Friday, 8 October 2021

13 things every Newcastle United fan should know about the club's new owners


In October 2021 the tyrannical Saudi regime completed the takeover of Newcastle United FC, via the nation's sovereign wealth fund. 

Here are 13 things all Newcastle fans should know about their club's new owners.

It's the Saudi state

This isn't just some rich guys from Saudi Arabia who have bought an 80% stake in Newcastle United, it's the Saudi government's Public Investment Fund (PIF).

Their chairman of this fund the murderous tyrant Mohammad bin Salman (MBS), who is also the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

No matter how much the Premier League tries to maintain the ridiculous pretence that they haven't, what they've done is allowed the nationalisation of Newcastle United, into the ownership of the world's worst regime.

Sportswashing

The Saudi tyrants have invested their oil money all over the world. They've got stakes in Facebook, Twitter, Formula One, Boing, Bank of America, Disney, Uber ... Wherever you look in the capitalist system, the Saudi tyrants have probably got a stake in it.

The difference between these investments, and Newcastle United, is that their capitalist investments are aimed at making profits, while their investment in Newcastle United is aimed at improving their public reputation, at a massive cost.

Why do you think they've made that appalling wax-faxed woman Amanda Staveley the figurehead of their ownership, despite her only owning a tiny stake in the venture, rather than one of their own head-choppers?

It's all about massaging their public reputation, and putting a slick westernised veneer onto their barbaric autocracy, rather than making any kind of monetary profit.

We've seen it already with Manchester City, and the way huge numbers of Mancs immediately turned themselves into amateur unpaid PR operatives for the Abu Dhabi despots who took over their club.

MBS and the Saudi head-choppers expect to receive exactly the same kind of sycophantic fawning from Geordies.

War crimes

The despotic Saudi regime has been waging war in neighbouring Yemen since 2014, and they've shown absolutely no respect for the normal conventions of war. 

Probably the most famous war crime occurred when they conducted an airstrike against a bus full of school kids, but they've also used helicopter gunships to attack refugees, and deliberately bombed civilian targets across one of the poorest countries on earth.

One of the most despicable tactics the Saudi tyrants use is the targeting of water supplies and food distribution infrastructure, in order to use starvation and disease as weapons of war against the Yemeni people.

Their absolute disregard for human life in the Yemeni conflict has created what the UN has consistently described as "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world".

Terrorism-spreaders

Ever since the oil money started flowing in, the Saudis have been using it to spread their extremist version of Islam (Wahhabism) across the globe. Wherever you find barbaric Islamist terrorists, you'll find financial and logistical links back to Saudi Arabia.

15 of the 19 September 11th attackers were Saudi, and the ideological figurehead of Al Qaida was Osama bin Laden, who came from a wealthy family that's still well connected in the Saudi regime.

During the 2016 US election Hillary Clinton's emails about the Saudis were leaked, and in them she made it absolutely clear that the US administration knew perfectly well that Saudi Arabia funds terrorist outfits like Al Qaida and ISIS.

Jamal Khashoggi

In October 2018 the Saudi government lured the Jamal Khashoggi to the Saudi embassy in Turkey, where he was murdered and dismembered. The remains of his body have never been found.

The aeroplanes used to fly his murderers in and out of Turkey were owned by PIF, the very company used as a front to buy Newcastle United, and the CIA concluded that the murder was ordered by Muhammed bin Salmen himself.

The reason Newcastle United's new owners killed Khashoggi and hacked his body to bits, is that he was a critic of their regime. He was the son of a mega-rich Saudi arms dealer with connections to the Saudi regime, but he saw the light, recognised the vile tyranny for what it was, and began criticising their political repression, and their war crimes in Yemen.

He was a brave man who stood up for what he believed in, and for that, the owners of Newcastle United ended his life, hacked his corpse to pieces, and hid the remains to deny him a proper burial.

They kill journalists just for criticising their horrific regime.

Misogyny

Probably the most famous piece of folk knowledge about Saudi Arabia in the last half-century is the fact that they hate their own women so much, they wouldn't even allow them to drive cars.

Saudi Arabia is still a profoundly misogynistic society in which women barely have any rights.

They're not allowed to travel or get a passport without permission from their male guardian; they're not free to choose who they marry, and until recently Saudi girls as young as 8 were forced into marriages with adult men; they're barred from all manner of professions; they're banned from studying abroad without their male guardian's permission; they're discriminated against in family courts; and feminist activism in Saudi Arabia is treated as akin to terrorism.

Homophobia

Saudi Arabia is one of the most homophobic regimes on earth, which maintains the death penalty for homosexuality.

They kill people for being gay. Do we really need to say any more than that?

Anti-democracy

In 2019 the Saudi tyrants conducted a barbaric mass-execution of 39 people, including one death by crucifixion. Most of the victims were pro-democracy protestors (including a lad who was 16 at the time he attended a pro-democracy street protest!).

These absolute tyrants literally kill people for supporting the democratic rights that British people take for granted. 

Islamist extremism
 
We already know that the Saudi regime is responsible for spreading their violent, extremist Wahhabist interpretation of Islam across the planet, but within Saudi Arabia they're just as bad.

Apostacy (the "crime" of renouncing Islam) still carries the death sentence in Saudi Arabia

Most Saudis who renounce Islam are forced into exile, which is especially hard for women because of the travel restrictions they're subjected to. And even then, they're forced to continually look over their shoulders, because Saudi operatives obviously aren't remotely afraid to carry out extrajudicial killings overseas. 

