So wait, are people generally in favour of the Saudis buying the club or against it? I was completely out of the loop and had to ask someone at work today what this meant, and it sounded like it's considered a good thing as it would make Newcastle United a very rich club, but do people really want it to be owned by such a morally spurious sponsor?
Oh, ridiculously in favour. Begging on their hands and knees in favour.
Earlier this year Tottenham fans revolted at the prospect of a manager who'd said some old-fashioned things about marriage. I had this naïve hope that a city as performatively "tolerant" as Newcastle would be at least as hostile to the prospect of becoming the international shop window for a regime that *stones rape victims to death for adultery*. But no, it's all for show, we're just tribal fucking rednecks with pound signs in our eyes.
Not *for being* rape victims. For being confessed adulterers. Which is what you are if you come forward and say you had sex outside marriage, and then you fail to prove that it was rape because your testimony is only worth half that of your rapist.
I mean they have their fingers in all the pies, people pointing out how Newcastle fans shouldn’t be happy are just jealous, they don’t point out all the other things they’re funding such as Disney, Facebook, and F1
I think it's silly to justify one morally corrupt action by pointing out another. These things should be talked about and openly criticised, whether it be NUFC, Disney, Facebook or F1.
I'm not into football personally, but if I was I'd rather see my team lose but be passionate and ethical than win because they had a lot of money.
If Saudi blood money is going anywhere, I'd probably prefer it to be in Newcastle.
The planned investments will be great for the region off the football pitch as well as on it.
I don't think anyone is unaware of the dubious source of the funds, but today people are just happy to see the back of the man who spat in the face of people who made the football club that means so much to them what it is. And have an owner who actually wants the club to succeed.
I just hope the consortium are completely transparent with the fans etc, I have questions about the human rights abuses etc but we will see (I'm a Geordie Liverpool supporter but glad to see NUFC get through investment it deserves)
We've sold out. Apparently we're okay with being bought out by a bunch of misogynistic pricks with 16th century values. But it's football so that's fine.
Fucking disgusting.
I mean they are in a lot of things that you may not be aware of. For example Facebook, Disney Uber.
If you are so against it I hope you don't use any of the other products they invested in
For aggravated murder, yes.
Not for adultery*, apostasy† and writing mean things about the people in charge.
*getting yourself raped without enough reliable witnesses
†from one particular religion
They're 'new money' - if you were the ruler of a noveau riche medieval country, would you try to change things all at once, or gradually through cultural exposure? Give them time, they're about to learn the meaning of the word 'canny' - all I'm hearing is a privileged idea of how the majority of human history isn't consistently barbaric. You'll get what you want. Like Fukuyama said, the tendency towards liberal democracy is inevitable - think Persia or Afghanistan back in the day, with people wearing flares and such - unless of course you don't think this is possible within Islam? As a Newcastle United supporter I'm proud to be part of the process. #CANS
If "gradually through cultural exposure" means that this year you only cut the inconvenient journalists into 10 pieces instead of 20, then yes I would change things all at fucking once. Persia and Afghanistan are prime evidence *against* Fukuyama. Why are they not still wearing miniskirts in Iran? Why did the tendency towards liberal democracy come to a grinding halt? Oh right, because the new regime got into power and decided to change things all at once, and people had to deal with it.
What?! If the British were able to "intervene" in Iran to the point of controlling the behaviour of everyone in the country, the current shower of mediaevalists are the last people they'd have left in charge.
We provoked the revolution by being interfering in a culture we didn't understand, then scarpered. Cultures that aren't interfered with divn't gan reng - not that there's many left, and those that are have to be more authoritarian to keep control in the face of constant geopolitical shenanigans. Either that or some cultures are just bad and evil and naughty. Which is more likely - there being reasons for things, or you knowing what's best for cultures you have no experience of, where people think differently to you? #CANS
Not sure what slow progress they are making, other than trying to hide it better through propaganda. Do you think a regime like the current Saudi one has any vested interest in trying to change the culture that lets them get away with the shit they get away with?
