Poor old Newcastle..

[norfolkngood 1,087]

14 hours ago, hogesar said:

To claim £100 million wouldnt improve Delia and Michaels last years is uhhh...interesting.

why would someone who is Delia's age want more money ?  

How is that going to help them ? 

i imagine they have everything they want in their lives now , watches, cars, nice house holidays if wanted , New Saucepans and chopping board for Delia ,

they have No children to spend money on 

when people get to their age and have been wealthy most of their lives which they both have they have everything they want 

what will they spend that extra 100 mil on ?

i doubt they will spend ever spend the money they have without selling the club 

 

[horsefly 4,300]

6 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Calm down now fella.. take breath and look at what has been said. The CIA are still looking for proof to link the SA government. This is fact, you even linked it yourself. Whether they think they have enough I have never questioned, whether it’s political I have never questioned. Perhaps before you start questioning somebody else’s mental capabilities you first evaluate your reading comprehension?

Keep digging that hole! The CIA proved their case and as a result  sanctioned 17 Saudis under the Magnitski Act. Your grasp of logic and the law is so dreadfully  poor you think that because Trump used his executive power to force them to continue investigations it follows that they hadn't proved their case. That is a non-sequitur of mind-numbingly childish proportions. I suggest you get yourself a schoolboy level logic primer before you comment any further and make such a fool of yourself.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

On 07/10/2021 at 13:44, PurpleCanary said:

There is an element of truth in that but this deal is in a different category altogether and way beyond the moral pale.

Even if one ignored the state-ordered murder of Kashoggi the broader point is that under Mohammed bin Salman; the supposed moderniser who has been the de facto ruler of Saudi since 2017 and is the chairman of the state investment fund that has bought Newcastle United, repression has increased rather than decreased. This is the latest report from Amnesty International:

''Repression of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly intensified. Among those harassed, arbitrarily detained, prosecuted and/or jailed were government critics, women’s rights activists, human rights defenders, relatives of activists, journalists, members of the Shi’a minority and online critics of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtually all known Saudi Arabian human rights defenders inside the country were detained or imprisoned at the end of the year. Grossly unfair trials continued before the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) and other courts. Courts resorted extensively to the death penalty and people were executed for a wide range of crimes. Migrant workers were even more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation because of the pandemic, and thousands were arbitrarily detained in dire conditions, leading to an unknown number of deaths.''

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

Keep digging that hole! The CIA proved their case and as a result  sanctioned 17 Saudis under the Magnitski Act. Your grasp of logic and the law is so dreadfully  poor you think that because Trump used his executive power to force them to continue investigations it follows that they hadn't proved their case. That is a non-sequitur of mind-numbingly childish proportions. I suggest you get yourself a schoolboy level logic primer before you comment any further and make such a fool of yourself.

Clearly winning an Internet forum argument is really important to you and while you conveniently forget who those sanctions were against for the sake of my sanity and that of other forum users I will concede defeat and say you won, well done little fella, the people taking over Newcastle are convicted murders proven and punished for their crimes, just as you rightly point out, gold star ⭐️ for you and apologies to all forum users, from myself, for such gross disinformation. I hope putting that bit in bold will go some way to setting the record straight which I have so clearly muddied. 👍

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Even if one ignored the state-ordered murder of Kashoggi the broader point is that under Mohammed bin Salman; the supposed moderniser who has been the de facto ruler of Saudi since 2017 and is the chairman of the state investment fund that has bought Newcastle United, repression has increased rather than decreased. This is the latest report from Amnesty International:

''Repression of the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly intensified. Among those harassed, arbitrarily detained, prosecuted and/or jailed were government critics, women’s rights activists, human rights defenders, relatives of activists, journalists, members of the Shi’a minority and online critics of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtually all known Saudi Arabian human rights defenders inside the country were detained or imprisoned at the end of the year. Grossly unfair trials continued before the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) and other courts. Courts resorted extensively to the death penalty and people were executed for a wide range of crimes. Migrant workers were even more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation because of the pandemic, and thousands were arbitrarily detained in dire conditions, leading to an unknown number of deaths.''

Amnesty International isn’t necessarily the most objective and impartial of arbiters.  After all, have you read their report on the UK, that racist, transphobic, discriminatory hellhole with a questionable human rights record?

