Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Newcastle United Takeover

So Mike Ashley who hails from South Bucks and Burnham Grammar, looks like he might have found a buyer.

The "Public Investment Fund" of Saudi Arabia is reportedly taking an 80% stake in Newcastle United. The Chairman of this state fund is none other than Mohammed Bin Salman who according to the US Government documents released in Feb this year is "The person who approved the capture or killing of Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey during October 2018."

A new low for the Premier League and further proof money is everything and integrity, honour and respect are totally lost on these leeches.

Β«13

Comments

  • The final nail in the coffin for FFP. I wish the football authorities the best of luck in taking any action to enforce spending within the "regulations" against the Saudi Arabian royal family, who are, reportedly worth TEN times the wealth of the Man City owners!

  • Utterly depressing how few Newcastle fans seem to have an issue with it either. Whataboutery here, there and everywhere.

  • Are you basing that on a wider sample size than what you've read on twitter?

  • I don't know what I'd do if Wycombe were taken over by an horrendous regime like that.

    On the one hand, slaughtering journalists, women and homosexuals is abhorrent, and I'd feel awful supporting a team funded by that.

    On the other, I've dedicated a huge amount of time to the club, and couldn't simply walk away. It'd be like cutting off an arm.

  • The UK Government sells c Β£1bn worth of arms to the Saudi regime every year. Much of that is currently maiming and killing defenseless Yemeni civilians.

    If that is considered OK, hard to see how the Premier League can enforce a higher moral standard than our own Government especially with the strong likelihood that any attempt to do so would be subject to strong legal challenge.

    Horrible world, horrible species.

  • It shouldn't come down to Newcastle football fans to be the moral gatekeepers of football investment- the govt and/or FA should do that, and I can understand why for a lot of Newcastle fans, anyone who will put money into their club is better than Ashley.

    Saying that, if it were Wycombe I would be protesting, and if it went through, I would stop attending/ giving the club any money.

  • Another oil club who will suddenly dominate the top of the league, and warp the transfer market even further.
    Just what everyone needs.

  • Mike Ashley is one of the worst ever owners of a football club.

  • I think these guys might be just a little bit worse...

  • @Username said:
    It shouldn't come down to Newcastle football fans to be the moral gatekeepers of football investment- the govt and/or FA should do that, and I can understand why for a lot of Newcastle fans, anyone who will put money into their club is better than Ashley.

    Saying that, if it were Wycombe I would be protesting, and if it went through, I would stop attending/ giving the club any money.

    I doubt whether the club would need your money if a multi billionaire bought our club!

  • @DJWYC14 said:
    Mike Ashley is one of the worst ever owners of a football club.

    And this has to be the only reason the Saudi state is any kind of option at all.

  • Wait until people hear about Abu Dhabi's human rights record

  • Handy that it's all fallen back into acceptability as the Saudi broadcasters resolve piracy issues affecting rights holders.

  • I think the year we remember 9/11 we should also remember who funded it and supplied most of the terrorists who carried it out. Hands down if your answer is Afghanistan or Iraq. The regime that propagates the teaching of the most extreme versions of Islam across the world but has lots of oil, money, well paid consultancy posts and seats on boards for western politicians. They also enjoy coming to London to enjoy doing all the things they don't let their people do! They might not need my money but I would stop going.

  • Presumably the media are going to have to be more circumspect with any criticism of Newcastle Utd in the future, dangerous business saying stuff that reflects badly on the House of Saud.

  • It is really sad that Newcastle fans will justify this kind of thing, just like Man City fans have - and have managed to actually develop a persecution complex with it! If fans admitted that they are conflicted but love their club too much to stop going, it would be easier to empathize with them being put in a difficult situation. But instead, it seems fans just jump in with both feet. Reading the Man City forum today is instructive. They are mostly very happy with it, saying it will be great for competitiveness and that it would be great if Newcastle won it "as long as corrupt clubs like Liverpool and Man United don't." I have no love lost for any big PL club, but amazing that sentence can be used without irony. Not only that, but there is the usual splitting of hairs as to why the sportswashing claims are just persecution.

    When something tragic happens in football (or almost tragic, like Christian Erickson's situation) fans are quick to say how it "put's things in perspective." Yet for some reason, perspective is not applied when corrupt regimes come in for a PL club as a PR vehicle. Instead, fans roll over to have their tummy tickled.

    This is why lower league fans deserve so much respect, too. For instance, there were Blackpool fans who died in the middle of the home boycott, and never saw their club at Bloomfield Road again, in the name of flushing out horrible owners. I somehow doubt we will hear much about boycotting by Newcastle fans.

