Media thread 2022/23

[Mr Fraser]

His brother had three testicles.

Uzinickedtheeother bollockov

I'm told the bollockov's had a lot of balls

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

Send our regards to Rio whilst you are out there..

How was I the first to give that a like..........?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Quick point.

As blues, a very small but relevant point we use when defending the club is asking where the criticism is of Arsenal (Emirates), Liverpool (Standard chartered) and the likes (just two examples of my overall point here..).

We're often met by the response that this is different because it's not actual ownership of the club but merely shirt and/or stadium sponsors.

So here's the rub..the fact these dubious organisations such as Emirates or Chartered can have their names plastered on shirts and stadium of major clubs, without ever being questioned regarding their principles or morals, is surely.....Sportswashing?

A clubs ownership who are slated every single day without fail, regularly brought to the forefront by the media and human rights abuses discussed and highlighted at every single opportunity isn't washing anything. Quietly sponsoring clubs without having to worry about any of the above, I would suggest, is.

It's not a small point IMO.

We are now lumped in with Newcastle and PSG in the "state owned" stakes.
But as far as Amesty and HRW are concerned, shirt sponsorship is still "sportswashing" but rarely mentioned as such anymore in the UK mainstream media because the focus is on the 3 klopp clubs and more widely with Qatar due world cup.

Ironically Emirates/Dubai probably fund more into European football each year than Abu Dhabi/ Etihad and other Abu Dhabi sponsors

Emirates sponsor:
Real Madrid
Arsenal (plus Rwanda and an owner with very dubious dealings)
AC MIlan
Lyons
Benfica
Olympiakos

Other clubs who receive/have received Gulf sponsorship money:
United
Chelsea
Barcelona
Bayern Munich
Newcastle

Aside from Bayern Munich (fan protests) there is little push back against any.

As far as Amnesty and HRW are concerned the argument is that "state funding" is more pernicious due the scope for political influence etc. PSG are the best example with the guy on UEFA executive and the Bein deal. Corrupt as fuck.

 

[Bald fraud]

Imagine if Rico had that performance wearing a red/rag shirt.

Edit* seems from other posters comments breakfast sports news have had a nudge, not seen any sports news yet as I've only just woken up.

If he had that performance in a red shirt there’d be a massive media push to get him in the World Cup squad!

 

[LongsightM13]

Quick point.

As blues, a very small but relevant point we use when defending the club is asking where the criticism is of Arsenal (Emirates), Liverpool (Standard chartered) and the likes (just two examples of my overall point here..).

We're often met by the response that this is different because it's not actual ownership of the club but merely shirt and/or stadium sponsors.

So here's the rub..the fact these dubious organisations such as Emirates or Chartered can have their names plastered on shirts and stadium of major clubs, without ever being questioned regarding their principles or morals, is surely.....Sportswashing?

A clubs ownership who are slated every single day without fail, regularly brought to the forefront by the media and human rights abuses discussed and highlighted at every single opportunity isn't washing anything. Quietly sponsoring clubs without having to worry about any of the above, I would suggest, is.

Delooney’s stock response is that sponsorship isn’t ownership
A cowardly and disingenuous position imo. Money is money. Money doesn’t care who owned it 10 minutes ago

 

[Bald fraud]

Ffs that clown MP Ian Byrne on talkshite spouting off about every teams supporters singing about Hillsborough. Saying it shud be in national corriculum at school. Can’t they just let it go.

Maybe they could teach kids about the Heysel disaster too! But I’ve got a feeling they’d be “offended” by that

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Delooney’s stock response is that sponsorship isn’t ownership
A cowardly and disingenuous position imo. Money is money. Money doesn’t care who owned it 10 minutes ago

Sportswashing is oh so 2021 now. He's moved on :)

The twin forces driving the game now " On one side, Gulf states buying clubs and influence in the game for hard political purposes and soft power. The phrase sportswashing is now not fit for purpose because it is too soft a phrase. Then on the other side American capitalists looking for ROI"

That was on "Michael Calvins Football People" in September. Delaney also took issue with the academic Professor Simon Chadwick who writes widely on geo-politics in sport.

 

[Norbert D]

Qatar calling its critics racist opens a debate that may be worth having | Barney Ronay

Increasingly prevalent line may sound dubious, but talking it through sensitively could have unexpected benefits

www.theguardian.com

of course City get their usual airing, this time with regard Klopp’s comments and City’s alleged accusation that he’s xenophobic.
the sock puppet who penned this quotes Klopp saying the three state owned clubs have no financial restraint and can spend what they want, he then goes on to say Klopp is accurate. ignoring FFP and their spend etc, of course the buzzword that gets them around having to call out the cartel clubs who take ”blood money” in sponsorship is “owners”, therefore its fine and dandy to take money from any old mafia, just not to let them buy you.
American vulture capitalists good, rich Arab owners bad.
and of course this whole sportswashing straw man kind of falls flat on its face when our government dumps refugees in the centre of London in the middle of the night and our number one business is food banks.

