|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 9, 2021 18:25:19 GMT
It isn't silly. It's actually touching on what's happened this week. So isis have taken and passed the tests to be fit and proper owners of Newcastle United have they? I missed that bit....... isis backers have been deemed fit and proper, yes.
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 9, 2021 19:01:14 GMT
Newcastle United will not be signing Harry Souttar, calm yourself down 😉 No but Burnley might and if they sell Tarkowski to Newcastle they will have the money to do so.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 9, 2021 19:12:10 GMT
So isis have taken and passed the tests to be fit and proper owners of Newcastle United have they? I missed that bit....... isis backers have been deemed fit and proper, yes. Forgive my ignorance but in what way have they backed isis?
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 9, 2021 19:41:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 9, 2021 19:47:16 GMT
Is that the owners or Countries you're talking about? Are the actual owners of Newcastle and PSG isis backers or just from countries who sympathise with isis?
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 9, 2021 19:59:44 GMT
Is that the owners or Countries you're talking about? Are the actual owners of Newcastle and PSG isis backers or just from countries who sympathise with isis? Well, the main guy who had Khashoggi killed, MBS, is on the board of PIF.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 9, 2021 20:01:28 GMT
Is that the owners or Countries you're talking about? Are the actual owners of Newcastle and PSG isis backers or just from countries who sympathise with isis? missed this off but it's all out there. Non hiden, which is why it's so outrageous they have taken over newcastle
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 9, 2021 20:02:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 9, 2021 20:04:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 9, 2021 20:17:48 GMT
Is that the owners or Countries you're talking about? Are the actual owners of Newcastle and PSG isis backers or just from countries who sympathise with isis? Well, the main guy who had Khashoggi killed, MBS, is on the board of PIF. So the murder of a journalist is linked to backing isis in what way?
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 9, 2021 20:30:09 GMT
Well, the main guy who had Khashoggi killed, MBS, is on the board of PIF. So the murder of a journalist is linked to backing isis in what way? gave you all the links in the first reply. the rest shows what a nasty bunch they are
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 9, 2021 20:38:40 GMT
So the murder of a journalist is linked to backing isis in what way? gave you all the links in the first reply. the rest shows what a nasty bunch they are I've never said the rulers of Saudi Arabia are lovely people I just asked how that equates to the new owners of Newcastle supporting ISIS.
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Oct 9, 2021 20:55:00 GMT
How naive or blind can they be!! Do they know or care about how Saudi-Arabia is ruled!!??
|
|
|
Post by shakermaker on Oct 9, 2021 21:13:06 GMT
So if Isis decided to get their message across buying a football club and putting billions in was a way to do it you'd be fine with that? Now you're being silly of course not. h Ah good, so you do have some scruples!
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 9, 2021 21:32:19 GMT
Now you're being silly of course not. h Ah good, so you do have some scruples! Not many but at least I'm honest it must be so hard being perfect as so many are on here apparently 🙂 I love it how outraged some are and how judgemental they are but I'll guarantee IF stoke were purchased by dubious owners (of course we already have dubious owners) the same virtuous outraged fans would be delirious when all the superstars were being announced and the new 60k seater stadium was built. So spare me the Oatcake faux guff I don't buy it.
|
|
|
Post by tejstokie on Oct 9, 2021 23:03:02 GMT
Didn't man city spend hundreds of millions of pounds to get that squad from nowhere? In the late 90s and early 2000's they were a nobody until the coffers came in for the likes of aguero and kompany. You being serious? well we have 5th richest owners but don't spend 5th most money do we ? Barnsley owner is super rich but doesn't splash out Spurs owner seriously wedged doesn't spend money like Man City Obviously new owners at Newcastle will spend however not seen anything re their intentions only speculation could be they spend & spend & spend and over time catch up with Man City or even overtake them or could be like Everton & spend lots but not mega lots like Chelsea, Man City & PSG I don't understand your point m8.