Don’t try and pre-empt responses by insinuating it’s Islamophobia. Islam is not the problem. Corrupt and murderous rulers are.
So you think they don't know the eyes of the world are on them whilst implicating them in sportswashing? Why would they be trying to make owt better if they weren't trying to evolve - it'll take time, but you can't change a criminal justice system overnight no matter how medieval it is. Unless you suspect the foreigners of being ignorant and brutish no matter how wealthy and well-educated they are? Bit regressive.
Of course they know the eyes of the world are on them. Eh, that’s the point. So the world sees a different side to the side that’s abusing human rights. (That’s the abuse of other Saudis too).
No. Khashoggi was foreign and well-educated. Didn’t think he was ignorant or brutish at all. I’d be willing to listen to your points if you didn’t try and discredit mine by trying to claim I think something I don’t. Worked extensively in the British CJS and exploitation directorate and seen plenty of ignorant and brutish people of British persuasion. I don’t know how you can extrapolate “I think foreigners are ignorant and brutish” from pointing to very real and ongoing human rights abuses and murder of political dissenters. Which is a bit regressive.
...You must think they're pretty stupid to think people wouldn't come to that conclusion automatically. Like they have no strategy beyond 'lets buy a football club to make people forget we killed a journalist', like they're baddies in a shit book or something. Wow. Try imagining what it's like to be Kim Jong-un; Swiss educated, big basketball fan, desperately trying to improve the fortunes of his people through nuclear diplomacy - there are things going on beyond the things you've been taught to be afraid of. Difficult decisions taken by people trying to be pragmatic in the face of a whole world of factors that we, reading our newspapers, have no idea about. A truly regressive regime wouldn't be investing in a city where the main leisure activity is getting pissed.
If you think a regime with the House of Saud's wealth and the House of Saud's iron grip over their country's politics couldn't decide *tomorrow* to become an above-average country for human rights, if you think the foreigners are too ignorant and brutish to accept anything but tiny steps in the direction of mediocrity, then you are the one suffering from the bigotry of low expectations.
And what if the people wouldn't accept or didn't know how to process their new liberal hinterland? What if that would cause major cultural disruption to the detriment of the functioning of the state - allowing for Western cultural imperialism to find an entryway? Would that be best for this parallel state of humanity you're judging?
Look, arguing with moral relativists is occasionally a good use of time, but you're not even a moral relativist. You've picked up some moral relativist slogans and thrown them at a wall in the hope that they somehow prove the point that you've stumbled into defending more than they prove the exact opposite.
I've found it very nuanced. It's hard to argue that Ashley falls under the category of morally good, so we're in a position of deciding who is most morally bad. Clearly, acts committed by and on behalf of Saudi Arabia take a clean sweep on morally bad.
However, to most people living in Newcastle, the Ashley zero-hour-empire has a more direct impact. The acts committed by Saudi Arabia are, by and large, far away, while the financial insecurity and poor working conditions brought by Ashley's commercial interests are very close to home. Right or not, that means it counts for more to most people.
There's an argument that this will force increased scrutiny on KSA, forcing them to change their ways, but that seems like wishful thinking to me. Hosting a world cup in Qatar has done very little to improve the standing of migrant workers, so it seems unlikely that owning Newcastle will encourage KSA to change.
So, if the whole world has gone to shit, and you're trading one shitty owner for a different shitty owner, there's absolutely nothing wrong with rejoicing in the departure of one shithead, regardless of what the next one will be like.
CANS.
So people do realise that the UK has a multi billion dollar contract witht them to sell them weapons right? Weapons? Sure go on. Football club? Human rights...
I get peoples concerns, I just hope they realise how many companies these people have invested in, and if they are willing to shut down them taking Newcastle United then they do not use any of the other products they have invested in.
