Football 19/20

[pink_triangle]

7 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

There's distinct racist sentiments in the examples I gave, but asking people to apologise for the behaviour of people they only have a tenuous association with is still an irrelevant and shitty thing to do.

I've been pretty clear that I don't think sportswashing is a good thing. I also feel that football is completely amoral in lots of ways. I don't pretend the fanbase I'm a part of is any better than others, but I also don't think it's any worse. 

I detest Ashley, yet acknowledge that he's not the worst owner in the history of the Premier League, let alone the British football pyramid. I don't think the Saudis are any worse than Abu Dhabi or Abramovich, I also don't think it's a great moral example. I'm not going to say that a brutal, torturing regime taking over a football club is a good thing, regardless of the money they'll put in, but I think it's worth acknowledging that NUFC fans are behaving with an equivalent level to when Fenway took over Liverpool from Gillett + Hicks, or Chelsea when Abramovic did, or Wolves, etc. Football fans, when the fandom as a base is considered, prioritise the success of the football.

Do I have any respect or sympathy for the Saudi princes? No. But I also don't for the first business owner to be called up before parliament for breaching working rights laws in 30 years. Anyone with the wealth to own a football club has sufficient wealth that they can't be a moral person. Without a humongous overhaul of the game, this will continue to be the case.

I'm willing to bet that of the 92 teams in the EFL, you could count on one hand the number of owners that are decent. The potential Saudi owners are probably worse than 85+ of them, I'll freely acknowledge that, but to suggest that Newcastle fans should be expected to condemn the few idiots that are criticising critics of the potential new regime, is a genuine equivalence to demanding that Jews should condemn people who attack critics of Israel. Both connections are absolutely fucking irrelevant.

There's a lot more negative history around the racist ties, but every time someone starts creating and justifying these tenuous links, it perpetuates all of them. It's utter bullshit, and I had hoped for better of pink triangle. I'll call this shit out regardless of how it's established.

Unfortunately I get the impression a lot (not a small minority) are using the fact that Ashley isn't great as a reason why the Saudi coming in should be accepted. For Ashley's flaws, they aren't in the same ball park as this regime.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

 

PS: there's c**tish owners at all levels of the game.

Yes, it's just the owners in the lower leagues don't tend to run countries which limits their power. 

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Unfortunately I get the impression a lot (not a small minority) are using the fact that Ashley isn't great as a reason why the Saudi coming in should be accepted. For Ashley's flaws, they aren't in the same ball park as this regime.

Yeah I agree. I also suspect that any other fanbase would do the same. If the line is drawn and the Saudi bid is rejected for human rights abuses, fine, and then please go further. Get Abu Dhabi out of City, get Abramovich out of Chelsea, get the Saudis out of Sheffield United, out of PL rights, get Qatar out. Work through the system and get rid of the other instances. While I would argue Ashley should be on that list of rights-abusing owners, dodgy employment contracts is a lot lesser crime than torture, so he shouldn't be an absolute priority.

The system itself has allowed extremes of the same level as the Saudi regime before, if a moral stand is going to be taken, great, but it has to then start being implemented retrospectively, not just applied to Newcastle then ignored until the next bid.

Football fans, as a group rather than as individuals, are generally pretty amoral and callous when it comes to the success of their club. 

[WS_Jack_III]

People with loads of money are just about always dicks, done something dickish or will do something dickish. Again, I totally agree that the human rights issues should be highlighted but you all shouldn't use twitter, uber, shell or read certain newspapers if you think Newcastle fans should boycott these new owners.

[lost]

Apparently the solution being touted today for the prem is the clubs towards the bottom will only play at neutral venues if we have relegation cancelled for one season. So basically with the title and relegation being settled we are taking what ever the risk and resources are for a huge bunch of friendly's and a couple of champions league places??

[kaosmark2]

15 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

People with loads of money are just about always dicks, done something dickish or will do something dickish. Again, I totally agree that the human rights issues should be highlighted but you all shouldn't use twitter, uber, shell or read certain newspapers if you think Newcastle fans should boycott these new owners.

