That's some post. it warrants a reply (I won't say 'deserves').
1. "That's the long term plan. And it is something we should absolutely be concerned about in my view." I find your argument compelling. But if you can see this plot I assume HMG can see this plot too. So in the view of Boris and all his chums, what's in this for the UK? Is Boris a secret Islamist? (no). Does he think that foreign investment is good for Britain? (the tory noise on this has always been 'yes'). Do Boris and chums have any scruples over where money is coming from? There is no need to answer that one. So, yes, concerned, but neither labour nor tory have mounted much of a campaign against Saudi Arabia and so why should Boris block the takeover? It's money incoming.
But what about the EPL/FA? Are they not the ones who govern club ownership? On what basis do they consider Newcastle suddenly becoming super rich to be a good thing for them, and the game in general? Or were they leant on by HMG?
2. "To be honest I am very suprised at the attitude of you and others here (equating the regime in Saudi Arabia with Rwanda is just nonsense)." What? I don't know anything about Rwanda and didn't mention it. I deplore the Saudi regime and said so repeatedly. I don't need to compare it with anything. I don't think you are making a good choice bringing my (imaginary) attitude into your narrative.
3. "I am pretty sure you've accused others of 'whataboutery' (not a phrase I am a fan of, but seems to be common parlence on NSC) in the past yet you've reacted badly to (correctly) being called out on exactly that." I haven't reacted badly and I haven't been called out (to my knowledge - I don't read every post but I almost always read replies). I think you may be conflating tow different things - what I said and, er, what someone else said
4. "the Saudi's are a different level again and if you can't see that then either you are not looking very carefully, or you are just trying to look clever in the internet by making a clever point. " Stop now. Read my posts and have a think. And get down off your high horse. Unless you plan to march naked up and down the Blaydon Races then you are simply fulminating to yourself. Digging out someone like me (who detests the Islamist terrorist state, Saudi Arabia, and all its doings) is not the way to gain influence, support and action.
5. " It is the prime 'debating' tactics of Piers Morgan, and that is never a good look". Is there any point reading any more of this? I have been accused of many things but being like Piers Morgan is not one of them. I think you may look back on this post of yours with some regret once you have removed the logs from your eyes.
6. "It's childishly pathetic in my eyes to decide that we have to be against them because they are 'Palace scum'." I am sorry but I am going to reveal something to you that may come as a shock. It is intellectually weak to pursue an argument based on perceived motive (especially when the accusations are based on careless research). You say I only said what I said because I hate Palace. Not true. I don't hate Palace (and have been criticised for this). I don't like their ultras. And I don't trust the motives of the ultras. I have said all this. The main reasons for my not wetting the bed ovet the takeover are nuanced and in no way constitute approval, and have nothing to do with my views about Palace.
Yes I certainly raise an eyebow that apparently, taking the lead of the Ultras, some plan to mount a campaign to drive the Saudis out of football, when they have not attempted to drive the Emir of Beswick, or Guo Guangchang of Wolverhampton, etc. out of football. Look at the state of Birmingham City. Nobody is mounting a campaign to drive out their Chinese owners (note that fans of the actual club don't count, and Newcastle fans are certainly not trying to drive out their new owners, FFS). China is a rogue nation that kills its own people and is relaxed about genocide and is infiltrating our nation's doings alarmingly. Where are the Ultras when these people also need to be driven out of football?
Fans of Palace won't ever start a campaign to drive out the owners of Birmingham, because these owners are not bringing riches and hope to Birmingham and won't jeopardise Palace's place in the EPL.
I applaud your intensity, moral code and rightousness, albeit I am less impressed with your grasp of facts. The solution to unwanted ownership is to have stronger rules (incidentally, we also need stronger rules over non fooball things like arms sales and oil). We can't spend 50 years sucking on the oil tit of the Saudis and selling them arms, then say "but you can't buy Newcastle, not even with a nominee system that took you 18 months to assemble. No sir. We are rightous Brits and would probably allow you to **** our granny for money, but you can't own our football clubs."
We get the governments and the football club owners we deserve in this country, because we don't like rules and being told what to do and vote accordingly, and the consequence is every other bugger gets to do what they want to do, too, to us. I don't like this because I'm not a liberal, and paradoxically I am in favour of rules far tougher than the jonny-come-lately anti-Saudi owner brigade are calling for. And I don't see the mob bullying the Saudis out. I'll give £50 to REMF if they are not still in charge in a year. Want to take me on?