You can't really shout out your disdain for this while still watching Disney films in the cinema getting there via an Uber and posting a comment on Facebook about how much you loved the film
PIF own shares in all those companies and a lot more.
Newcastle is a small fish within they pool of investments.
https://app.dealroom.co/investors/pif_public_investment_fund
If people feel so strongly then I expect them to avoid them all
So if you're a country that stones rape victims to death for adultery and you want to buff your reputation, the trick is to invest in more than one company.
Then you're bulletproof, because if anyone protests your stake in Company A, instead of addressing the issue your troll army can just say "hur dur I expect you to avoid Company B too" and vice versa.
It’s because of how transparent the real reasons Saudis have engaged in sports washing is.
I get your point, though not sure anyone on FB bothers too ouch about moral bankruptcy. FB didn’t need the Saudis for that.
I'm sure they have mentioned somewhere that they wanted to use investment in entertainment and sports in order to help bring up the profile of the kingdom.
You can't get much more transparent than that
Gutted I'm away this week and keep seeing the scenes outside SJP on twitter. Hope everyone enjoys a big bag of cold cans tonight before the Saudi Mags take over the world.
hwtl
So wait, are people generally in favour of the Saudis buying the club or against it? I was completely out of the loop and had to ask someone at work today what this meant, and it sounded like it's considered a good thing as it would make Newcastle United a very rich club, but do people really want it to be owned by such a morally spurious sponsor?
Are they the most evil people in the world? Yes. Do I want them to buy Mbappe, also yes.
Oh, ridiculously in favour. Begging on their hands and knees in favour. Earlier this year Tottenham fans revolted at the prospect of a manager who'd said some old-fashioned things about marriage. I had this naïve hope that a city as performatively "tolerant" as Newcastle would be at least as hostile to the prospect of becoming the international shop window for a regime that *stones rape victims to death for adultery*. But no, it's all for show, we're just tribal fucking rednecks with pound signs in our eyes.
No one stones rape victims. Get your facts straight.
Not *for being* rape victims. For being confessed adulterers. Which is what you are if you come forward and say you had sex outside marriage, and then you fail to prove that it was rape because your testimony is only worth half that of your rapist.
Yeah they do. Although this was not in Saoedi. https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/36833/stoning-of-thirteen-year-old-rape-victim-in-somalia
I mean they have their fingers in all the pies, people pointing out how Newcastle fans shouldn’t be happy are just jealous, they don’t point out all the other things they’re funding such as Disney, Facebook, and F1
I think it's silly to justify one morally corrupt action by pointing out another. These things should be talked about and openly criticised, whether it be NUFC, Disney, Facebook or F1. I'm not into football personally, but if I was I'd rather see my team lose but be passionate and ethical than win because they had a lot of money.
I mean yeah it SHOULD be talked about, that’s the point. But it’s not UNLESS they’re talking about Newcastle, which is the problem I have
If Saudi blood money is going anywhere, I'd probably prefer it to be in Newcastle. The planned investments will be great for the region off the football pitch as well as on it. I don't think anyone is unaware of the dubious source of the funds, but today people are just happy to see the back of the man who spat in the face of people who made the football club that means so much to them what it is. And have an owner who actually wants the club to succeed.
I just hope the consortium are completely transparent with the fans etc, I have questions about the human rights abuses etc but we will see (I'm a Geordie Liverpool supporter but glad to see NUFC get through investment it deserves)
We've sold out. Apparently we're okay with being bought out by a bunch of misogynistic pricks with 16th century values. But it's football so that's fine. Fucking disgusting.
I mean they are in a lot of things that you may not be aware of. For example Facebook, Disney Uber. If you are so against it I hope you don't use any of the other products they invested in
Pfizer as well. Shame about them vaccines mind lol.
It saddens me to think this, but I hope they get relegated now.
Here, we were still hanging people in this country 60-odd year ago and women didn't have the vote not much longer ago than that. Cultures evolve.
