Jump to content

Newcastle United: Club Sold To PCP - Official


The Mighty Hog
 Share

Recommended Posts

You either allow everyone to have external investment or nobody, FFP has done a terrible job at trying to control this, but on the face of it letting chelsea, Man City and the likes of Wolves to invest and build infrastructure in the club, you have to allow everyone to do the same, the O & D test is surely to stop people like the new owners of Wigan taking over not the Saudis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every match, outside of the ground a group of people collect donations, cash & material, for the largest foodbank in the UK.

If dodgy foreign investment was to alleviate some of the issues effecting people I don’t think I would be too arsed. 

Its easy for liberal journalists to talk shite when they know fuck all about the region but we really needed that investment & job creation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Polarboy said:

I see Johnson has issued a statement through NUST that he would also like to see the Premier League make a statement on the currently failed Saudi takeover. Can only be a good thing, at least in terms of transparency, for their to be pressure from the top like this. I honestly didn't expect Johnson to get directly involved, but I suppose he needs the Saudi arms sales money to keep flowing to get you's in the UK out of the coming recession. On a side note he likely thinks it won't hurt his, admittedly meagre, popularity in the North East as well of course.

 

Edit. Of course if the Premier don't really have a legal reason to block it, then them having to explain themselves might actually pressure them into passing it.

If he actually wanted the promised investment (it’s difficult to know with this lot where the corruption ends and the incompetence starts) then it might have been an idea to intervene at an earlier stage. Especially if there’s any truth to the articles suggesting the Saudis approached the government for help and got none. 

Edited by Alex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Polarboy said:

Aren't Wolves and Southampton majority owned by Chinese investors? There's most likely very little difference in the type of control Xi Jinping has over business in China than the Saudi Prince has over business in Saudi. If I had to choose I'd say Xi Jinping has him beat. Muslim concentration camps, the constant murder of his citizens in general for any sort of dissent, Tibet, Taiwan, the constant attempts at expansion, the constant theft of intellectual property, their lies at the beginning of covid, the fact that he has much more global power to cause havoc etc.


There is a clear difference though. One is a billionaire in an country where atrocities happen. The other is the ruler of a country who directly orders said atrocities. That’s like blaming Mike Ashley for the shit Boris and his cronies pull 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tom said:

Every match, outside of the ground a group of people collect donations, cash & material, for the largest foodbank in the UK.

If dodgy foreign investment was to alleviate some of the issues effecting people I don’t think I would be too arsed. 

Its easy for liberal journalists to talk shite when they know fuck all about the region but we really needed that investment & job creation.

Especially just now, the manufacturing industry in the north east is hemorrhaging jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:


There is a clear difference though. One is a billionaire in an country where atrocities happen. The other is the ruler of a country who directly orders said atrocities. That’s like blaming Mike Ashley for the shit Boris and his cronies pull 

 

There isn't a clear difference as you put it. PIF are an investment fund that act of behalf of the Prince and the Saudi state. He likely cares very little for all the details into what they are investing in as long as it enriches him and the Saudi state. Every billionaire in China is entirely beholden to Xi and his government, and indeed only get to their positions by being loyal acolytes. Why are PIF different to the billionaires in China? If there is a tangible difference it isn't clear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Polarboy said:

 

There isn't a clear difference as you put it. PIF are an investment fund that act of behalf of the Prince and the Saudi state. He likely cares very little for all the details into what they are investing in as long as it enriches him and the Saudi state. Every billionaire in China is entirely beholden to Xi and his government, and indeed only get to their positions by being loyal acolytes. Why are PIF different to the billionaires in China? If there is a tangible difference it isn't clear.


Fair enough.

 

I wouldn’t want their cash either then ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:


Fair enough.

 

I wouldn’t want their cash either then ;) 

 

Well the choice is either get down in the trough and the dirt given where the majority of investment is coming, or fade into obscurity. Maybe you might get very lucky and get a John Henry who seems relatively clean for a billionaire, but more than likely you'll get Middle Eastern, Chinese, Russian etc investment. For all of the US's faults billionaires seem relatively autonomous, indeed the influence appears to go the other way a lot of the time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Billy Whitehurst said:

How about if someone offered you a trip to the Qatar or a holiday to Abu Dhabi or Dubai (all fairly oppressive regimes), would you take it?