[Badger 2,405]

19 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Jeez, you really are a pedantic bore aren’t you?  It’s no accident that the clubs with the wealthiest owners are the ones that have the strongest squads, that can afford to pay the highest transfer fees and wages, and that are consistently challenging for the title and the European places.  Do stop nitpicking.

Your insult is because you will never back up what you say and end up deny saying it. It is not "nitpicking" if you say in the first place that owners give  loads of money, but then secondly that they don't give money. I am merely pointing out that what you are saying is  all over the place and lacks coherence.

You have now provided a third separate argument - again without any evidence to back up your assertion. If I were to provide evidence that you were incorrect, you would no doubt call it pedantic. 🤦‍♂️

[horsefly 4,300]

8 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Clearly winning an Internet forum argument is really important to you and while you conveniently forget who those sanctions were against for the sake of my sanity and that of other forum users I will concede defeat and say you won, well done little fella, the people taking over Newcastle are convicted murders proven and punished for their crimes, just as you rightly point out, gold star ⭐️ for you and apologies to all forum users, from myself, for such gross disinformation. I hope putting that bit in bold will go some way to setting the record straight which I have so clearly muddied. 👍

saddo! Absolutely hilarious how those who claim that others are desperate to have the last word then proceed to spout a pile of garbage in order to have the last word. Do feel free to quote me where I'm supposed to have made the absurd claim that "the people taking over Newcastle are convicted murders proven and punished for their crimes" those are your ridiculous words not mine. Truly pathetic! Grow up and attend to the facts.

Edited October 10, 2021 by horsefly

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Amnesty International isn’t necessarily the most objective and impartial of arbiters.  After all, have you read their report on the UK, that racist, transphobic, discriminatory hellhole with a questionable human rights record?

Perhaps this latest annual report on Saudi Arabia from another well-known organisation will help confirm that from Amnesty International:

''Significant human rights issues included: unlawful killings; executions for nonviolent offenses; forced disappearances; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners and detainees by government agents; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners or detainees; serious restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including threats of violence or unjustified arrests or prosecutions against journalists, censorship, site blocking, and engaging in harassment and intimidation against Saudi dissidents living abroad; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; severe restrictions of religious freedom; restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to choose their government peacefully through free and fair elections; violence and discrimination against women, although new women’s rights initiatives were implemented; trafficking in persons; criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual activity; and restrictions on workers’ freedom of association, including prohibition of trade unions and collective bargaining. In several cases the government did not punish officials accused of committing human rights abuses, contributing to an environment of impunity.''

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Amnesty International isn’t necessarily the most objective and impartial of arbiters.  After all, have you read their report on the UK, that racist, transphobic, discriminatory hellhole with a questionable human rights record?

Yet again leaving aside the obvious exaggeration ("discriminatory hellhole" are of course, your words), let's take the main issues they raise - do you think that the UK has no questions to answer on racism and LGBT issues?

The UK clearly has contravened the human rights of others at times - this is not a party political issue - Blair had a very shady record. Surely the fact that Amnesty International raises it for western countries as well as others is evidence of its impartiality rather than the opposite as you suggest?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Perhaps this latest annual report on Saudi Arabia from another well-known organisation will help confirm that from Amnesty International:

''Significant human rights issues included: unlawful killings; executions for nonviolent offenses; forced disappearances; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of prisoners and detainees by government agents; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners or detainees; serious restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet, including threats of violence or unjustified arrests or prosecutions against journalists, censorship, site blocking, and engaging in harassment and intimidation against Saudi dissidents living abroad; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; severe restrictions of religious freedom; restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to choose their government peacefully through free and fair elections; violence and discrimination against women, although new women’s rights initiatives were implemented; trafficking in persons; criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual activity; and restrictions on workers’ freedom of association, including prohibition of trade unions and collective bargaining. In several cases the government did not punish officials accused of committing human rights abuses, contributing to an environment of impunity.''

To explain, this is the official report of the US State Department, that well-known Trotskyist front organisation. Just in case anyone was stupid enough to give credence to Naturalcynic's infantile attempt to blacken Amnesty International. It actually goes further than AI in itemising the many crimes and repressions of the government that has just been allowed by the Premier League to buy Newcastle United.

[First Wazzock 902]

[norfolkngood 1,087]

So what Happens when Newcastle come knocking for Aarons with a Suitcase full of money do we say sorry we do not want that dirty money ?  or we take it for rebuilding the team 

We can not say it is Wrong for the Saudi's to Buy Newcastle then take their money for our young stars 

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

On 09/10/2021 at 22:52, norfolkngood said:

why would someone who is Delia's age want more money ?  

