Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phil1 said:
It’s pretty easy to enjoy the benefits of our ownership and the success it’s brought but tell people you’re not keen on them isn’t it.
Sounds like the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...
Not really the best of both worlds but I agree with the rest of the statement. What I don't agree with is fans blindly defending the ownership.
 
cookster said:
That my friend is the definition of deflection.
Social Media has taken tribalism to a whole new level. I'm staying out of the "defend UAE at any costs" debate from now on, its toxic.
Click to expand...
I am honestly not disagreeing with you.

You are also correct the whole debate is toxic and has been severely diluted and utterly demeaned by the thoughts of a small group of sports journalists and certain pundits (we all know who they are) in this country who have zero interests in peoples genuine suffering, but are basing their views upon the colour of a football shirt. That in my view is the true deflection being used by these media parasites who seem to have no low they can’t reach.

My posts were highlighting the hypocrisy that we in the West are holding the Arab world to, standards we have never met ourselves, today’s enemy is often tomorrow’s friend no matter how vile we may ourselves find that person/country, the West has frequently and currently does align itself to whoever and whomever suits their interest at that time.
 
KS55 said:
And the point seems to be football is a business where a lot of people have or make tons of money, much more than us mere mortals. Wow, never realized that; thought it was just bankers, IT companies, social media, on line retailers, drug companies, energy companies, royals, dodgy politicians, singers, rock stars, American football players, baseball players, BBC execs, Netflix, mobile manufacturers...............
and a few others. (Stamps foot). It's just not fair. Jeez.
Click to expand...
Worsleyweb?
BlueMoon Solicitors Society?
BlueMoon Masonic Lodge?
 
Last edited:
BLUEBOY67 said:
Don’t take my moral standards by who visits the Queen ! Make up my own mind- Is a murdering Putin puppet and disappointed owner of my club would be associated with him.
Click to expand...

And if the diplomacy eventually brings about some stability to Syria and the region and dilutes Russian and Iranian influence over Syria, would you then still be disappointed?
 
cookster said:
Like I said, LFC fans use this nonsense when defending Standard Chartered. Just glad I'm able to separate the football from the politics.
Click to expand...
I've looked at a few reports. UAE sent ambassadors to Syria last year and it would appear they want to bring Syria back into the fold as a bulwark against growing influence from Iran. Iran, of course, is the arch enemy of UAE and Syria's only arab supporter. UAE should use this to try and broker a peace deal in Syria, which is a tough ask. We await developments.
 
cookster said:
That's before 350,000 people were killed in Syria which include chemical weapons and bombing of hospitals. How anyone can make light of this is beyond me.

I've defended SM and UAE pretty much since the takeover in 2008, this is not defendable and the timing is horrific.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out in my large post, he isn’t holier than thou and being photographed with this tyrant is testimony to that. I understand he has to as part of his role within the UAE, but it leaves a bad taste.

Obviously they need to welcome Syria back into the fold to counterbalance Iranian influence in the region now that he is here to stay, but he’s still a **** of the worst kind. The UAE need to be careful not to alienate themselves from the West in the coming years, as that would have consequences for their western business interests, including City I’d imagine.

Anyway, best to keep all this separate, back to the Fußball.
 
That photo of our owner and Assad is not good yep we don’t know the content of the discussion but Assad a dictator who killed thousands of his own people is not a good luck for our club.

What rules do the premier have to bring in to make our owner having to sell up?

For me though with the good relations with our country and government I can’t see what they can do to make our owner sell.

Now talking hypothetical would Silver-lake buy the club? How would it work with all the clubs or % of clubs we own?

Anyway just thinking out load with if buts maybes.

Carry on.
 
As we all know, atrocities are committed by countries all over the world. I understand that diplomacy still goes on with these countries however bad they have been... that's the world we live in. America have killed by far the most innocent civilians over the last century than any other country in the world. Also they have been responsible for so many more deaths by fermenting coups in countries such as Chile putting Pinochet in power which resulted in the mass murder of civilians. We in the UK have a lot to answer for and God knows what is going on in so many other places around the world.

I understand and agree with the points made that there is always a need for diplomacy to try and improve things and also the western media reporting bias against Arab countries.

After all the comments above, about what a bloody terrible world we live in, I have to say that nothing changes about the way I feel right now. The sight of the owner of my beloved football club sitting down with this mass murderer just sickens me. I know they have done amazing things for our club but I would now prefer them to just sell up and leave.
 
Talksport earlier, a couple of minutes before the lunchtime game, discussion of Arteta's rather silly complaint about playing Weds evening and Sat lunchtime (so what, Mikel..?) led the guy, Alex Crook?, to really start talking shite - he stated that in the time period between games Martinelli could have flown home to Brazil and back twice, and Constitution Hill (winner of Tues opener at Cheltenham) could have run his race 20,000 times. I mean, seriously, W...T...F... is he talking about?

Btw, I backed Constitution Hill @5/2
 
I'll wait until something more concrete and with added context comes out before I demand our owners sell up.
 