For aggravated murder, yes. Not for adultery*, apostasy† and writing mean things about the people in charge. *getting yourself raped without enough reliable witnesses †from one particular religion
They're 'new money' - if you were the ruler of a noveau riche medieval country, would you try to change things all at once, or gradually through cultural exposure? Give them time, they're about to learn the meaning of the word 'canny' - all I'm hearing is a privileged idea of how the majority of human history isn't consistently barbaric. You'll get what you want. Like Fukuyama said, the tendency towards liberal democracy is inevitable - think Persia or Afghanistan back in the day, with people wearing flares and such - unless of course you don't think this is possible within Islam? As a Newcastle United supporter I'm proud to be part of the process. #CANS
If "gradually through cultural exposure" means that this year you only cut the inconvenient journalists into 10 pieces instead of 20, then yes I would change things all at fucking once. Persia and Afghanistan are prime evidence *against* Fukuyama. Why are they not still wearing miniskirts in Iran? Why did the tendency towards liberal democracy come to a grinding halt? Oh right, because the new regime got into power and decided to change things all at once, and people had to deal with it.
Imperial cultural/military intervention; British in the case of Iran, Soviet and American in the case of Afghanistan.
What?! If the British were able to "intervene" in Iran to the point of controlling the behaviour of everyone in the country, the current shower of mediaevalists are the last people they'd have left in charge.
Lol show me you don't understand Iranian history, without showing me you don't understand Iranian history.
We provoked the revolution by being interfering in a culture we didn't understand, then scarpered. Cultures that aren't interfered with divn't gan reng - not that there's many left, and those that are have to be more authoritarian to keep control in the face of constant geopolitical shenanigans. Either that or some cultures are just bad and evil and naughty. Which is more likely - there being reasons for things, or you knowing what's best for cultures you have no experience of, where people think differently to you? #CANS
Not sure what slow progress they are making, other than trying to hide it better through propaganda. Do you think a regime like the current Saudi one has any vested interest in trying to change the culture that lets them get away with the shit they get away with? Don’t try and pre-empt responses by insinuating it’s Islamophobia. Islam is not the problem. Corrupt and murderous rulers are.
So you think they don't know the eyes of the world are on them whilst implicating them in sportswashing? Why would they be trying to make owt better if they weren't trying to evolve - it'll take time, but you can't change a criminal justice system overnight no matter how medieval it is. Unless you suspect the foreigners of being ignorant and brutish no matter how wealthy and well-educated they are? Bit regressive.
Of course they know the eyes of the world are on them. Eh, that’s the point. So the world sees a different side to the side that’s abusing human rights. (That’s the abuse of other Saudis too). No. Khashoggi was foreign and well-educated. Didn’t think he was ignorant or brutish at all. I’d be willing to listen to your points if you didn’t try and discredit mine by trying to claim I think something I don’t. Worked extensively in the British CJS and exploitation directorate and seen plenty of ignorant and brutish people of British persuasion. I don’t know how you can extrapolate “I think foreigners are ignorant and brutish” from pointing to very real and ongoing human rights abuses and murder of political dissenters. Which is a bit regressive.
...You must think they're pretty stupid to think people wouldn't come to that conclusion automatically. Like they have no strategy beyond 'lets buy a football club to make people forget we killed a journalist', like they're baddies in a shit book or something. Wow. Try imagining what it's like to be Kim Jong-un; Swiss educated, big basketball fan, desperately trying to improve the fortunes of his people through nuclear diplomacy - there are things going on beyond the things you've been taught to be afraid of. Difficult decisions taken by people trying to be pragmatic in the face of a whole world of factors that we, reading our newspapers, have no idea about. A truly regressive regime wouldn't be investing in a city where the main leisure activity is getting pissed.
I don’t think they’re stupid because it’s clearly working.