How is that going to help them ? 

i imagine they have everything they want in their lives now , watches, cars, nice house holidays if wanted , New Saucepans and chopping board for Delia ,

they have No children to spend money on 

when people get to their age and have been wealthy most of their lives which they both have they have everything they want 

what will they spend that extra 100 mil on ?

i doubt they will spend ever spend the money they have without selling the club 

 

A small private jet for away matches? Would save them a fortune long term. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

I ****ing hate modern football. The Premier League is corrupt as ****. They need this constant flow of external wealth to be poured into Premier League clubs so they can stay ahead of the arms race. More money in the Premier League means the majority of the world's best players ply their trade in it. This means that it holds greater global appeal in the Chinese, African and Indian markets, meaning even more money. They cannot achieve this dominance of foreign TV audiences over La Liga and Bundesliga legitimately, it requires money even if it's dirty.

I've said it before, it's why a club like Norwich, trying to do things properly, will never be permitted to establish themselves in the Premier League, because it may deter wealthy investors pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into transfer kittys and wage budgets. If little old Norwich can get established without forking out £100,000 a week on half a dozen players, then why should the owners of Leicester? Before you know it, the wages start to drop and the big names eventually start to migrate to different countries and the EPL global appeal drops along with the TV audiences and revenues.

So, wave in the journalist-murdering Saudis, ignore the human-rights violations (including against British citizens) perpetrated by Man City's heralded owners, laugh off Abramovich funding vile right-wing Israeli group Elad, allow our once proud football clubs that used to be community institutions to simply becomes tools for global money-laundering. Who cares? We get to see Ronaldo, de Bruyne and Salah plying their trade within these shores.

It's a ****fest or corruption. A plaything of an immoral global elite. It's closer to WWE than grassroots football in what constitutes an actual sport.

If there was literally anything else from a sporting perspective within walking distance of my house that I could watch whilst enjoying a bit of atmosphere, I'd be turning my back on the whole ****ed up spectacle.

Football is ****ing ****.

[sgncfc 1,228]

1 hour ago, norfolkngood said:

So what Happens when Newcastle come knocking for Aarons with a Suitcase full of money do we say sorry we do not want that dirty money ?  or we take it for rebuilding the team 

We can not say it is Wrong for the Saudi's to Buy Newcastle then take their money for our young stars 

I would love it if we turned down their money. Genuinely. It would be game changing.

NB Someone on here said that the wealthiest owners get all the best players and win everything. The Eisner family own Portsmouth. A billionaire owns Sunderland, and we saw how Mr Evans did at 1p5wich. They don't unless they work out ways around FFP, which those 3 haven't yet managed to do. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,718]

[1902 1,167]

1 hour ago, norfolkngood said:

So what Happens when Newcastle come knocking for Aarons with a Suitcase full of money do we say sorry we do not want that dirty money ?  or we take it for rebuilding the team 

We can not say it is Wrong for the Saudi's to Buy Newcastle then take their money for our young stars 

Which is where it's got stupid. We have now got to the state whereby a football club is owned by such a horrendous state via its sovereign wealth fund, that we now need to have that moral debate. It's ridiculous, and it was started when the FA allowed the Man City sale and has just got worse.

Then we have the absurdity of people trying to protect the Saudi regime because they are so keen on the idea of a buyout here that they will try to whitewash anyone with money so that they can continue to claim that a big investor would make Norwich city a better club to support. 

Additionally, we have Newcastle fans, who had a crap owner in Ashley, genuinely thinking this is better. Is Mike Ashley a nice man, not really. Is he a monster, not by the standards of the dear crown prince of The House of Saud.

However the prospect of buying a title is so appealing, that some of them are now pretending that paying **** wages at Sports Direct is tantamount to murder, where misogynistic, homophobic actual murderers are the Messiah. 

It's grim, and it's taking a sport I love and dragging it into a geopolitical and moral gutter that I never thought it would be. It's killing my love for the game.

[robert choice 24]

2 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

So what Happens when Newcastle come knocking for Aarons with a Suitcase full of money do we say sorry we do not want that dirty money ?  or we take it for rebuilding the team 

We can not say it is Wrong for the Saudi's to Buy Newcastle then take their money for our young stars 

Valid point and it will be interesting to see what happens.

