Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Quote "Little old Norwich will never get that kind of owner because we just are not on the radar being a relatively small city in a rural area - and probably never will be on that radar." 

Could not disagree more. Norwich is in the top 5 shopping destinations in England, its a modern vibrant City not a small rural City. I hate this "be grateful we are small" attitude. You think Norwich is less significant that Leicester, Southampton, Wolverhampton, Burnley FFS... It's a totally false narrative.

WE ARE A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM not a charity with a separate agenda to everyone else. I love my club and I am proud of it but you don't help it by ignoring the debacle with the sponsorship, or the fiasco of the away membership and our current failure to compete in the league we find ourselves. Reducing ticket prices (we are 8th in the Country) would also help the new generation attend. Praise when they get it right, criticise when they don't.... they are not the messiah! (Is MWJ a very naughty boy? )

The City I am proud of is the fantastic University and the Sainsburys centre, The Theatre Royal, the fantastic Cathedrals, Elm Hill, etc etc.

Small rural Cities don't become the 1st City of Literature in England (UNESCO).

I want a successful club that reflects the successful City. Successful in the top flight! 

I would never claim anywhere is less significant than Wolverhampton.

There are spots in the deepest Sahara with more life in them than that particular city.

Edited by 1902
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Newcastle fans who were up in arms about the Super League are as up in arms about this takeover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Quote "Little old Norwich will never get that kind of owner because we just are not on the radar being a relatively small city in a rural area - and probably never will be on that radar." 

Could not disagree more. Norwich is in the top 5 shopping destinations in England, its a modern vibrant City not a small rural City. I hate this "be grateful we are small" attitude. You think Norwich is less significant that Leicester, Southampton, Wolverhampton, Burnley FFS... It's a totally false narrative.

WE ARE A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM not a charity with a separate agenda to everyone else. I love my club and I am proud of it but you don't help it by ignoring the debacle with the sponsorship, or the fiasco of the away membership and our current failure to compete in the league we find ourselves. Reducing ticket prices (we are 8th in the Country) would also help the new generation attend. Praise when they get it right, criticise when they don't.... they are not the messiah! (Is MWJ a very naughty boy? )

The City I am proud of is the fantastic University and the Sainsburys centre, The Theatre Royal, the fantastic Cathedrals, Elm Hill, etc etc.

Small rural Cities don't become the 1st City of Literature in England (UNESCO).

I want a successful club that reflects the successful City. Successful in the top flight! 

...and its not like this City hasn't expanded in the time since the South stand was replaced, it has and still continues to grow at a rapid pace.  Riverside still has flats going up and Rackheath is becoming a massive part of the City to name just a couple.  There are 1000s of homes going up all over Norfolk.  I honestly think 40,000 at home is achievable now.  There must be 1,000s of kids that are being lost to Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool etc because they can't get into CR! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 1902 said:

I genuinely don't know if this is a joke or ignorance.

Considering the poster you're dealing with, it'll be the latter.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Some shaky stuff in there. The first link is interesting but is dated back to 2004, and the crap really hit the fan during Pope Benedict's time re. cover ups. As those figures are from before Pope Benedict's time when things started to come to light, it's difficult to believe that they are so accurate. I'll accept that there are different shades of abuse of which all are downright ghastly and classification thereof could render statistics askew, along with comparisons between them (to give a topical example, Sweden's view of rape is far stricter than that in most other countries), but this appears to ignore covered-up cases.

There is possibly a good argument that the Protestant or Anglican church is just as bad if not worse. Either way, due to the cover-ups perpetrated at the time those figures were out, the figures are highly dubious. At least Pope Francis does appear to recognise this, to be fair to him, whereas Benedict seemed to double-down. On top of that, when your institution is claiming to be the moral foundation, even having stats that are equal with other professions is not a good sign. To be fair, your last link also makes that point and also rightly notes that it adds to the damage suffered by the victims.