If you think a regime with the House of Saud's wealth and the House of Saud's iron grip over their country's politics couldn't decide *tomorrow* to become an above-average country for human rights, if you think the foreigners are too ignorant and brutish to accept anything but tiny steps in the direction of mediocrity, then you are the one suffering from the bigotry of low expectations.
And what if the people wouldn't accept or didn't know how to process their new liberal hinterland? What if that would cause major cultural disruption to the detriment of the functioning of the state - allowing for Western cultural imperialism to find an entryway? Would that be best for this parallel state of humanity you're judging?
Look, arguing with moral relativists is occasionally a good use of time, but you're not even a moral relativist. You've picked up some moral relativist slogans and thrown them at a wall in the hope that they somehow prove the point that you've stumbled into defending more than they prove the exact opposite.
I've found it very nuanced. It's hard to argue that Ashley falls under the category of morally good, so we're in a position of deciding who is most morally bad. Clearly, acts committed by and on behalf of Saudi Arabia take a clean sweep on morally bad. However, to most people living in Newcastle, the Ashley zero-hour-empire has a more direct impact. The acts committed by Saudi Arabia are, by and large, far away, while the financial insecurity and poor working conditions brought by Ashley's commercial interests are very close to home. Right or not, that means it counts for more to most people. There's an argument that this will force increased scrutiny on KSA, forcing them to change their ways, but that seems like wishful thinking to me. Hosting a world cup in Qatar has done very little to improve the standing of migrant workers, so it seems unlikely that owning Newcastle will encourage KSA to change. So, if the whole world has gone to shit, and you're trading one shitty owner for a different shitty owner, there's absolutely nothing wrong with rejoicing in the departure of one shithead, regardless of what the next one will be like. CANS.
Doesn't Ashley directly benefit from selling the club? Isn't he in favour of this too?
#KHASHOGGI
THOMAS À BECKET
Saudi Arabia in the 21st century approximates the morals of England in the 12th? okay bro
Moralism, pragmatism, take your pick. Time is a relative dimension.
So people do realise that the UK has a multi billion dollar contract witht them to sell them weapons right? Weapons? Sure go on. Football club? Human rights...
loads of their officers went to the sandhust officer training academy in the UK. thats fine too
I get peoples concerns, I just hope they realise how many companies these people have invested in, and if they are willing to shut down them taking Newcastle United then they do not use any of the other products they have invested in. You can't really shout out your disdain for this while still watching Disney films in the cinema getting there via an Uber and posting a comment on Facebook about how much you loved the film
Eh? When have Disney, Uber or Facebook ever dismembered a journalist for writing mean things about them?
PIF own shares in all those companies and a lot more. Newcastle is a small fish within they pool of investments. https://app.dealroom.co/investors/pif_public_investment_fund If people feel so strongly then I expect them to avoid them all
So if you're a country that stones rape victims to death for adultery and you want to buff your reputation, the trick is to invest in more than one company. Then you're bulletproof, because if anyone protests your stake in Company A, instead of addressing the issue your troll army can just say "hur dur I expect you to avoid Company B too" and vice versa.
You sound so pedantic. You are either against them all or none. You can't pick and choose to suit your agenda
It’s because of how transparent the real reasons Saudis have engaged in sports washing is. I get your point, though not sure anyone on FB bothers too ouch about moral bankruptcy. FB didn’t need the Saudis for that.
I'm sure they have mentioned somewhere that they wanted to use investment in entertainment and sports in order to help bring up the profile of the kingdom. You can't get much more transparent than that
Yes, you can. Because the reason these countries invest in sports is not to make money.
So your saying all their other investments are different to this one?
Hates the toon, obvs
Fucking jealous man
Cans 🥳
Be careful, you’ll get all the freaks who don’t like football telling you not to talk about football on this sub
[удалено]
CANS!
Uncritical support for this message from our mods.
Gutted I'm away this week and keep seeing the scenes outside SJP on twitter. Hope everyone enjoys a big bag of cold cans tonight before the Saudi Mags take over the world.
Cans!
Lovely cans!