney Ronay's is an article on Ukraine/Russia and it's ties to football. Why would he mention Saudi Arabia or Newcastle in this?

Jonathan Liew's is an article on Abramovich. Again, why reference Saudi Arabia or Newcastle?

The only feasible way in which they can get a mention of the Saudi's in them is by a small sentence to say there's a few other owners that are *****, although that only diverts attention away from what the article's are actually about. They've also wrote articles on the Saudi takeover - I suppose you were just as angry at them as they didn't mention Abramovich in those?

When there is/was multiple articles on the Kick it Out Campaign in football, I hardly expect the writers to put a piece in about every other act of discrimination within football.

Spoiler: Articles the OP is cross about.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

Spoiler: Articles they've wrote relating to the Saudi's (and not Abramovich)

Ronay:

You must be logged on to see external links

Liew:

 

[robbied1]

Not read the article, but I can imagine their owners are rubbing their hands with glee watching this unfolding. A sick regime who will be undoubtedly thinking this is their way in to the top 6 if Chelsea aren't funded the way they were. However before people have a go, I've not read the article, but their is no doubt in my mind the Saudi owners are loving this. Horrible people.

 

[Old Money]

Barney Ronay's is an article on Ukraine/Russia and it's ties to football. Why would he mention Saudi Arabia or Newcastle in this?

Jonathan Liew's is an article on Abramovich. Again, why reference Saudi Arabia or Newcastle?

The only feasible way in which they can get a mention of the Saudi's in them is by a small sentence to say there's a few other owners that are *****, although that only diverts attention away from what the article's are actually about. They've also wrote articles on the Saudi takeover - I suppose you were just as angry at them as they didn't mention Abramovich in those?

When there is/was multiple articles on the Kick it Out Campaign in football, I hardly expect the writers to put a piece in about every other act of discrimination within football.

Spoiler: Articles the OP is cross about.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

Spoiler: Articles they've wrote relating to the Saudi's (and not Abramovich)

Ronay:

You must be logged on to see external links

Liew:

But that's just it he does mention NUFC but only in reference to Mike Ashley, you know them zero hours contracts gazump the stoning of women any day.

 

[Bamber]

See Paolo Di Canio being a fantastic footballer and Premier League legend for West Ham and him being a facist villian and Sunderland were a disgrace for hiring him as manager.

Agendas fuel the media.

 

[Get Into Em]

But that's just it he does mention NUFC but only in reference to Mike Ashley, you know them zero hours contracts gazump the stoning of women any day.

You're right, but he mentions Ashley in the context of his article.

He's saying that Abramovich was/is still loved (or "popular") at Chelsea for what he has done there, despite his 'sportswashing'. Owners like Mike Ashley, the Oystons, the Glazers, or Mel Morris get (or got) far more stick than their respective fans, due to their relatively poor performances on the pitch. If anything, he's agreeing with what you're saying - he just compares Ashley to Abromovich, rather than comparing Ashley to the Saudi's. He's making a point about sportswashing.

Read the quote again:
"From Mike Ashley at Newcastle to the Oyston family at Blackpool, to the Glazers at Manchester United to Mel Morris at Derby, the collateral damage caused by bad owners can be a form of trauma for the fans caught up in it. Abramovich, for his part, has been a reasonably popular absentee landlord, hoisting Chelsea from the depths of fourth place in the Premier League in 2003 to third place now, having spent more than £2bn and signed Nemanja Matic twice along the way."

 

[Methusalah]

Barney Ronay's is an article on Ukraine/Russia and it's ties to football. Why would he mention Saudi Arabia or Newcastle in this?

Jonathan Liew's is an article on Abramovich. Again, why reference Saudi Arabia or Newcastle?

The only feasible way in which they can get a mention of the Saudi's in them is by a small sentence to say there's a few other owners that are *****, although that only diverts attention away from what the article's are actually about. They've also wrote articles on the Saudi takeover - I suppose you were just as angry at them as they didn't mention Abramovich in those?

When there is/was multiple articles on the Kick it Out Campaign in football, I hardly expect the writers to put a piece in about every other act of discrimination within football.

Spoiler: Articles the OP is cross about.

You must be logged on to see external links

You must be logged on to see external links

Spoiler: Articles they've wrote relating to the Saudi's (and not Abramovich)

Ronay:

You must be logged on to see external links

Liew:

Not sure how you can justify not mentioning the Saudi takeover when the whole point of the article is sports washing in the Premiership. The most egregious example doesn't get a mention !

 

[Get Into Em]

Not sure how you can justify not mentioning the Saudi takeover when the whole point of the article is sports washing in the Premiership. The most egregious example doesn't get a mention !

But again: they've wrote multiple articles on the Saudi's and didn't mention other clubs' involvement in sportswashing.

The articles are in no way related to Saudi Arabia or NUFC.

One of the articles is about the conflict in Ukraine/Russia and it's relation to football and the other is about Abramovich.

If you read a biography about Abramovich and it mentioned his sportswashing, would you expect to see it followed up by a small piece about NUFC? I wouldn't.

 

[Methusalah]

But again: they've wrote multiple articles on the Saudi's and didn't mention other clubs' involvement in sportswashing.

The articles are in no way related to Saudi Arabia or NUFC.

One of the articles is about the conflict in Ukraine/Russia and it's relation to football and the other is about Abramovich.

If you read a biography about Abramovich and it mentioned his sportswashing, would you expect to see it followed up by a small piece about NUFC? I wouldn't.

Quite a stoical defence here. Exactly what are your feelings about the Saudi takeover of your team?

 

[Bear]

Christ they're undefeated in seven, won four and drawn one of the last five, you are allowed to say they're playing well.