Are Catholic Clergy more Likely to Be Paedophiles than the General Public? Redux - BishopAccountability.org (bishop-accountability.org)

Cardinal admits Church files on paedophile priests 'destroyed' (jamaicaobserver.com)

The second link is already on shaky ground when mentioning the likes of Mother Teresa, who was nowhere near the saviour she purported to be. Granted, they may have radically improved matters after her death, as it would be very much needed. Furthermore, it doesn't even state any figures. It also doesn't make note of tax exemptions granted to the Church either.

It seems to be a claim made by fundamentalist American sorts, and it has a history of being dubious due to the known difficulty of establishing what's really from the Church itself so whilst this link is not a rebuttal of the claim itself, it does highlight how it can be notoriously awkward to classify.

PolitiFact | Does the Catholic church provide half of social services in the U.S.?

Even if we accept the notion of it being the biggest, when Catholic/Christian influence leads to the stigmatisation of homosexuality, as has been amply demonstrated across Africa (Microsoft PowerPoint - NICEPWorkingPaperSeriesCover (nottingham.ac.uk)) and the cases of child abuse we accept are true, then how effective is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Quote "Little old Norwich will never get that kind of owner because we just are not on the radar being a relatively small city in a rural area - and probably never will be on that radar." 

Could not disagree more. Norwich is in the top 5 shopping destinations in England, its a modern vibrant City not a small rural City. I hate this "be grateful we are small" attitude. You think Norwich is less significant that Leicester, Southampton, Wolverhampton, Burnley FFS... It's a totally false narrative.

WE ARE A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM not a charity with a separate agenda to everyone else. I love my club and I am proud of it but you don't help it by ignoring the debacle with the sponsorship, or the fiasco of the away membership and our current failure to compete in the league we find ourselves. Reducing ticket prices (we are 8th in the Country) would also help the new generation attend. Praise when they get it right, criticise when they don't.... they are not the messiah! (Is MWJ a very naughty boy? )

The City I am proud of is the fantastic University and the Sainsburys centre, The Theatre Royal, the fantastic Cathedrals, Elm Hill, etc etc.

Small rural Cities don't become the 1st City of Literature in England (UNESCO).

I want a successful club that reflects the successful City. Successful in the top flight! 

I agree with much of this and share your pride in the City. I certainly want us to be successful in the top flight and don't think that we are far off if we maintain the current sensible approach of building steadily rather than "going for it" and spending years having to rebuild.

With regards ownership, obviously a multi-billionaire would be handy and I wouldn't turn one down if s/he tried to buy my shares, but I am acutely aware that there are many more bad owners than good ones. The current owners are not perfect and have made mistakes, but are well-intentioned and genuine. I would very much prefer this type of owner to the ones that come in simply to make a profit.

I wouldn't rule out a mega rich individual buying the club but nor would I hold my breath. The relative geographic isolation, which is actually one of the City's strengths (hence the regional cultural centre etc) will put of many potential owners and the fact that we solvent means that we would not be cheap to buy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ren said:

...and its not like this City hasn't expanded in the time since the South stand was replaced, it has and still continues to grow at a rapid pace.  Riverside still has flats going up and Rackheath is becoming a massive part of the City to name just a couple.  There are 1000s of homes going up all over Norfolk.  I honestly think 40,000 at home is achievable now.  There must be 1,000s of kids that are being lost to Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool etc because they can't get into CR! 

Agree - we really should expand the ground. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Highland Canary said:

I don’t think anyone could disagree that Newcastle supporters are passionate about their football club. To the extent that the media clips over the last few hours can be considered to be representative, it is not unreasonable to characterise their feelings as ecstatic. Presumably, the belief is that the new ownership increases the likelihood of their club winning football matches - after all this is the main objective for the majority (but not necessarily all) football supporters. It is of course easy to criticise the records of different state actors (but here the SIF is presumably independent of the state) and in our everyday life we interact with many state actors, which have different governance systems, values etc from a typical western democracy such as the UK, through the purchasing of goods, use of fuel, holidaying etc. I suspect the average Newcastle supporter is prepared to rely on the regulatory oversight of PL football much like we have to rely on regulation to oversee other aspects of the economy. Time will tell if there is any pushback against the new owner.