|
|
|
Post by tejstokie on Oct 9, 2021 23:07:50 GMT
I'd rather stoke be bought by Chinese Mafia consortium or a dirty Russian oligarch than Saudi's. Cunts to a man. I spent 10 years in Saudi Arabia on station as a medic, horrible govt and ruling class.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Oct 9, 2021 23:10:45 GMT
It isn't silly. It's actually touching on what's happened this week. So isis have taken and passed the tests to be fit and proper owners of Newcastle United have they? I missed that bit....... As I said, this takeover takes us down that road.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 10, 2021 9:32:04 GMT
h Ah good, so you do have some scruples! Not many but at least I'm honest it must be so hard being perfect as so many are on here apparently 🙂 I love it how outraged some are and how judgemental they are but I'll guarantee IF stoke were purchased by dubious owners (of course we already have dubious owners) the same virtuous outraged fans would be delirious when all the superstars were being announced and the new 60k seater stadium was built. So spare me the Oatcake faux guff I don't buy it. just in case your second paragraph was a referral to me and my posts. No one's claiming to be perfect are they? It's a pointless dig. I think it's justifiable to be judgemental in this instance. The state of Saudi Arabia is responsible for some of the most destructive moments of the 21st century. The backing of the hijackers for 9/11 (of which IS a separate subject but has led the world into chaos), and the backing of ISIS. (of which I have provided links to US govt cables telling us of such). The PIF is a sovereign wealth fund for Saudi Arabia, It is not a private separate fund. It's chairman is MBS, he is also the crown prince of SA. So, the Chairman of the PIF, is the person who is in charge of SA. SA funds ISIS, as told by US intelligence cables, and the person who funds ISIS, is the same person who is chair of the PIF, who just bought NUFC. Throw in the subjudication of women, the hatred of gays, torture and killing of domestic critics and journalists and public beheadings (just the 37 yesterday), and hopefully you can see why this is such an issue.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 10, 2021 9:41:46 GMT
Not many but at least I'm honest it must be so hard being perfect as so many are on here apparently 🙂 I love it how outraged some are and how judgemental they are but I'll guarantee IF stoke were purchased by dubious owners (of course we already have dubious owners) the same virtuous outraged fans would be delirious when all the superstars were being announced and the new 60k seater stadium was built. So spare me the Oatcake faux guff I don't buy it. just in case your second paragraph was a referral to me and my posts. No one's claiming to be perfect are they? It's a pointless dig. I think it's justifiable to be judgemental in this instance. The state of Saudi Arabia is responsible for some of the most destructive moments of the 21st century. The backing of the hijackers for 9/11 (of which IS a separate subject but has led the world into chaos), and the backing of ISIS. (of which I have provided links to US govt cables telling us of such). The PIF is a sovereign wealth fund for Saudi Arabia, It is not a private separate fund. It's chairman is MBS, he is also the crown prince of SA. So, the Chairman of the PIF, is the person who is in charge of SA. SA funds ISIS, as told by US intelligence cables, and the person who funds ISIS, is the same person who is chair of the PIF, who just bought NUFC. Throw in the subjudication of women, the hatred of gays, torture and killing of domestic critics and journalists and public beheadings (just the 37 yesterday), and hopefully you can see why this is such an issue. It wasn't actually but I assume you have the same opinions on the Qatar World Cup, PSG, Chelsea etc and of course our owners making billions from the misery of addicted gamblers.
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 10, 2021 9:52:40 GMT
just in case your second paragraph was a referral to me and my posts. No one's claiming to be perfect are they? It's a pointless dig. I think it's justifiable to be judgemental in this instance. The state of Saudi Arabia is responsible for some of the most destructive moments of the 21st century. The backing of the hijackers for 9/11 (of which IS a separate subject but has led the world into chaos), and the backing of ISIS. (of which I have provided links to US govt cables telling us of such). The PIF is a sovereign wealth fund for Saudi Arabia, It is not a private separate fund. It's chairman is MBS, he is also the crown prince of SA. So, the Chairman of the PIF, is the person who is in charge of SA. SA funds ISIS, as told by US intelligence cables, and the person who funds ISIS, is the same person who is chair of the PIF, who just bought NUFC. Throw in the subjudication of women, the hatred of gays, torture and killing of domestic critics and journalists and public beheadings (just the 37 yesterday), and hopefully you can see why this is such an issue. It wasn't actually but I assume you have the same opinions on the Qatar World Cup, PSG, Chelsea etc and of course our owners making billions from the misery of addicted gamblers. I absolutely have the same opinion of Qatar and the WC its been given. I've been very vocal about it on here. PSG, Man City, Chelsea