Did they play 80mins+ against 10 men ? I'll pass at praising them for a easy days work on Saturday

 

[Get Into Em]

Quite a stoical defence here. Exactly what are your feelings about the Saudi takeover of your team?

My team. What have you based that on?

I've literally posted 4 articles based on the Saudi takeover of NUFC in this thread. I'm defending the Journalists. You're for some reason wanting to divert attention from Abramovich, and Ukraine/Russia to the mags.

What difference would it have made in the context of those articles if the journalists had mentioned that the Saudi's are still bombing Yemen, or that they are performing ridiculous atrocities?

Subs bench. Obviously.

 

[Deleted member 1169]

Yet Everton and Burnley have both played less, before tonight, is that scandalous too or is it different when it’s not the Mags?

They’re playing well it’s not that hard to say.

I wouldn’t say they are playing well but Edward VIII has taken a very pragmatic approach and switched to a direct style of football and it has been effective plus they have had a bit of luck which all teams need (Christ we had enough of it on our various great escapes).

Big Sam, Pullis, Warnock could have come in and done the same but because they don’t get to work at 645 or have a smart school boy haircut they would have been abused for playing like this.

I’ll have my money on Howe being first casualty next season. This is based on they will sign big in the summer and raise expectations and I don’t think he can rise to those expectations, because if you have sold your soul then surely you expect better than grinding out results?

 

[Methusalah]

My team. What have you based that on?

I've literally posted 4 articles based on the Saudi takeover of NUFC in this thread. I'm defending the Journalists. You're for some reason wanting to divert attention from Abramovich, and Ukraine/Russia to the mags.

What difference would it have made in the context of those articles if the journalists had mentioned that the Saudi's are still bombing Yemen, or that they are performing ridiculous atrocities?

Subs bench. Obviously.

I am sure the NUJ will be delighted. A bit suspicious to be so ardent on a Sunderland message board , criticising the fact that Saudi sports washing is something we abhor. Subs bench? What's your point?

 

[Shandy drinker]

I’m sure I said it years ago
Only reason abramohvich took over was to Launder his money yet never crossed government or FAs mind
Corruption at the highest level

 

[Rogue Badger]

Highlighting other sportswashing and clamping down on other sportswashing is more dangerous to the Mags.

The defence the Mags use is essentially whataboutery. That's been massively eroded. Parallels are being drawn what's happening in Ukraine and Yemen.

There's no chance of the British government turning on Saudi any time soon. If the Saudi's spend a billion quid on the mags a lot more fingers will be pointed in their direction. Especially since the EU have listened to Alex Neil and started wearing their big boy pants.

 

[Get Into Em]

I am sure the NUJ will be delighted. A bit suspicious to be so ardent on a Sunderland message board , criticising the fact that Saudi sports washing is something we abhor. Subs bench? What's your point?

I'm on a Sunderland board because I'm a Sunderland supporter. I've had a season ticket for 7 years and have been to 30+ away days since we dropped to League One. I presume that's similar to why you're on a Sunderland Message board too?

Point me out where I've criticised "Saudi sports washing is something we abhor". You're completely making stuff up. If you don't produce something to back up what you're saying I'm going to stop replying.

You criticised the journalists. I've pointed out that the Journalists are right in what they're saying and there's no reason to mention the Saudi Sportswashing when commenting on something completely unrelated, and defended the journalists. That's what message boards tend to be for. For discussion.

I've shown that the journalists you've mentioned have wrote multiple articles on the Saudi takeover and all that is wrong with it, but there was no need to mention other owners playing the same game as the Saudi's in those articles. Those didn't mention Abramovich for example, as the articles had nothing to do with Chelsea or Abramovich.

When it was brought up that one of the journalists mentioned Ashley, so that somehow means he thinks Ashley is worse than the Saudi's, I pointed out that it's clear to anyone that properly read the article that you can only read it that way if you're reading it out of context as: "He's saying that Abramovich was/is still loved (or "popular") at Chelsea for what he has done there, despite his 'sportswashing'. Owners like Mike Ashley, the Oystons, the Glazers, or Mel Morris get (or got) far more stick from their respective fans, due to their relatively poor performances on the pitch. If anything, he's agreeing with what you're saying - he just compares Ashley to Abromovich, rather than comparing Ashley to the Saudi's. He's making a point about sportswashing."

Absolutely in no way does that make me a mag, in defense of Saudi Arabia, or Sportswashing. Back up what you're saying and tell me where I 'criticised the fact that Saudi sportswashing is something we abhor'.

 

[dom]

Money talks!
Just look at the Tories and the Russian Oligarch’s

My team. What have you based that on?

I've literally posted 4 articles based on the Saudi takeover of NUFC in this thread. I'm defending the Journalists. You're for some reason wanting to divert attention from Abramovich, and Ukraine/Russia to the mags.

What difference would it have made in the context of those articles if the journalists had mentioned that the Saudi's are still bombing Yemen, or that they are performing ridiculous atrocities?

Subs bench. Obviously.

You just know they’ve lost the argument when they accuse you of being a ‘Mag’

 

[Cotia]

What a strange thread. Somehow Pure Football has managed to turn the war in Ukraine into an issue about the mags

 

[dom]

What a strange thread. Somehow Pure Football has managed to turn the war in Ukraine into an issue about the mags

Strange thread on here?
Naaaaaahhhh!

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Absolutely baffling thread

 

[captain fatty]

Would you like to fabricate some stats to suit your agenda for those games now or are you going to wait until they’ve been played?

Isn't that you and your stinking murdering supporters who do that? You know 52K screaming stinkers every other week, We never spat on Sir Bobby Robson, Mike Ashley didn't save you ungrateful bassas from bankruptcy?
Go to a scum site and bore your own filth instead of spreading your effluent on here
NO ONE WANTS YOU!!