Newcastle United takeover?

[Blue Mist]

What's the craic with this then, are they being bought over or not? Genuinely.

If I may provide my own simple take on it;
The deal is 95-98% done. This has rattled certain, shall we say history clubs as they fear another big player, they have circled the wagons, paid people and got them to spout about Human Rights. This didn't work as our Government love the Saudis. the History Clubs then brought in the murdered journalists fiancée, this also failed as, well basically our Government love the Saudis. They have now got wind of Qatars complaint about Piracy of the football streams, because, I may have mentioned this, our Government love the Saudis they ignored them and went to the Premier League and moaned to them. At the moment it is stuck there. As we know the bent bastards cant make a decision to save their lives when it comes to paymasters and possible paymasters so we shall have to see.

 

[Blue Mist]

@SWP's back. Why is anyone concerned about TV rights when they are not concerned about a man being brutally murdered ?

Also please can you tell me why no one seemed bothered about TV rights when Saudi Prince Abdullah bin Musa'ed bin Abdulaziz Al Saud bought a 50% stake in Sheffield United.
Could it be that no one thought Sheff. U. were going to threaten the Rags and the rest because the TV rights were being pirated back then. I cant understand what the difference is (if it is not fear by the history clubs)

 

[SWP's back]

The MB isn't a centralised organisation, although it has a Shura.

The Muslim Brotherhood is NOT a terrorist organisation as per every country in the world other than Russia, KSA, UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Syria. It was Qatar’s position on allowing the MB exile in Qatar that sparked KSA’s pronouncement that Qatar is a backer of terrorism. The U.K., UN, France, Germany, Canada and US (pre-Trump) sat on Qatar’s side on this. Even with Trump, Rex Tillerson slapped KSA down when they had mobilised tanks on the border to invade.

Sidney Bluemnthal, the former Clinton aide, linked Qatar (& Saudi) to the financing of ISIL.

One man and included KSA therefore KSA can’t use that as a stick to try and beat Qatar with.

The Qatar Charitable Society is believed to have been one of Bin Laden's key sources of funding.

As was KSA so see above.

Qatari Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaly lives openly in Qatar despite being on a worldwide watchlist, including at the UN

Qatar also allows the Taliban to live and move freely in Qatar and has hosted peace talks including those that recently saw an agreement between the Taliban and the US. Qatar plays in the ME like the Swiss did in 20th century Europe.

All this is by the by, my point was that KSA’s determination that it’s blockading Qatar because Qatar supports terrorism is absolute and utter hypocritical fucking bullshit. KSA doesn’t like the fact that unlike half the GCC, Qatar doesn’t bend to KSA’s every whim and Qatar was allowed (by the House of Saud) it’s territorial oil and gas fields and now they want them back due to the massive hole in their budget due to the fall in oil/gas prices.

https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/rex-tillerson-qatar-saudi-uae/

 

[SWP's back]

Why is anyone concerned about TV rights when they are not concerned about a man being brutally murdered ?

Because that’s a political argument and hasn’t cost the PL, Bundesliga, Series A, Ligue Un, UEFA, FIFA and the Olympics money. It’s also impossible to take MBS to court for murder unlike copyright/piracy where there’s a clear channel as has been discussed. All of the above actors have tried to sue KSA to shut their illegal piracy racket down.

Also please can you tell me why no one seemed bothered about TV rights when Saudi Prince Abdullah bin Musa'ed bin Abdulaziz Al Saud bought a 50% stake in Sheffield United.
Could it be that no one thought Sheff. U. were going to threaten the Rags and the rest because the TV rights were being pirated back then. I cant understand what the difference is (if it is not fear by the history clubs)

Probably because they purchased them four years before the illegal BeOutQ channel started broadcasting. But that’s just my theory. (Weird that you went to the trouble of looking up the spelling of his full name and didn’t deign to look up the purchase date).

 

[Blue Mist]

Because that’s a political argument and hasn’t cost the PL, Bundesliga, Series A, Ligue Un, UEFA, FIFA and the Olympics money. It’s also impossible to take MBS to court for murder unlike copyright/piracy where there’s a clear channel as has been discussed. All of the above actors have tried to sue KSA to shut their illegal piracy racket down.

.


Probably because they purchased them four years before the illegal BeOutQ channel started broadcasting. But that’s just my theory.

When Owen Oyston was convicted of Rape he was ordered to sell his shares in Blackpool FC so that he was no longer the owner. This was done as he failed the Fit and proper persons test. This means that it does not matter when the Saudi Prince bought the majority share in Sheff. U. The Football League and subsequently the Premier League could have ordered him to stop being the owner. They didn't, they haven't and they don't look like they are ever going to do so. This is one of the many reasons why I cannot understand the sudden 'TV rights' furore.
When the media mentioned the Saudis were going to buy the Rags I did not her one person mention TV Piracy, so again why now ?

This is a ploy by the History Clubs to stop a possible rival/threat. Nothing more, nothing less

Edit. Just to add, I did look up the purchase date, it has no relevance. Not sure why you had to put in the snidey comment. I am here to discuss the issue.

 

[Grassland Blue]

I hadn't until about 30 minutes ago.

Well, what can I say? It makes pretty grim reading.

I support the team and that's it. I have no control what so ever of who owns Newcastle and to be honest I was happy enough with Sir John Hall and not been so happy about any of the others who have been there the time I've supported the Toon.

If there's some wants to put me down because of some multi billionaire who owns a football team then in my book it says more about them than it does about me.

Exactly!

 

[NorthamptonBlue]

This site is either banging on about geopolitics, or full of dippers. I might as well read a newspaper or turn on the TV.

 

[SWP's back]

Just to add, I did look up the purchase date, it has no relevance

In which a case we both know you’re talking shite and so you can continue to do so with someone else. Of course it’s fucking relevant.

 

[Blue Mist]

In which a case we both know you’re talking shite and so you can continue to do so with someone else. Of course it’s fucking relevant.

Hell fire do you read anything someone else puts ? do you bother engaging your brain ever ?
In relation to TV rights I asked why no one was bothered about the Saudis owning Sheffield United. You snidely replied that they bought them before they started pirating the footy.
I explained that when they bought them had nothing to do with it. They can be stopped from owning Sheff. U at any time. It is why I used the Owen Oysten reference. The Football League and the Premier League have never attempted to stop the Saudi prince from owning Sheff U so clearly they cannot be that bothered about piracy.
To me there is no difference between Sheffield and Newcastle but as you clearly just want to be abusive I will concentrate on talking to sensible posters rather than bitter clowns.

 

[SWP's back]

To me there is no difference between Sheffield and Newcastle but as you clearly just want to be abusive I will concentrate on talking to sensible posters rather than bitter clowns.

Good, jog the fuck on. You’re the one that thinks every Saudi is the same and chronology doesn’t matter. The owner of Sheff Utd does not also own the satellite that’s pirating PL games (amongst every other major league and sport). You can keep your tin foil hat and not accept commercial realities. I really couldn’t give a fuck. I’ll still point out where you’re wrong for anyone else reading though.