yes, it's disgraceful. Nothing but dirty money. I also think it's an utter disgrace ManU are 'based' in the Carribean and pay no tax. With regards to our owners. I see the problem some people have with it. I really do. But gambling in the UK is legal, is it not? And Bet365 employ people in the UK, and actually pay tax. Last time i checked, BET365 weren't lopping people's heads of in Etruria, nor banning gays, or women from their platform, and crucially, not clandestinely funding terrorism in a region of the world that could 'go off' at any moment. With betting, there's more than one company. If BET365 didn't exist, the same gamblers would still be doing it with other offshore companies and the likes of Ladbrokes, William Hill etc.. Bet365 are the better devil you know. Would we feel the same if the owners of Smirnoff bought us out? Would it be viewed differently by the public "because we all like a drink", and the vast majority can handle it. It's a level hypocrisy designed to beat us with. It may be uncomfortable to some (not me) to have bookies for owners. But we have owners with a conscience, as seen during the pandemic with the way they treat their staff, and support the local area. I wouldn't change them for the world.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 10, 2021 10:18:27 GMT
It wasn't actually but I assume you have the same opinions on the Qatar World Cup, PSG, Chelsea etc and of course our owners making billions from the misery of addicted gamblers. I absolutely have the same opinion of Qatar and the WC its been given. I've been very vocal about it on here. PSG, Man City, Chelsea yes, it's disgraceful. Nothing but dirty money. I also think it's an utter disgrace ManU are 'based' in the Carribean and pay no tax. With regards to our owners. I see the problem some people have with it. I really do. But gambling in the UK is legal, is it not? And Bet365 employ people in the UK, and actually pay tax. Last time i checked, BET365 weren't lopping people's heads of in Etruria, nor banning gays, or women from their platform, and crucially, not clandestinely funding terrorism in a region of the world that could 'go off' at any moment. With betting, there's more than one company. If BET365 didn't exist, the same gamblers would still be doing it with other offshore companies and the likes of Ladbrokes, William Hill etc.. Bet365 are the better devil you know. Would we feel the same if the owners of Smirnoff bought us out? Would it be viewed differently by the public "because we all like a drink", and the vast majority can handle it. It's a level hypocrisy designed to beat us with. It may be uncomfortable to some (not me) to have bookies for owners. But we have owners with a conscience, as seen during the pandemic with the way they treat their staff, and support the local area. I wouldn't change them for the world. So bet365 are OK because they offset their misgivings and exploitation with tax. I've already said it wouldn't bother me who owned Stoke so smirnof, Benson & Hedges meh but there's a consistency in my stance unlike yours. I would have drawn the line at OBL or his relatives though I'm not completely heartless 🙂
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 10, 2021 10:30:01 GMT
I absolutely have the same opinion of Qatar and the WC its been given. I've been very vocal about it on here. PSG, Man City, Chelsea yes, it's disgraceful. Nothing but dirty money. I also think it's an utter disgrace ManU are 'based' in the Carribean and pay no tax. With regards to our owners. I see the problem some people have with it. I really do. But gambling in the UK is legal, is it not? And Bet365 employ people in the UK, and actually pay tax. Last time i checked, BET365 weren't lopping people's heads of in Etruria, nor banning gays, or women from their platform, and crucially, not clandestinely funding terrorism in a region of the world that could 'go off' at any moment. With betting, there's more than one company. If BET365 didn't exist, the same gamblers would still be doing it with other offshore companies and the likes of Ladbrokes, William Hill etc.. Bet365 are the better devil you know. Would we feel the same if the owners of Smirnoff bought us out? Would it be viewed differently by the public "because we all like a drink", and the vast majority can handle it. It's a level hypocrisy designed to beat us with. It may be uncomfortable to some (not me) to have bookies for owners. But we have owners with a conscience, as seen during the pandemic with the way they treat their staff, and support the local area. I wouldn't change them for the world. So bet365 are OK because they offset their misgivings and exploitation with tax. I've already said it wouldn't bother me who owned Stoke so smirnof, Benson & Hedges meh but there's a consistency in my stance unlike yours. I would have drawn the line at OBL or his relatives though I'm not completely heartless 🙂 I don't understand how mine are inconsistent. We have owners acting legally, and going above and beyond locally and nationally with their donations and foundations. If they were offshore, not employing anyone in the uk, and not paying tax, yes, i'd have a problem with it. They could quite easily do that anyway, so i do appreciate what we have and what they do. If it's gambling as a whole you don't like, theres only one way to deal with it, and thats by stopping it. But this also includes the lottery, the bingo the old dears go down too, casino's etc... I repeat, if Bet365 wasn't there, people would gamble elsewhere, and no money would flow in the local economy. There also can be no comparison to the coates family and the what the state of saudi arabia is doing.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 10, 2021 10:47:08 GMT