13 minutes ago, 1902 said:

Which is where it's got stupid. We have now got to the state whereby a football club is owned by such a horrendous state via its sovereign wealth fund, that we now need to have that moral debate. It's ridiculous, and it was started when the FA allowed the Man City sale and has just got worse.

Then we have the absurdity of people trying to protect the Saudi regime because they are so keen on the idea of a buyout here that they will try to whitewash anyone with money so that they can continue to claim that a big investor would make Norwich city a better club to support. 

Additionally, we have Newcastle fans, who had a crap owner in Ashley, genuinely thinking this is better. Is Mike Ashley a nice man, not really. Is he a monster, not by the standards of the dear crown prince of The House of Saud.

However the prospect of buying a title is so appealing, that some of them are now pretending that paying **** wages at Sports Direct is tantamount to murder, where misogynistic, homophobic actual murderers are the Messiah. 

It's grim, and it's taking a sport I love and dragging it into a geopolitical and moral gutter that I never thought it would be. It's killing my love for the game.

Breathtaking tripe.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by robert choice
Couldn't stop laughing.

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 minutes ago, robert choice said:

Breathtaking tripe.

If only it did take your breath away, for maybe 3-4 minutes.

[1902 1,167]

4 minutes ago, robert choice said:

Valid point and it will be interesting to see what happens.

Breathtaking tripe.

 

 

See Big Vince and Uncle Fred have a sense of humour which makes their difference of views vaguely interesting.

You really are the worst poster on this message board, not even by a small margin. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

On 10/10/2021 at 10:21, Naturalcynic said:

Amnesty International isn’t necessarily the most objective and impartial of arbiters.  After all, have you read their report on the UK, that racist, transphobic, discriminatory hellhole with a questionable human rights record?

And where is Amnesty International wrong there?

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I ****ing hate modern football. The Premier League is corrupt as ****. They need this constant flow of external wealth to be poured into Premier League clubs so they can stay ahead of the arms race. More money in the Premier League means the majority of the world's best players ply their trade in it. This means that it holds greater global appeal in the Chinese, African and Indian markets, meaning even more money. They cannot achieve this dominance of foreign TV audiences over La Liga and Bundesliga legitimately, it requires money even if it's dirty.

I've said it before, it's why a club like Norwich, trying to do things properly, will never be permitted to establish themselves in the Premier League, because it may deter wealthy investors pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into transfer kittys and wage budgets. If little old Norwich can get established without forking out £100,000 a week on half a dozen players, then why should the owners of Leicester? Before you know it, the wages start to drop and the big names eventually start to migrate to different countries and the EPL global appeal drops along with the TV audiences and revenues.

So, wave in the journalist-murdering Saudis, ignore the human-rights violations (including against British citizens) perpetrated by Man City's heralded owners, laugh off Abramovich funding vile right-wing Israeli group Elad, allow our once proud football clubs that used to be community institutions to simply becomes tools for global money-laundering. Who cares? We get to see Ronaldo, de Bruyne and Salah plying their trade within these shores.

It's a ****fest or corruption. A plaything of an immoral global elite. It's closer to WWE than grassroots football in what constitutes an actual sport.

If there was literally anything else from a sporting perspective within walking distance of my house that I could watch whilst enjoying a bit of atmosphere, I'd be turning my back on the whole ****ed up spectacle.

Football is ****ing ****.

A lot of truth in this, Dan. When those that oversee football are all part of the corrupt edifice then there is little hope for the game at the highest level. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 09/10/2021 at 18:24, horsefly said:

Nonsense! The CIA DID indeed conclude that bin Salman had ordered the killing, contrary to your ill-informed claim:

By November 2018, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, based on multiple sources of intelligence, had concluded that bin Salman had ordered Khashoggi's assassination.^[1] In the same month, the United States sanctioned 17 Saudi individuals under the Magnitsky Act over the Khashoggi murder, including former bin Salman advisor Saud Al-Qahtani, but did not sanction bin Salman himself.^[15] U.S. President Donald Trump disputed the CIA assessment, expressed support for bin Salman, and stated that the investigation into Khashoggi's death had to continue.^[16]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi}

Trump, typically, decided it was more important to secure a billion dollar military trade deal than call out bin Salman for this dispicable act. The CIA had no power to overrule Trump's refusal to act, so the lack of US sanctions against bin Salman is entirely irrelevant to what the CIA concluded.