 

[LongsightM13]

It's not a small point IMO.

We are now lumped in with Newcastle and PSG in the "state owned" stakes.
But as far as Amesty and HRW are concerned, shirt sponsorship is still "sportswashing" but rarely mentioned as such anymore in the UK mainstream media because the focus is on the 3 klopp clubs and more widely with Qatar due world cup.

Ironically Emirates/Dubai probably fund more into European football each year than Abu Dhabi/ Etihad and other Abu Dhabi sponsors

Emirates sponsor:
Real Madrid
Arsenal (plus Rwanda and an owner with very dubious dealings)
AC MIlan
Lyons
Benfica
Olympiakos
Newcastle

Other clubs who receive/have received Gulf sponsorship money:
United
Chelsea
Barcelona
Bayern Munich

Aside from Bayern Munich (fan protests) there is little push back against any.

As far as Amnesty and HRW are concerned the argument is that "state funding" is more pernicious due the scope for political influence etc. PSG are the best example with the guy on UEFA executive and the Bein deal. Corrupt as fuck.

None of these hypocrites ever mention clubs like Leicester and Stoke whose sponsors are owned by the same people who own the club
As hypocritical as is their question about ‘how much was the second placed bidder?’
The only difference is that Leicester and Stoke aren’t a threat to the US owned redshirt cartel

 

[Mr Fraser]

Qatar calling its critics racist opens a debate that may be worth having | Barney Ronay

Increasingly prevalent line may sound dubious, but talking it through sensitively could have unexpected benefits

www.theguardian.com

of course City get their usual airing, this time with regard Klopp’s comments and City’s alleged accusation that he’s xenophobic.
the sock puppet who penned this quotes Klopp saying the three state owned clubs have no financial restraint and can spend what they want, he then goes on to say Klopp is accurate. ignoring FFP and their spend etc, of course the buzzword that gets them around having to call out the cartel clubs who take ”blood money” in sponsorship is “owners”, therefore its fine and dandy to take money from any old mafia, just not to let them buy you.
American vulture capitalists good, rich Arab owners bad.
and of course this whole sportswashing straw man kind of falls flat on its face when our government dumps refugees in the centre of London in the middle of the night and our number one business is food banks.

Or perhaps you could write a book about how good the world cup in Russia was?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Jesus Christ, I really do not have time to watch crap like that or an hour long special on Donald Trump or even Boris Johnson.

My time is far too precious to waste on things that I can't alter.

You’re really showing me “how to debate” in here.

lol

 

[laserblue]

None of these hypocrites ever mention clubs like Leicester and Stoke whose sponsors are owned by the same people who own the club
As hypocritical as is their question about ‘how much was the second placed bidder?’
The only difference is that Leicester and Stoke aren’t a threat to the US owned redshirt cartel

Nor Sheffield United (Saudi owned) or Wolves (Chinese owned).

 

[solley attwell]

Quick point.

As blues, a very small but relevant point we use when defending the club is asking where the criticism is of Arsenal (Emirates), Liverpool (Standard chartered) and the likes (just two examples of my overall point here..).

We're often met by the response that this is different because it's not actual ownership of the club but merely shirt and/or stadium sponsors.

So here's the rub..the fact these dubious organisations such as Emirates or Chartered can have their names plastered on shirts and stadium of major clubs, without ever being questioned regarding their principles or morals, is surely.....Sportswashing?

A clubs ownership who are slated every single day without fail, regularly brought to the forefront by the media and human rights abuses discussed and highlighted at every single opportunity isn't washing anything. Quietly sponsoring clubs without having to worry about any of the above, I would suggest, is.

It's like robbing a bank with a gang.
Is the guy that provides the safe house or launders the money any less guilty than the guy who uses the gun?
Is his money cleaner because he didn't take part physically in the robbery?
End of debate

 

[LongsightM13]

Nor Sheffield United (Saudi owned) or Wolves (Chinese owned).

Wolves essentially being a car park for Mendes’ second rate clients doesn’t get enough attention

 

[Bill Walker]

It’s “Scousewashing”.. it’s the new phrase, we all need to use it. Just learned it myself from @LongsightM13 !!

"How "Scousewashing" isn't a Derogatory Term But A Huge Bonus For LFC"

 

[mat]

Apparently Rags have got another wonderkid. He played tonight and the media seem to be keeping quiet about the next greatest (insert rag here).

 

[itisrising]

Quick point.

As blues, a very small but relevant point we use when defending the club is asking where the criticism is of Arsenal (Emirates), Liverpool (Standard chartered) and the likes (just two examples of my overall point here..).

We're often met by the response that this is different because it's not actual ownership of the club but merely shirt and/or stadium sponsors.