So bet365 are OK because they offset their misgivings and exploitation with tax. I've already said it wouldn't bother me who owned Stoke so smirnof, Benson & Hedges meh but there's a consistency in my stance unlike yours. I would have drawn the line at OBL or his relatives though I'm not completely heartless 🙂 I don't understand how mine are inconsistent. We have owners acting legally, and going above and beyond locally and nationally with their donations and foundations. If they were offshore, not employing anyone in the uk, and not paying tax, yes, i'd have a problem with it. They could quite easily do that anyway, so i do appreciate what we have and what they do. If it's gambling as a whole you don't like, theres only one way to deal with it, and thats by stopping it. But this also includes the lottery, the bingo the old dears go down too, casino's etc... I repeat, if Bet365 wasn't there, people would gamble elsewhere, and no money would flow in the local economy. There also can be no comparison to the coates family and the what the state of saudi arabia is doing. I've not tried to compare like for like its about a moral compass. I'm playing devils advocate with you and you outrage regarding the new owners of Newcastle. Of course bet365 are not the brutal rulers of Saudi Arabia but you excuse bet365 with comments like well they are local, employ people pay tax so they're fine you even said it yourself "better the devil you know" I'm greatful for bet365 too for what they've done for our club but your point is they're local so that's OK. I've tried to answer your points so what would you do if the Saudis purchased Stoke ?
|
|
|
Post by toppercorner on Oct 10, 2021 11:04:47 GMT
I don't understand how mine are inconsistent. We have owners acting legally, and going above and beyond locally and nationally with their donations and foundations. If they were offshore, not employing anyone in the uk, and not paying tax, yes, i'd have a problem with it. They could quite easily do that anyway, so i do appreciate what we have and what they do. If it's gambling as a whole you don't like, theres only one way to deal with it, and thats by stopping it. But this also includes the lottery, the bingo the old dears go down too, casino's etc... I repeat, if Bet365 wasn't there, people would gamble elsewhere, and no money would flow in the local economy. There also can be no comparison to the coates family and the what the state of saudi arabia is doing. I've not tried to compare like for like its about a moral compass. I'm playing devils advocate with you and you outrage regarding the new owners of Newcastle. Of course bet365 are not the brutal rulers of Saudi Arabia but you excuse bet365 with comments like well they are local, employ people pay tax so they're fine you even said it yourself "better the devil you know" I'm greatful for bet365 too for what they've done for our club but your point is they're local so that's OK. I've tried to answer your points so what would you do if the Saudis purchased Stoke ? Your last point, if the saudi's bought Stoke, I'd stop going. For me, it's that simple. They are the centre of a geo-political storm directly involved in global terrorism and international murder. It's pretty much the extreme of what could be wrong with footballing owners. They aren't some far east gambling syndicate or south american drug cartel trying to launder their money, and then resell the club. With bet365, they are a company working legally in the uk.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 10, 2021 11:34:06 GMT
I've not tried to compare like for like its about a moral compass. I'm playing devils advocate with you and you outrage regarding the new owners of Newcastle. Of course bet365 are not the brutal rulers of Saudi Arabia but you excuse bet365 with comments like well they are local, employ people pay tax so they're fine you even said it yourself "better the devil you know" I'm greatful for bet365 too for what they've done for our club but your point is they're local so that's OK. I've tried to answer your points so what would you do if the Saudis purchased Stoke ? Your last point, if the saudi's bought Stoke, I'd stop going. For me, it's that simple. They are the centre of a geo-political storm directly involved in global terrorism and international murder. It's pretty much the extreme of what could be wrong with footballing owners. They aren't some far east gambling syndicate or south american drug cartel trying to launder their money, and then resell the club. With bet365, they are a company working legally in the uk. Fair comment I do however think you'd be in the minority and you'd probably make room for "new" fans coming in with the star players and billion pound new ground to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 10, 2021 11:44:01 GMT