That pic of our leader is part of a UN backed initiative to bring peace to Syria and the Middle East

Journalists condemning it are basically using an attempt at peace to score points


Amid Stalemate, Acute Suffering in Syria, Special Envoy Tells Security Council Political Solution ‘Only Way Out’ | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

The international diplomacy needed to spur humanitarian and early recovery efforts will be more precarious against the new backdrop of military operations in Ukraine, the top United Nations official on Syria warned the Security Council today, as he briefed members on recent developments.
www.un.org www.un.org
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The Assads were always brutal monsters but, like Saddam, they were the rulers of their country and generally kept them stable, albeit you'd certainly question their methods. There was some hope for Bashar Al Assad at the start of his rule, which was quickly extinguished.

Syria is another of those former Ottoman Empire countries in the Middle Esst that the Western powers carved up rather arbitrarily and handed out to their favoured rulers post WW1. There was a 'line in the sand' drawn to separate French interests in Syria from the British in Iraq, as part of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement. Syria was overwhelmingly Sunni but the Assads were minority Alawite, which is a bit like a non Muslim becoming head of state in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Malaysia.

Bashar decided to ally himself with Iran, via support for Hezbollah but it was his brutal put-down of Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 which really started the current crisis. Things have gone from bad to worse since then of course, with many other actors being dragged in and appalling brutality. The Western powers meddled and, as usual, made things worse rather than better. I actually thought Putin was right to support the established leadership, however bad it was, rather than allowing the unleashing of forces that could seriously destabilise the region. After all, the toppling of dictators in Iraq & Libya worked out so well didn't it?

Like Russia in Ukraine, Turkey occupies large parts of northern Syria. Why is that "right" while the Russian invasion of Ukraine is "wrong"? Double standards again.

Assad, for all his many faults, is still the legitimate Syrian head of state. The UAE is no friend of Iran, which is one of the parties propping up Assad's regime and is the single biggest threat to the Middle East region. If Assad can be weaned away from them, it'll probably be a major step forward in achieving more stability.

But of course all the simpletons in the WhatsApp group, who have suddenly become geo-political "experts", see Assad in Dubai and are crying foul.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. The only thing I might add is that the the Arab Spring demonstrations were clearly less a popular uprising but more an orchestrated Colour Revolution utilising the worst aspects of Sunni fundamentalism. The survival of the regime in Syria necessitated the brutal put down of this emerging opposition and indeed the successful incorporation of Russia into the struggle.
A further related and noteworthy point is that much of the trouble in the region over the last 15 years was caused by a man called Blair. I see it is still acceptable to be seen in the company of this particular rat.
 
Back to basics. Did anybody watch football focus and the Jack Grealish interview? Anyway first thing that was mentioned was is £100 million transfer and if that was weighing on his mind. What other footballer has been linked to his transfer fee whilst being interviewed? Now I know it’s a British and club record but Lukaku was £98 million and I bet if he was being interviewed it wouldn’t get a mention. Hate BBC sport.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The Assads were always brutal monsters but, like Saddam, they were the rulers of their country and generally kept them stable, albeit you'd certainly question their methods. There was some hope for Bashar Al Assad at the start of his rule, which was quickly extinguished.

Syria is another of those former Ottoman Empire countries in the Middle Esst that the Western powers carved up rather arbitrarily and handed out to their favoured rulers post WW1. There was a 'line in the sand' drawn to separate French interests in Syria from the British in Iraq, as part of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement. Syria was overwhelmingly Sunni but the Assads were minority Alawite, which is a bit like a non Muslim becoming head of state in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Malaysia.

Bashar decided to ally himself with Iran, via support for Hezbollah but it was his brutal put-down of Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011 which really started the current crisis. Things have gone from bad to worse since then of course, with many other actors being dragged in and appalling brutality. The Western powers meddled and, as usual, made things worse rather than better. I actually thought Putin was right to support the established leadership, however bad it was, rather than allowing the unleashing of forces that could seriously destabilise the region. After all, the toppling of dictators in Iraq & Libya worked out so well didn't it?

Like Russia in Ukraine, Turkey occupies large parts of northern Syria. Why is that "right" while the Russian invasion of Ukraine is "wrong"? Double standards again.

Assad, for all his many faults, is still the legitimate Syrian head of state. The UAE is no friend of Iran, which is one of the parties propping up Assad's regime and is the single biggest threat to the Middle East region. If Assad can be weaned away from them, it'll probably be a major step forward in achieving more stability.

But of course all the simpletons in the WhatsApp group, who have suddenly become geo-political "experts", see Assad in Dubai and are crying foul.
Click to expand...
Excellent post, very informative.

My question to you however is, does it not concern you that the West (US) will take a dim view of the UAE welcoming Assad back in to the fold? They warned them against opening diplomacy with his regime a few months ago from recollection. The concern being, that the UAE pissing off the West could lead down the line to their Western owned assets such as Manchester City being removed should relations deteriorate.

We have already seen with Chelsea what a collapse between the West & your nations relations can lead to, with Roman Abramovich loosing all his Western holdings/assets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top