So here's the rub..the fact these dubious organisations such as Emirates or Chartered can have their names plastered on shirts and stadium of major clubs, without ever being questioned regarding their principles or morals, is surely.....Sportswashing?

A clubs ownership who are slated every single day without fail, regularly brought to the forefront by the media and human rights abuses discussed and highlighted at every single opportunity isn't washing anything. Quietly sponsoring clubs without having to worry about any of the above, I would suggest, is.

That's been a key point as to why I find guys like Delaney bad faith actors; he's spent years slating us for 'sportswashing' but I can't find a single tweet where he highlights Dubai and Rwanda's blatant sportswashing of Arsenal; a partnership between Dubai and Arsenal that existed long before our takeover.

In fact, the entire English game is being 'sportswashed' as the oldest domestic cup in our country is sponsored by Emirates and this has gone virtually with zero criticism.

It's insane that the reputation of Qatar and Abu Dhabi appears so different to that of Dubai when it's also just as guilty of the same human rights violations. It's the single biggest example of how sportswashing works and it's totally gone under the radar of 'journalists' who claim to specialise in such a field. Either they're willfully idiots or they're bad faith actors which have a very particular agenda.

 

[oakiecokie]

That's been a key point as to why I find guys like Delaney bad faith actors; he's spent years slating us for 'sportswashing' but I can't find a single tweet where he highlights Dubai and Rwanda's blatant sportswashing of Arsenal; a partnership between Dubai and Arsenal that existed long before our takeover.

In fact, the entire English game is being 'sportswashed' as the oldest domestic cup in our country is sponsored by Emirates and this has gone virtually with zero criticism.

It's insane that the reputation of Qatar and Abu Dhabi appears so different to that of Dubai when it's also just as guilty of the same human rights violations. It's the single biggest example of how sportswashing works and it's totally gone under the radar of 'journalists' who claim to specialise in such a field. Either they're willfully idiots or they're bad faith actors which have a very particular agenda.

I prefer to call them fuckwits.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

That's been a key point as to why I find guys like Delaney bad faith actors; he's spent years slating us for 'sportswashing' but I can't find a single tweet where he highlights Dubai and Rwanda's blatant sportswashing of Arsenal; a partnership between Dubai and Arsenal that existed long before our takeover.

In fact, the entire English game is being 'sportswashed' as the oldest domestic cup in our country is sponsored by Emirates and this has gone virtually with zero criticism.

It's insane that the reputation of Qatar and Abu Dhabi appears so different to that of Dubai when it's also just as guilty of the same human rights violations. It's the single biggest example of how sportswashing works and it's totally gone under the radar of 'journalists' who claim to specialise in such a field. Either they're willfully idiots or they're bad faith actors which have a very particular agenda.

So-called "sportswashing" is a fake construct. It is a very clever slogan invented by human rights groups to help them get publicity for their causes and it has worked. Emirates sponsor Arsenal to help increase the tourism business in Dubai. Rwanda are also trying to re-invent themselves as a tourist destination after a horrific war-torn past. It is nothing to do with concealing human rights issues, in fact it just draws attention to them.
It is just marketing and promotion and it is done by every major business and nation in the world. It is interesting that it seems only to be countries run by people with dark skin who are accused of sportswashing. There seems to be a very selective version of events from Western countries. Northern Ireland has re-invented itself as a tourist destination after decades (centuries?) of human rights abuses by many groups (including the British state). I don't hear anyone accusing them of tourismwashing.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's not a small point IMO.

We are now lumped in with Newcastle and PSG in the "state owned" stakes.
But as far as Amesty and HRW are concerned, shirt sponsorship is still "sportswashing" but rarely mentioned as such anymore in the UK mainstream media because the focus is on the 3 klopp clubs and more widely with Qatar due world cup.

Ironically Emirates/Dubai probably fund more into European football each year than Abu Dhabi/ Etihad and other Abu Dhabi sponsors

Emirates sponsor:
Real Madrid
Arsenal (plus Rwanda and an owner with very dubious dealings)
AC MIlan
Lyons
Benfica
Olympiakos

Other clubs who receive/have received Gulf sponsorship money:
United
Chelsea
Barcelona
Bayern Munich
Newcastle

Aside from Bayern Munich (fan protests) there is little push back against any.

As far as Amnesty and HRW are concerned the argument is that "state funding" is more pernicious due the scope for political influence etc. PSG are the best example with the guy on UEFA executive and the Bein deal. Corrupt as fuck.

The political influence argument is bollocks, though. They don't think the Middle Eastern governments have enough political influence over the west through their almost monopoly on oil? If they are talking football politics that is, quite frankly, none of their business. God has given us the WhatsApp group for that, bless their little open-toed sandals.

Amnesty and HRW are just using football as a political "football" due to its popularity to get across their other messages ("humanrightswashing" if you will), some of which have merit, of course. But the disproportionate focus on football ownership is unnecessary, imo.