I've not tried to compare like for like its about a moral compass. I'm playing devils advocate with you and you outrage regarding the new owners of Newcastle. Of course bet365 are not the brutal rulers of Saudi Arabia but you excuse bet365 with comments like well they are local, employ people pay tax so they're fine you even said it yourself "better the devil you know" I'm greatful for bet365 too for what they've done for our club but your point is they're local so that's OK. I've tried to answer your points so what would you do if the Saudis purchased Stoke ? Your last point, if the saudi's bought Stoke, I'd stop going. For me, it's that simple. They are the centre of a geo-political storm directly involved in global terrorism and international murder. It's pretty much the extreme of what could be wrong with footballing owners. They aren't some far east gambling syndicate or south american drug cartel trying to launder their money, and then resell the club. With bet365, they are a company working legally in the uk. I think that sums up my view. Comparing our owners to the new majority owners of Newcastle is like comparing chalk with cheese. If Denise, the chair and majority shareholder of bet365, had been accused (as has MBS) by the CIA and the intelligence services of most of the Western World of instigating the murder of a journalist in one of our overseas embassies or consulates, the club would not get a penny of my money or support until such time as she and her family company were no longer majority shareholders of the club. Hopefully, one of the end results of the current consultation on the governance of English football will be the creation of a truly independent regulator for English football. And I'll be delighted if one of the first jobs of that regulator is to create a new test to be applied to owners and directors of clubs, which takes account of human rights and moral compass as well as sound finances and financial integrity. To those who say human rights and moral integrity should have no place in deciding who runs football clubs I would just make one point. Some of the countries with the most dismal human rights records are trying to buy football clubs as a way of sanitising their reputations, and I can see absolutely no reason why English football should be complicit in enabling them to do so.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 10, 2021 12:24:24 GMT
well we have 5th richest owners but don't spend 5th most money do we ? Barnsley owner is super rich but doesn't splash out Spurs owner seriously wedged doesn't spend money like Man City Obviously new owners at Newcastle will spend however not seen anything re their intentions only speculation could be they spend & spend & spend and over time catch up with Man City or even overtake them or could be like Everton & spend lots but not mega lots like Chelsea, Man City & PSG I don't understand your point m8. Point is just because the Saudi regime has the money it's not a certainty they will spend and spend like Man City and Chelsea have
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Oct 10, 2021 17:27:07 GMT
STEVE BRUCE is set to be relieved of his duties in the next 48 hours, with Newcastle United’s new owners expected to install Graeme Jones in temporary charge for Sunday’s home game with Tottenham.
It will cost around £8m to remove Bruce and some of his backroom team, but Staveley, whose PCP Capital Partners group are part of the Saudi Arabia-backed consortium that gained control of Newcastle on Thursday, is understood to regard a change of manager as an essential part of the ‘new beginning’ that was promised at the end of last week.
Brendan Rodgers is regarded as a viable candidate despite his current position as manager of Leicester City, while Rangers boss Steven Gerrard is also expected to make the shortlist of contenders.
Former Chelsea boss Antonio Conte has been considered, but the Italian is believed to have a list of requirements that could result in Newcastle’s recruitment team looking elsewhere.
Lucien Favre, a former boss at Borussia Dortmund, has indicated his interest in the position, while Graham Potter and Eddie Howe have also been mentioned as potential domestic candidates with experience of managing in the Premier League.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Oct 10, 2021 17:50:27 GMT
STEVE BRUCE is set to be relieved of his duties in the next 48 hours, with Newcastle United’s new owners expected to install Graeme Jones in temporary charge for Sunday’s home game with Tottenham. It will cost around £8m to remove Bruce and some of his backroom team, but Staveley, whose PCP Capital Partners group are part of the Saudi Arabia-backed consortium that gained control of Newcastle on Thursday, is understood to regard a change of manager as an essential part of the ‘new beginning’ that was promised at the end of last week. Brendan Rodgers is regarded as a viable candidate despite his current position as manager of Leicester City, while Rangers boss Steven Gerrard is also expected to make the shortlist of contenders. Former Chelsea boss Antonio Conte has been considered, but the Italian is believed to have a list of requirements that could result in Newcastle’s recruitment team looking elsewhere. Lucien Favre, a former boss at Borussia Dortmund, has indicated his interest in the position, while Graham Potter and Eddie Howe have also been mentioned as potential domestic candidates with experience of managing in the Premier League. If your new owners have $300 billion that's quite a depressingly average list of potential new managers, Rogers is the best and he won't leave Leicester for Newcastle.
|
|