I mean, I've been boycotting Ashley and I'll continue to boycott these new owners. But everyone going "Newcastle shouldn't be a PR exercise for a Saudi prince" didn't mention it for Sheffield Utd.

[pink_triangle]

19 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I mean, I've been boycotting Ashley and I'll continue to boycott these new owners. But everyone going "Newcastle shouldn't be a PR exercise for a Saudi prince" didn't mention it for Sheffield Utd.

Is part of that reason that Sheff Utd fans hadn't spent years talking about how immoral their owner was, only to do a complete turn when a more immoral one came around!

[pink_triangle]

39 minutes ago, lost said:

Apparently the solution being touted today for the prem is the clubs towards the bottom will only play at neutral venues if we have relegation cancelled for one season. So basically with the title and relegation being settled we are taking what ever the risk and resources are for a huge bunch of friendly's and a couple of champions league places??

Brighton say they are "not in favour" of using neutral venues because it may affect the "integrity" of the league.

I would have more respect if they were just honest and admit they are protecting their millions rather than the integrity argument. The integrity of the league has already gone.

[kaosmark2]

41 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Is part of that reason that Sheff Utd fans hadn't spent years talking about how immoral their owner was, only to do a complete turn when a more immoral one came around!

I think it's to do with profile. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

I think it's to do with profile. 

I have no doubt the club and owners profile is a big factor. I think however Newcastle fans have set themselves up over the last few years talking about the morality of owners. My guess is many (not yourself) wouldn't give a shit about workers rights if Ashley was delivering trophies.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

I mean, I've been boycotting Ashley and I'll continue to boycott these new owners. But everyone going "Newcastle shouldn't be a PR exercise for a Saudi prince" didn't mention it for Sheffield Utd.

I think I could easily boycott Wrexham if a similar thing happened now, having moved away 12 years ago I don't have the same attachment as when going every week. When I was a care free 20 year old, I probably wouldn't have cared where the money was coming from.

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I have no doubt the club and owners profile is a big factor. I think however Newcastle fans have set themselves up over the last few years talking about the morality of owners. My guess is many (not yourself) wouldn't give a shit about workers rights if Ashley was delivering trophies.

I think most Newcastle fans feel slightly gutted that the Abu Dhabi group went for City not Newcastle. I don't doubt that Newcastle fans are being hypocrites, but I also don't think there's anything particularly unique about it.

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I think most Newcastle fans feel slightly gutted that the Abu Dhabi group went for City not Newcastle. I don't doubt that Newcastle fans are being hypocrites, but I also don't think there's anything particularly unique about it.

I think all football fans are as hypocritical as each other. I think it stands out more for Newcastle fans as they have spent the last few years making out they have the worst owner ever, now worse is on its way.

[zahidf]

Doh

 

 

[zahidf]

Footballers view that football will be back on September with crowds

https://www.football365.com/news/back-septemvber-coronavirus-anonymous-footballer

 

[efcfanwirral]

 

On 5/3/2020 at 3:13 PM, pink_triangle said:

Brighton say they are "not in favour" of using neutral venues because it may affect the "integrity" of the league.

I would have more respect if they were just honest and admit they are protecting their millions rather than the integrity argument. The integrity of the league has already gone.

I'm with you on this - I don't really see how playing at your own empty stadium is different to playing at a neutral one to be honest. The fans give home advantage so the integrity is gone anyway like you say. 

On 5/3/2020 at 2:33 PM, lost said:

Apparently the solution being touted today for the prem is the clubs towards the bottom will only play at neutral venues if we have relegation cancelled for one season. So basically with the title and relegation being settled we are taking what ever the risk and resources are for a huge bunch of friendly's and a couple of champions league places??

There is a huge assumption in the media that there will be a Champions League and Europa League next season. To start with they need to begin in July to get the early rounds sorted or you take away some qualifiers anyway. 

I could see a "top teams" tournament where they all stay in one place, (old) Euros style perhaps. But that would be invite only and not reliant on qualifying. 

