New Newcastle

[redebreck]

Judging from what I've read on here - assumptions and proof - it would appear that, if you wanted to get around FFP, there are ways of doing it. Which raises the question, why was it ever introduced? To give the impression that it was/is being taken seriously?

[Taksin]

Judging from what I've read on here - assumptions and proof - it would appear that, if you wanted to get around FFP, there are ways of doing it. Which raises the question, why was it ever introduced? To give the impression that it was/is being taken seriously?

It was introduced to protect clubs from bankruptcy, which was on the up in the proceeding years and has actually dropped considerably as a result, so the story goes.

I'd say its a questionable rule - maybe we should just let clubs spend whatever they like and then they can also crash and burn when it goes wrong. For fans who don't want an outside party to oversee the ruination of their club, you can see that doing something to discipline owners has some utility. The cost is paid by the clubs with the richest owners, who are restrained in a way that they probably don't need to be. If City, for example, want Etihad to pay them a billion pounds a year for five years, who are we to stop them? It's ironic that their own fans, who the rule is supposed to protect, probably resent it.

The question of whether Raheem Sterling is actually paid much more than they say he is would be the only real evidence that they haven't been restrained as intended by the rule.

[eggy81]

Apparently Adrian Chiles was interviewing members of an LGBT group (that support Newcastle) and they weren't able to manage any form of condemnation of having Saudi state owners.

It's "only" the death penalty for gayness over there like. The mental gymnastics people will perform around football beggars belief to me. Unless those interviewed had genuine concerns about being targeted, you'd have to wonder why they'd be so apathetic when given a platform to speak out.

Because most people don’t actually give two fucks about anything that doesn’t effect them directly and will only act like they do when they’ve something to gain from it.

[CCTV]

Judging from what I've read on here - assumptions and proof - it would appear that, if you wanted to get around FFP, there are ways of doing it. Which raises the question, why was it ever introduced? To give the impression that it was/is being taken seriously?

Well in essence it was introduced to try and prevent clubs going into administration.

In doing so it hit the oil rich owners hardest as they were seeking to pump money into their clubs. To build global leading brands.

Whereas ffp kind of thwarts that as the club has to be run like a business.

So the stadium sponsorship was a concern as IF City Group sold city to a tight arse like JWH say, the City Group could pull commercial deals and if they were significantly greater than the market rate then JwH would be facing a good drop in income.

Same with the significant salaries, City group goes and then other staff would be back on a wage bill, increased costs.

If a player is getting money off the books by some means, then these liabilities do not come onto the next owner. So they are of little concern for ffp.

[CCTV]

I rather fancy that the situation there would be not unlike the situation with convictions of sexual assault in the Western World, ie the extent of the issue and the accurate numerical documentation of instances are some way apart.

Also have to honestly hold my hands up and say "I don't know" in response to your question.

Well a quick search suggests Saudi Arabia has a population of 35 million and has just north of 150 executions a year for a host of crimes.
A quick search does not reveal what percentage are for gayness though.
I just thought you might know.

From my encounters with the Arabs and Persians in real life and via the Web, it appears as though you have to go out of your way to get executed for being gay.

That typically detection isn't too high, professing ones sorrow and remorse can see leniency granted and that you have to be an unremorseful repeat offender to get executed. In a sense some kind of martyr desire or willing to die for ones rights.

That these societies are in many ways averse to public displays of affection even for heteronormative cis gender couples.....

(Excluded sections of further discussion )

Of course the ideas of absolute free expression of sexuality we might stereotypically expect from the vocal lgbtqiaamapoliticals, as though a hive mind organism, would run a foul of Islamophobia and cultural superiority.

And they would typically be expected to be screaming about bojo saying, women in niqabs look like post boxes. Not fit to be pm.
But also profess an outrage at the treatment or roles of women in Saudi Arabia or the wider region, including dress standards.
It's an impossible set of desires to maintain naturally as I see it.

It's a fairly happy country but it hasn't got the same appeal as top tier destinations of choice, its also averse to taking in refugees like many nations in the region and elsewhere, so it is still under evolutionary pressures as it doesn't outsource reproduction like many Western nations do to migrant populations.
So if one was gay over there, one might be more inclined to produce children through a marriage and have a bit on the side to appeal ones sequel desires.
Not unlike a fair few gays in the west who have fathered children but more often leave the mother later on, though some stay.

I'm keeping it short...

[CCTV]

Because most people don’t actually give two fucks about anything that doesn’t effect them directly and will only act like they do when they’ve something to gain from it.

Hypocrisy is practically unavoidable and part of the human condition.

[justme]

And so is sadism, the human species is a strange one

[fiordearg]

The only reality that matters is they will be top 4 contenders sooner rather than later and titles are inevitable

[justme]

Just made myself laugh.. They are looking at the big time. so they will need a massive manager with a huge name. They will buy Ole out of his Man united contract.

[Taksin]

The thing that I would object to is that their club will now be used to advertise and promote their country or their interests.

Notice that is not what we have with FSG. Their interests are in developing the asset, which means making it work better. Although we are vulnerable to a sale, that is a preferable model.

I don’t even think the way the Arabs make their money is a big issue. If they want to spend their money on footballers rather than Wahabi cells, then great. It’s the stealing of our identity that I object to.

The Abramovic model is not quite as bad as he isn’t developing the club’s image to reflect his ambitions elsewhere, but his identity is still written all over the club and it’s achievements, which I would find very depressing at Liverpool.