Newcastle United takeover?

Blue Mist said:
Just to clarify, In relation to hypocrisy I am talking about Blues who watch illegal streams but say the deal should be blocked because of piracy. I watch streams so how can I attack the takeover because of that issue.
My other point relates to the Premier League being urged to block the deal because of the piracy. My point on that is up to now they have failed to act on anything else related to Saudi dealings in the UK and did not seem interested to act now, even though they have complained about the issue previously. It is my belief that they are being pushed to act by other premier league clubs who have a vested interest in seeing it stopped. They, (the other history clubs) are not interested in the piracy issue. They are happy to take Saudi money in any form and so they are being disingenuous as to their reasons and motives.
Click to expand...
You’re still not understanding that the issue hinges on whether the same people that allow BeOutQ would also be the owners of Newcastle. That is the argument being put forward by those clubs opposed to the takeover as it’s the PL that loses money due to the piracy. Saudi human rights is of no importance to the PL.
 
SWP's back said:
You’re still not understanding that the issue hinges on whether the same people that allow BeOutQ would also be the owners of Newcastle. That is the argument being put forward by those clubs opposed to the takeover as it’s the PL that loses money due to the piracy. Saudi human rights is of no importance to the PL.
Click to expand...

No I understand perfectly the point you are making. This deal has been going on for some months now and it is only towards the very end that certain parties urged the Premier League to take action. If it was about TV rights and piracy why did those clubs not come forward as soon as the deal was made public ?
It seems 'they' tried everything else, Human Rights etc and when it all failed they brought up this issue.
Why did the PL need to be prodded by certain football clubs ? They have previously complained about the piracy at the highest level, all they had to do was send a quick email to Ashley and Stavely tell them that whilst the piracy issue was ongoing the Saudi deal would be blocked. They didn't so what has changed ?
 
Blue Mist said:
No I understand perfectly the point you are making. This deal has been going on for some months now and it is only towards the very end that certain parties urged the Premier League to take action. If it was about TV rights and piracy why did those clubs not come forward as soon as the deal was made public ?
It seems 'they' tried everything else, Human Rights etc and when it all failed they brought up this issue.
Why did the PL need to be prodded by certain football clubs ? They have previously complained about the piracy at the highest level, all they had to do was send a quick email to Ashley and Stavely tell them that whilst the piracy issue was ongoing the Saudi deal would be blocked. They didn't so what has changed ?
Click to expand...
Bein Sports made their feelings known as soon as the deal went to the PL for ratification.

PS, suggesting that Qatar and Amnesty are in bed together and the former used the latter to try and block the deal is a bit silly no?

To answer your final question, what changed was the deal going to the PL for approval, as apposed to the annual "X Person in talks to buy Newcastle" story that takes place.
 
SWP's back said:
Bein Sports made their feelings known as soon as the deal went to the PL for ratification.

PS, suggesting that Qatar and Amnesty are in bed together and the former used the latter to try and block the deal is a bit silly no?

To answer your final question, what changed was the deal going to the PL for approval, as apposed to the annual "X Person in talks to buy Newcastle" story that takes place.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned Qatar and Amnesty being in bed together ?
 
SWP's back said:
You absolutely didn’t and I’ll repeat it.

Newcastle would not be privately owned by an individual (unlike City and Chelsea).
Click to expand...
According to the reports, Newcastle would be 80% owned by PIF. Did the PIF organise or benefit from the piracy directly?

You're arguing the same logic that you would presumably argue against if used against City, namely that Etihad is a related party because it's owned by the state which is run by Sheikh Mansour’s brother.

It's the same as people like McGeehan & Delaney who see the Qatari staging of the World Cup as an "opportunity" while simultaneously slagging off our ownership as an example of "sportswashing".
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
You're arguing the same logic that you would presumably argue against if used against City, namely that Etihad is a related party because it's owned by the state which is run by Sheikh Mansour’s brother.
Click to expand...
No I’m not. I’m arguing their owners are the same people, ie The Saudi Government. Newcastle would not be privately owned. Stop with your false equivalencies.

The PIF is not a private entity (the clue is in the name).
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's the same as people like McGeehan & Delaney who see the Qatari staging of the World Cup as an "opportunity" while simultaneously slagging off our ownership as an example of "sportswashing".
Click to expand...
Again, bullshit and literally nothing to do with the subject.

Does this brand of debate normally work for you? Where you simply try and equate very different things and hope no one notices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.