Relegation is the only thing that is left after that, and I think it would be majorly harsh to relegate teams level on points. Surely just cancelling it (giving liverpool the title of course) is the only option. 

TV companies can have ALL games next season would be a fair compromise surely?

 

[lost]

Liverpool (who are bottom of the women's super league) think this season should be abandoned and voided over safety fears:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clubs-want-women-s-super-league-season-abandoned-over-player-safety-concerns-zc5clhnxx

[Dan R]

4 hours ago, lost said:

Liverpool (who are bottom of the women's super league) think this season should be abandoned and voided over safety fears:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clubs-want-women-s-super-league-season-abandoned-over-player-safety-concerns-zc5clhnxx

Cant see past the first few paragraphs but it suggest lots of teams want the season abandoned, there definitely wouldn't be the same money for safety as the mens.

[zahidf]

On 5/5/2020 at 5:43 PM, efcfanwirral said:

 

I'm with you on this - I don't really see how playing at your own empty stadium is different to playing at a neutral one to be honest. The fans give home advantage so the integrity is gone anyway like you say. 

There is a huge assumption in the media that there will be a Champions League and Europa League next season. To start with they need to begin in July to get the early rounds sorted or you take away some qualifiers anyway. 

I could see a "top teams" tournament where they all stay in one place, (old) Euros style perhaps. But that would be invite only and not reliant on qualifying. 

Relegation is the only thing that is left after that, and I think it would be majorly harsh to relegate teams level on points. Surely just cancelling it (giving liverpool the title of course) is the only option. 

TV companies can have ALL games next season would be a fair compromise surely?

 

No one being relegated was a complete non starter that it wasnt even raised on Friday.

Germany is due to start in 2 weeks. Let's see how that goes!

[lost]

Prem seems to be turning nasty now. Smaller clubs being threatened with points deductions if they don't play, players refusing to be locked up away from their young families and babies for weeks on end, Villa and Bournemouth players voicing concerns about family members with under lying health conditions.

No relegation and expanding the league to 22 for a season seems to be dead as clubs don't want to share the prize money between more teams.

Edited May 8, 2020 by lost

[pink_triangle]

13 minutes ago, lost said:

Prem seems to be turning nasty now. Smaller clubs being threatened with points deductions if they don't play, players refusing to be locked up away from their young families and babies for weeks on end, Villa and Bournemouth players voicing concerns about family members with under lying health conditions.

No relegation and expanding the league to 22 for a season seems to be dead as clubs don't want to share the prize money between more teams.

Surely they can ignore the wishes of the bottom 6, I think they only need 14 votes to get things through, most of the smaller clubs outside the top 14.  The 22 league seems sensible, pity greed is getting in the way.

[lost]

14 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Surely they can ignore the wishes of the bottom 6, I think they only need 14 votes to get things through, 

Yes rumours are there are 8 teams objecting which is why the threats have started. They need another two to fall inline. Might actually be 7 now Palace have confirmed Hodgson doesn''t need to be isolated being 71.

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, lost said:

Yes rumours are there are 8 teams objecting which is why the threats have started. They need another two to fall inline. Might actually be 7 now Palace have confirmed Hodgson doesn''t need to be isolated being 71.

Looking at the table only 6 look in danger and none with big political sway. Southampton and Newcastle potentially if they have a major collapse, but seems unlikely. If there are 8 objecting I'm sure 2 can be given incentives to fall in line.

[lost]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Looking at the table only 6 look in danger and none with big political sway. Southampton and Newcastle potentially if they have a major collapse, but seems unlikely. If there are 8 objecting I'm sure 2 can be given incentives to fall in line.

Yep could be a potential champions league club, Southampton lost 4 of the last 5, Newcastle could have a massive advantage next year if they are one of the only clubs who have money to spend due to tv revenues being cut short and FFP being suspended for a season.

Edited May 8, 2020 by lost

[pink_triangle]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52587293

I struggle to understand his point. There has been loads of talk about how isolation impacts on mental health. I think the focus on mental health is greater than ever.