Media Thread - 2021/22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marvin said:
On the football front I think the only risk is a re-raking of old FFP coals but surely there is a limit as to how many times you can do that. geopolitical risk increases as we have the rise of more aggressive foreign policy in Western European nations and a changing world order.

The middle-east is now seen as a collection of rogue states that infringe human rights hence we have the moral obligation to act. That is the line.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe the likes of the UAE are viewed as a rogue state in actual geopolitics. Maybe in the eyes of football journalists masking as geopolitical experts, not sure that counts for much though.

The facts on the ground are that the UAE signed a major investment deal into the UK economy in November last year, are a key intelligence and security partner in the Middle East, & major importer of UK Military services & goods.

There is a bit of tension at the moment because the Americans botched their withdrawal from Afghanistan, & have reneged on security agreements & contracts with the UAE/Saudi’s. The UAE & Saudi’s are concerned the West are ignoring their legitimate concerns on Iranian backed Houthi rebels, and Iran itself. Their apparent hasty withdrawal form the region as a whole & reengagement with Iran on the nuclear deal has caused concern, however the US recently reaffirmed their commitments. They are playing a diplomatic game that will see the West reaffirm it’s commitments formally to the region in the coming year for the reasons I stated above, Arabian resources, their investment in Western economies & security arrangements to keep the region stable. This was the reason for the UAE’s initial abstention at the UN.

As far as football goes, I see no realistic reason why the UK would target a football club majority owned by a member of the royal family of one of their key strategic & trading allies.

That’s just me though.
 
hertsblue said:
Not heard anything anywhere either, it would be live on BBC if at the Swamp with ITV already having a documentary about it contract signed
Click to expand...
Absolutely.....although it was mentioned a couple of times by Eamon O'Neill on BBC radio Manchester earlier today
 
Ladyman still banging on about Yaya and Pep, whilst….

9-B015-A18-A5-CB-4282-9-E6-C-8-D0125837461.jpg
 
Barry 'Dick Pic' Glendenning in the Guardian this morning:
"Newcastle had joined Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain in becoming a state-owned club bought for image-laundering purposes..."

If we aren't taking action over our owner being effectively labelled a criminal in a national newspaper, then when will we?

Edit: read that too quickly when I was half awake and thought it said 'money-laundering'. Still, we should be countering these statements.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Barry 'Dick Pic' Glendenning in the Guardian this morning:
"Newcastle had joined Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain in becoming a state-owned club bought for image-laundering purposes..."

If we aren't taking action over our owner being effectively labelled a criminal in a national newspaper, then when will we?
Click to expand...

Say we sue take it to the courts with our owner a member of the royal family in AD they can in effect argue that we are and why city won’t take that risk to sue anyone!

In my opinion and why the media keep saying it is they want us to sue them!
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Barry 'Dick Pic' Glendenning in the Guardian this morning:
"Newcastle had joined Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain in becoming a state-owned club bought for image-laundering purposes..."

If we aren't taking action over our owner being effectively labelled a criminal in a national newspaper, then when will we?
Click to expand...
funny how they (well one of the bitter cunts, then they all followed like lemmings) only dreamt up this angle about 5 years after the event, and how it doesn't apply to any other sport, or any other areas of life.
 
waspish said:
Say we sue take it to the courts with our owner a member of the royal family in AD they can in effect argue that we are and why city won’t take that risk to sue anyone!

In my opinion and why the media keep saying it is they want us to sue them!
Click to expand...
Argue that we are what?
 
Barry Glendenning called Newcastle fans "useful idiots".

He also compared football journalists in Qatar with war correspondents in Ukraine.

Glendenning is a deluded tramp, no doubt his alcohol consumption fuels these ridiculous statements. I bet his trousers are soaked in piss the smelly bast*rd.
 
Maly said:
Argue that we are what?
Click to expand...

Are by our owner part of the royal family that indirectly we are state owned and with the negativity we have had over the last ten years the narrative plus when people are football fans there moral compass goes out the door.
 
Citizen Green said:
I don’t believe the likes of the UAE are viewed as a rogue state in actual geopolitics. Maybe in the eyes of football journalists masking as geopolitical experts, not sure that counts for much though.
Click to expand...

The concept of a 'rogue state' was first referred to by the American government in the George W. Bush era to denote aggressive states that threaten either the USA itself or its allies and, in doing so, have no respect for the norms of international law*. Ever since, the State Department has maintained a list of rogue states and there are currently four: Sudan, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Current ervents may see a further addition, but they haven't done it yet.

People citing the current war in Yemen, in which the UAE is part of a Saudi-led coalition fighting an insurgency, rather miss the point. The Houthi rebels are backed by two copuntries named by the US as rogue states (Iran and Syria), and the coalition involving the UAE has the backing of the US and the UK. And while the UAE certainly isn't an unimpeachable bastion of human rights, it's grossly mendacious to suggest that they're anywhere near the dismal performance in this area of Sudan, Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Conclusion - Anyone suggesting that the UAE is a rogue state is a fucking moron, probably in the clinical sense.

* - I know there are arguments that the West, and especially America, is often hypocritical in terms of being prepared to bend international law themselves while lambasting others for doing so. Can we not derail this thread with a discussion of that, please? There's plenty of scope for that in the Politics sub-forum.
 
petrusha said:
The concept of a 'rogue state' was first referred to by the American government in the George W. Bush era to denote aggressive states that threaten either the USA itself or its allies and, in doing so, have no respect for the norms of international law*. Ever since, the State Department has maintained a list of rogue states and there are currently four: Sudan, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Current ervents may see a further addition, but they haven't done it yet.

People citing the current war in Yemen, in which the UAE is part of a Saudi-led coalition fighting an insurgency, rather miss the point. The Houthi rebels are backed by two copuntries named by the US as rogue states (Iran and Syria), and the coalition involving the UAE has the backing of the US and the UK. And while the UAE certainly isn't an unimpeachable bastion of human rights, it's grossly mendacious to suggest that they're anywhere near the dismal performance in this area of Sudan, Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Conclusion - Anyone suggesting that the UAE is a rogue state is a fucking moron, probably in the clinical sense.

* - I know there are arguments that the West, and especially America, is often hypocritical in terms of being prepared to bend international law themselves while lambasting others for doing so. Can we not derail this thread with a discussion of that, please? There's plenty of scope for that in the Politics sub-forum.
Click to expand...
Hope you're all well mate.
 
petrusha said:
The concept of a 'rogue state' was first referred to by the American government in the George W. Bush era to denote aggressive states that threaten either the USA itself or its allies and, in doing so, have no respect for the norms of international law*. Ever since, the State Department has maintained a list of rogue states and there are currently four: Sudan, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Current ervents may see a further addition, but they haven't done it yet.

People citing the current war in Yemen, in which the UAE is part of a Saudi-led coalition fighting an insurgency, rather miss the point. The Houthi rebels are backed by two copuntries named by the US as rogue states (Iran and Syria), and the coalition involving the UAE has the backing of the US and the UK. And while the UAE certainly isn't an unimpeachable bastion of human rights, it's grossly mendacious to suggest that they're anywhere near the dismal performance in this area of Sudan, Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Conclusion - Anyone suggesting that the UAE is a rogue state is a fucking moron, probably in the clinical sense.

* - I know there are arguments that the West, and especially America, is often hypocritical in terms of being prepared to bend international law themselves while lambasting others for doing so. Can we not derail this thread with a discussion of that, please? There's plenty of scope for that in the Politics sub-forum.
Click to expand...
Good too see you posting mate, hope things are ok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top