No it is not. It is a direct part of the Saudi state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the odds on how long Newcastle have a women's team 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hogesar said:

Oh there is if you don't give a single toss for humanity, morals or basic human decency. 

Couldn't agree more with this. I would go so far as to say that as well as taking the knee to show solidarity against racism wherever it exists (although of course, it will never be wiped out and will possibly make existing racists - and I really don't think there are so many in our society -more hard line ) players should take the knee against the repression of women. But, then, where does it end ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Really?  We’re almost alone in the Prem in not having some beneficent billionaire throwing hundreds of millions at the club, so why isn’t that a plausible financial plan for the future?

So you propose the board should set all its targets, including spending budgets etc, based on a wild speculation that a beneficent billionaire might come along and provide the funding to prevent us going bust? I guess you've never run a business (unless it was into the ground).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So you propose the board should set all its targets, including spending budgets etc, based on a wild speculation that a beneficent billionaire might come along and provide the funding to prevent us going bust? I guess you've never run a business (unless it was into the ground).

No, obviously the beneficent billionaire would be the initial prerequisite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

What are the odds of Newcastle opting out of Rainbow laces

Their LBGT fans love the saudis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

No, obviously the beneficent billionaire would be the initial prerequisite.

And he/she is nowhere to be seen, so until one turns up the club has to plan in precisely the self-funding way it has done so successfully to date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KeiranShikari said:

Their LBGT fans love the saudis.

 

Bit of bootlicking, but they do point out Saudi Arabias awful human rights and LGBT records so fair play I suppose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the focus on the wealth of the new owners is misplaced. It’s very clearly a cheap PR stunt for them to polish their reputation. Where it all goes wrong from a football perspective is they now will spent a gazzillion pounds on buying success on the pitch. It does not have to mean that, here in the US there are salary caps and restrictions on player registration. As usual, it’s what we let powerful people get away with that determines the outcome for any community - of clubs, or society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And he/she is nowhere to be seen, so until one turns up the club has to plan in precisely the self-funding way it has done so successfully to date.

Of course it does. That goes without saying.  Nobody suggested otherwise.  But to claim that there are no beneficent billionaires out there flies in the face of the fact that pretty much every other Premier League club has one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, birchfest said:

True, but you have to call it out when we see it. I think to be honest BK8 showed that we as a fan base are pretty good at not being hypocritical and try our best to keep our own house in order. 

I mean I agree and disagree without wanting to stir up old arguments too much.

I actually think that situation kind of proves my point. I’ve been against betting firms being a sponsor from day 1 personally. However people were quite happy to be sponsored by dodgy betting firms for years until there was a high profile scandal about the company in question.

People pointed out Dafabet used very similarly scantily clad women to promote their materials. It basically boiled down to one lewd social media post suddenly being the tipping point for moral outrage, which I personally did find hypocritical. Wish we had stayed away from betting firms from the start l, then I’d feel proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Surfer said:

here in the US there are salary caps and restrictions on player registration.

I've always appreciated that kind of stance to sport there. Brilliant idea. The Premier League is a **** show. Starmer's talking about setting up an independent assessor. Talk about locking the gate after the horse has bolted.

The more I think about this, the more it pisses all over football in this country and make it harder for clubs that get promoted to the Prem to compete. Just when you think football cant sink any lower it goes and pulls this... thanks football... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Erraticus said:

Couldn't agree more with this. I would go so far as to say that as well as taking the knee to show solidarity against racism wherever it exists (although of course, it will never be wiped out and will possibly make existing racists - and I really don't think there are so many in our society -more hard line ) players should take the knee against the repression of women. But, then, where does it end ?