Further, the United Nations commisioned a report on the killing and also concluded the SA government ( bin Salman ) was responsible for the murder:

The murder prompted intense global scrutiny and criticism of the Saudi government.^[17] A June 2019 report issued by Agnès Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, concluded that Khashoggi's murder was "a brutal and premeditated killing, planned and perpetrated."^[17] Callamard determined that responsibility for Khashoggi's killing, and the elaborate campaign to cover it up, rests with the highest officials of the Saudi royal court and that "credible evidence" called for the "investigation of high-level Saudi officials' individual liability, including the crown prince's."^[7] Callamard's report also detailed the role of the Saudi consul general in Istanbul in coordinating the killing, undercutting the claim that the murder was an unauthorized act by rogue operatives.^[7] The special rapporteur called for a criminal investigation to be undertaken by the UN and, because Khashoggi was a resident of the United States, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.^[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi

 

What sanctions against SA have the UN implemented?

[horsefly 4,300]

15 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

What sanctions against SA have the UN implemented?

Oh dear! Reading isn't a talent of yours is it! Do point out where I am supposed to have claimed that the UN had applied sanctions. I said, entirely correctly, that they had commissioned a report which concluded the SA government was responsible for Khahsoggi's murder. Here's another link which explains what is in that report (perhaps you can find a grandchild or someone else to help you read and understand it):

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24713

And here is a brief excerpt detailing the author's call for further action:

Callamard called on the Human Rights Council, the Security Council or the UN Secretary-General to conduct an international follow-up criminal investigation for the purpose of determining individual liability and identifying options towards judicial accountability.

The report stated that it was troubling that to date the execution of Mr Khashoggi had been met with so few effective international responses, whether legal, political or diplomatic although a number of States had issued targeted sanctions against Saudi officials.

“These must continue. They are important but insufficient. The crime committed was a State killing. These particular sanctions against 17 or more individuals act as a smokescreen, diverting attention away from State responsibility,” the report reads. “The current sanctions also fail to address the central questions of chain of command and of senior leadership’s responsibilities for and associated with the execution.”

Edited October 12, 2021 by horsefly

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear! Reading isn't a talent of yours is it! Do point out where I am supposed to have claimed that the UN had applied sanctions. I said, entirely correctly, that they had commissioned a report which concluded the SA government was responsible for Khahsoggi's murder. Here's another link which explains what is in that report (perhaps you can find a grandchild or someone else to help you read and understand it):

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24713

And here is a brief excerpt detailing the author's call for further action:

Callamard called on the Human Rights Council, the Security Council or the UN Secretary-General to conduct an international follow-up criminal investigation for the purpose of determining individual liability and identifying options towards judicial accountability.

The report stated that it was troubling that to date the execution of Mr Khashoggi had been met with so few effective international responses, whether legal, political or diplomatic although a number of States had issued targeted sanctions against Saudi officials.

“These must continue. They are important but insufficient. The crime committed was a State killing. These particular sanctions against 17 or more individuals act as a smokescreen, diverting attention away from State responsibility,” the report reads. “The current sanctions also fail to address the central questions of chain of command and of senior leadership’s responsibilities for and associated with the execution.”

No need to get all sarcy over a perfectly reasonable question. You put up information describing what the UN investigation found, I'm asking what did the UN do about it. Did they implement sanctions?

[horsefly 4,300]

2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

No need to get all sarcy over a perfectly reasonable question. You put up information describing what the UN investigation found, I'm asking what did the UN do about it. Did they implement sanctions?

And there's your answer that you could have very easily discovered for yourself in a few seconds.

Edited October 12, 2021 by horsefly

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

I notice that nobody said a word when Middle Eastern potentates took over the horse racing industry, pumped in huge sums of money, driving up prices and forcing out small time owners. Dominating the industry in the same way as they are doing in football but no one says a peep. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And there's your answer that you could have very easily discovered for yourself in a few seconds.

So no UN sanctions then. If the UN doesn't take a lead one can hardly expect others to do so. 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

If Newcastle offer £30m for Aarons does anyone actually think we would turn it down? Of course they wouldn't. 

[horsefly 4,300]

Just now, Rock The Boat said:

So no UN sanctions then. If the UN doesn't take a lead one can hardly expect others to do so. 

Nonsense! Countries take sanctions against other countries all the time without waiting for the difficult bureaucratic process of the declaration of UN sanctions. Try reading the link for once and you will discover several countries have indeed already taken sanctions against SA (including the UK). I suggest you do a few seconds research.