  • Wait until people hear about the UK's human rights record

  • There's no club under UK state ownership though is there?

  • @drcongo said:
    Wait until people hear about the UK's human rights record

    Didn't you hear I think Raab is getting rid of them human rights..too European.

  • @eric_plant said:
    There's no club under UK state ownership though is there?

    I wasn't suggesting there was. But it's weird how this country points at the atrocities of other countries without even batting an eyelid at our own. I blame the history we're taught in school, which of course is absolutely nothing like the history of the UK that the rest of the world learns.

  • Much as I may agree that our justice system needs overhaul and our establishment is corrupt and leaves a lot to be desired @drcongo I would suggest most of the middle eastern states are far, far worse.

  • Oh currently, yes. Even though we're enabling a lot of that with our arms sales. I was meaning historically, with our penchant for colonising brown people and stealing their wealth.

  • @eric_plant said:
    There's no club under UK state ownership though is there?

    Met Police F. C.?

  • Seems fairly obvious that people’s concerns with regards to human rights are current rather than historic. On that subject, I think that disestablishment is about a century overdue in England the Welsh, the Irish and the Scots have enjoyed this for yonks.

  • @Shev said:
    It is really sad that Newcastle fans will justify this kind of thing, just like Man City fans have - and have managed to actually develop a persecution complex with it! If fans admitted that they are conflicted but love their club too much to stop going, it would be easier to empathize with them being put in a difficult situation. But instead, it seems fans just jump in with both feet. Reading the Man City forum today is instructive. They are mostly very happy with it, saying it will be great for competitiveness and that it would be great if Newcastle won it "as long as corrupt clubs like Liverpool and Man United don't." I have no love lost for any big PL club, but amazing that sentence can be used without irony. Not only that, but there is the usual splitting of hairs as to why the sportswashing claims are just persecution.

    When something tragic happens in football (or almost tragic, like Christian Erickson's situation) fans are quick to say how it "put's things in perspective." Yet for some reason, perspective is not applied when corrupt regimes come in for a PL club as a PR vehicle. Instead, fans roll over to have their tummy tickled.

    This is why lower league fans deserve so much respect, too. For instance, there were Blackpool fans who died in the middle of the home boycott, and never saw their club at Bloomfield Road again, in the name of flushing out horrible owners. I somehow doubt we will hear much about boycotting by Newcastle fans.

    The hilarious irony of a City fan calling any other club corrupt!

    You do get some fans with these mad ideas though.
    I know a Chelsea fan who is always whinging about the "corruption" his brave club endure regularly.

  • I even saw at least one Newcastle fan criticizing Amnesty International on their forum. Because they are clearly the enemy...

  • @Shev said:
    I even saw at least one Newcastle fan criticizing Amnesty International on their forum. Because they are clearly the enemy...

    A surprising amount of people actually do see Amnesty as the enemy somehow

  • If Chelsea was alright and Man City then the Premier League were never going to have a problem with Newcastle beyond one of their customers and rights holders objecting to restraints on their trade.
    The good doctor has a point as does Dev above. The UK doesn't have any ban on doing business with Saudi and actively sells arms to it. Difficult to see how they could say no, not that they ever really wanted to.
    Let's not forget btw Ashley was hardly anything to hold up, with his low wage, workers into the ground, rent dodging, supplier stiffing ways.
    In addition to the concerns around the owners regimes
    Dodgy Nation state ownership (or Nation state ownership under a different name to skirt rules) is always going to be bad for football as it takes us further away from clubs even trying to live within their means but the EPL couldn't give a flying f about that.

  • I'm sure there is meant to be some sort of owner check, to make sure they're of decent repute.
    But that's obviously a money thing pure and simple.

    But at least they got assurances that this isn't another state funded team.

    Until Newcastle spent 600m one summer in a couple of years.

  • @Malone said:
    I'm sure there is meant to be some sort of owner check, to make sure they're of decent repute.
    But that's obviously a money thing pure and simple.

    But at least they got assurances that this isn't another state funded team.

    Until Newcastle spent 600m one summer in a couple of years.

    I think they got assurances that the club wasn't state run not about funding, which is clearly balls anyway. If I was the Chief exec I'd probably listen to the 80% owners.
    This has probably legally pissed all over the owners and directors test though, hard to legally say that anyone shouldn't be allowed in comparison.

Sign In or Register to comment.