I meant to add that I also think that if the UK footballing authorities really do have principles prioritised over revenue, they should boycott the World Cup in Qatar. I would support that without question.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Of course it does. That goes without saying.  Nobody suggested otherwise.  But to claim that there are no beneficent billionaires out there flies in the face of the fact that pretty much every other Premier League club has one.

This is total nonsense. Whilst many football clubs in the Premier League have billionaire owners, few of them are beneficent and as many others are egregious!

Edited by Badger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Bristol Nest said:

The Yeovil fans were great that day with the marquee bar.

Yep. Proper football day out. Cold, dry, finish with the floodlights on and hugs from Ginger Pele without stewards molesting you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ren said:

...and its not like this City hasn't expanded in the time since the South stand was replaced, it has and still continues to grow at a rapid pace.  Riverside still has flats going up and Rackheath is becoming a massive part of the City to name just a couple.  There are 1000s of homes going up all over Norfolk.  I honestly think 40,000 at home is achievable now.  There must be 1,000s of kids that are being lost to Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool etc because they can't get into CR! 

Be alright if it wasn't bloody old Laandanners buying every where up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After being quiet for years, you all know me as Baldyboy, I’ve never gone away just watched from afar.

I find so much on this topic hypocritical tbh. How many of you have ever been to Saudi? Not many, I’ll wager. Well I have a couple of times to work. The Saudi people are the nicest you could meet but the way you all bang on, it’s a group of businessmen not all of Saudi that’s bought Newcastle, and there’s actually a Brit or two involved.

The people who commit these atrocities are actually the Saudi Government, not the people, it’s not fair to label Saudis as bad people at all, And they are actually changing how the Government operates there also which is led by the Royal Family. 
But the biggest bit of hypocrisy on here is how many of you use Facebook, Google, watched the boxing from there, and will watch the GP they are getting next year, the Saudi Govt all have shares in the above! So if you truly abhorr what goes on in Saudi, I take it none of you will be using the things I’ve mentioned anymore?

And truth be told, if we were bought by a foreign owner and became successful, would you really care who owned us? I doubt it, if we were to hit the heights of Man City etc with a foreign owner I’m sure people would soon forget who owned the club.

im sure I’ll get slated for this post but in truth I don’t care, I just wanted to educate a few about what is actually going on in Saudi currently. 
 

Now I will get back behind my rock!

 

Bye!

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Badger said:

This is total nonsense. Whilst many football clubs in the Premier League have billionaire owners, few of them are beneficent and as many others are egregious!

A bit pedantic (as usual), but if you simply remove the admittedly incorrect (in most cases) word “beneficent”, it’s not total nonsense at all.  Whether they’re essentially altruistic or basically selfish is largely immaterial; it’s the fact that they’re willing to throw their umpteen billions at a football club that is the basic point.

Edited by Naturalcynic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Of course it does. That goes without saying.  Nobody suggested otherwise.  But to claim that there are no beneficent billionaires out there flies in the face of the fact that pretty much every other Premier League club has one.

Good luck finding one! Strange none have come forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Whether they’re essentially altruistic or basically selfish is largely immaterial. 

 

Perhaps you might like to ask the fans of Ipswich, Bolton, Sunderland, Charlton, Portsmouth etc, etc, etc, about whether the difference between an altruistic and a selfish owner is "immaterial". Don't think Liverpool and Man U fans are particularly enamoured of their owners either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you might like to ask the fans of Ipswich, Bolton, Sunderland, Charlton, Portsmouth etc, etc, etc, about whether the difference between an altruistic and a selfish owner is "immaterial". Don't think Liverpool and Man U fans are particularly enamoured of their owners either. 

I certainly agree that in the Premier League money doesn’t guarantee success, but no money does guarantee failure.

Edited by Naturalcynic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...