In the past I would have, probably not now that I’m a bit more educated about the human rights abuses. It’s also not a direct comparison. I disagree with the US drone strikes against the Middle East but would still go on holiday there 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:


In the past I would have, probably not now that I’m a bit more educated about the human rights abuses. It’s also not a direct comparison. I disagree with the US drone strikes against the Middle East but would still go on holiday there 

Is that because the orders come from some unknown person in the Pentagon?  I get what you've said so far, but it is all still based on your own biases. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:


In the past I would have, probably not now that I’m a bit more educated about the human rights abuses. It’s also not a direct comparison. I disagree with the US drone strikes against the Middle East but would still go on holiday there 

I don't think they have a Butlins :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the biggest kick in the balls is why this was really blocked (not fully blocked but you know what I mean). To protect the rights of Qatar, one of the countries that are potentially worse than Saudi Arabia :lol:, currently in a lot of bother in France over links to funding terrorist organizations (supposedly a driving force behind why Saudi Arabia have cut ties with them as well as part of MBS trying to move the country away from those type of organizations). 
 

I agree with the points that KD brings, a lot of it troubles me as well. I think the reason a lot can turn a blind eye is this type of block has only come at our expense, Man City have a similar structure to what was proposed, Leicester’s owners aren’t exactly clean, Abramovic has a lot of baggage, then there are other dodgy owners. I think the human rights issues argument although well founded brings in a gray area of where to draw the line, I know a lot of journos will throw out some phrase about “you draw it at murderers like the Saudis” but then Man City’s owners are similarly dodgy on that ground. I just feel like football has long sold its soul and it’s a bit hard for it to claw that back. The deal was prevented simply due to the PL not wanting to rock the boat with their established teams, and to protect a noisy rights holder, that’s the bit that sits badly with me. If it was rejected due to human rights grounds, and there was a similar reckoning with a push on owners like Man City to change ownership I’d be more willing to accept it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:


In the past I would have, probably not now that I’m a bit more educated about the human rights abuses. It’s also not a direct comparison. I disagree with the US drone strikes against the Middle East but would still go on holiday there 

I’m comparing one oppressive regime, where human rights abuses are rife with another oppressive regime where human rights abuses are rife, albeit it on a lower scale.

 

You’re comparing them to a democratic country where, in the eyes of the law (although, maybe not in practice), everyone is equal. 

 

You’re talking utter bollocks and I reckon you would have been down the clubshop getting ‘MBS Bonesaw Boys’ on the back of your home shirt had the PIF purchase gone through.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Billy Whitehurst said:

I’m comparing one oppressive regime, where human rights abuses are rife with another oppressive regime where human rights abuses are rife, albeit it on a lower scale.

 

You’re comparing them to a democratic country where, in the eyes of the law (although, maybe not in practice), everyone is equal. 

 

You’re talking utter bollocks and I reckon you would have been down the clubshop getting ‘MBS Bonesaw Boys’ on the back of your home shirt had the PIF purchase gone through.


It’s easy to shout at people on the internet that disagree with you. Try and add to the debate. What’s your take on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:


It’s easy to shout at people on the internet that disagree with you. Try and add to the debate. What’s your take on it?

Read my original post, my stance was pretty fucking clear that I am in favour of it but, given what I feel about that regime, I am honest enough to accept the hypocrisy of my position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Billy Whitehurst said:

How about if someone offered you a trip to the Qatar or a holiday to Abu Dhabi or Dubai (all fairly oppressive regimes), would you take it?

He literally paid good money to holiday in Dubai and was promoting there and Qatar as great spots a few years ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no such thing as clean money. And making comparisons between Ashley and MBS is absolutely futile they are both sociopaths who have no regard for anyone but themselves and their money. Ashley might not have ordered anybidy murdered but he undoubtedly has caused people to die through his behaviour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kid Dynamite said:


In the past I would have, probably not now that I’m a bit more educated about the human rights abuses. It’s also not a direct comparison. I disagree with the US drone strikes against the Middle East but would still go on holiday there 

Howay, man. We both know you’d go to Blackpool for a fortnight if it was free :razz: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Alex said:

Howay, man. We both know you’d go to Blackpool for a fortnight if it was free :razz: 

Nah, he’s boycotting there. Apparently the donkeys on pleasure beach are zealots and follow a strict form of sharia law. The subjugation of the female donkeys is barbaric.

 

Plus, Blackpool is an utter shit hole and doesn’t have big fancy shopping malls and indoor ski slopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tom changed the title to Newcastle United: Club Sold To PCP - Official

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.