Corruption

The Saudi regime is notoriously corrupt, and they'll do literally anything to get away with it.

The Saudis even threatened acts of terrorism against the UK in order to pressurise the UK government into scrapping a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the estimated £1 billion that Prince Bandar took in bribes from the British arms company BAE.

The threat of Saudi-orchestrated terrorist attacks on British soil was enough to convince Tony Blair to personally intervene to shut down the corruption probe!

Premier League greed

The reason Premier League approval of the Newcastle takeover took so long wasn't that they had any concerns about the corruption, homophobia, democracy-repression, murder of journalists, misogyny, war crimes, terrorism-spreading, Islamist extremism, or even threats of terrorist attacks against the UK ... it's because a TV company with links to the Saudi government had been broadcasting unauthorised streams of Premier League matches!

Once this company put a stop to their unauthorised streams, the Premier League quickly gave the green light to the worst regime in the world to take over one of England's most historic and storied football clubs!

If you're looking for anyone to blame for the absolute shame of these horrific tyrants taking over your club, look no further than greed-obsessed Premier League executives.

Forget whataboutery

"Whataboutery" is one of the weakest debating tactics known to humanity. It's just a distraction strategy aimed at completely derailing the discussion.
  • What about other terrible football owners like UAE/Qatar/exploitative US capitalists/Abramovich?
  • What about other repressive regimes like North Korea/Iran/Israel? 
  • What about other Saudi investments in stuff like Facebook/Twitter?
  • What about Mike Ashley's ruthless zero hours contract exploitation at Sports Direct?
All of these other things are varying degrees of bad. And very many people have consistently highlighted and criticised these other things in the past. But the subject of discussion now is the fact that Newcastle United has been bought out by the worst regime in the world. 

The only reason any Newcastle fan is going "what about ...?" is to distract attention and derail the discussion.

It's a shamefully poor debating tactic, which nobody with even a shred of moral decency would try to use.

Buying loyalty?

The Saudi tyrants believe that just because they've bought Newcastle United, they've bought the Newcastle fans' undying loyalty too.

It's up to the people of Newcastle to show them how wrong they are, and that buying the badge doesn't automatically buy them the respect of the Geordie people.

If Newcastle fans have any decency and dignity whatever, the next home game will be absolutely festooned with pride flags, Yemeni flags, women's rights banners, and pictures of Jamal Khashoggi.

Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered by the owners of Newcastle United at the age of 59, so the 59th minute would be a profound moment for the name "Jamal Khashoggi" to ring out around St James' Park, to tell these sick bastards that they might own your club, but they'll never earn your respect if they go around murdering and dismembering their critics.

Will Newcastle United fans put on a show of defiance against the absolutely horrific tyrants who now own their club? Or will the next home game have an absolute party atmosphere, featuring thousands of Geordies giving the worst regime in the world a heroes' welcome with tea towels on their heads?

The game against Spurs on Sunday October 17th will tell the entire world an awful lot about the true character of the Geordie people, won't it?

 
 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. Access to my online writing will always remain free. If you see some value in what I do, please consider supporting my work with a small donation/subscription.



OR

35 comments:

Duggedee2202 said...

Well thanks for this useless information, I look forward to the entertainment and football talent they will bring to North East. As for arms dealers yada yards Well this government is just as guilty

Unknown said...

Don't lose your head Dug. Newcastle will still be shit.

Unknown said...

Similar situation with Chinese owners of Birmingham City FC with their ex Chairman/ownwer Carsen Yeung in jail.. Present lot do money laundering and evict peasants from tbeir village to build a sports complex/golf course outside Phnom Penh.. Fit and proper? The beautiful game is corrupt

Mr. Magoo said...

The Saudi regime won't care if they don't have the respect of Newcastle United fans as long as they get their money. Wouldn't it be best if fans boycott the magpies and protest outside their stadium?

Src said...

2 words. Blackburn Rovers.

Payaso de Mierda said...

to suggest NUFC fans should boycott the club because of these new owners is risible verging on sinister; it's not far removed from the recent utterances of the North Yorkshire Police & Crime Commissioner.

incidentally, as a Newcastle fan. i am vehemently opposed to the takeover, as I say in my latest blog: http://payaso-de-mierda.blogspot.com/2021/10/999-emergency.html

Nobody cares said...

It's money son coming to the northeast nobody cares where it comes from nissan, honda, toyota invest but get kick backs from public purse, nobody cares these guys have stupid money let them invest in Newcastle and surrounding areas about time, your argument is weak money talks and investment is what the northeast needs, so all this, means nowt and never will

Unknown said...

Idiot

Anonymous said...

I'd normally agree with your politics, but on this occasion the hypocrisy is too much. You say that PIF have shares in Facebook, Twitter etc, then why don't you set an example & boycott these platforms, and while your at it stop using your car, as there's a good chance it's running on fuel from Saudi. Don't expect others to make sacrifices if you're not prepared to make any yourself. That's how tories operate.

Anonymous said...

Fat Geordies singing 'We've got our club back'....ha,ha, what?!

Your 'club'?

You're wasting your time on these bread & circuses numbnuts AAV (as some of the comments above clearly demonstrate).

Freddy Shephard was right about Geordies all along (mugs, Mary Poppins, slags etc) and SkySports News are actually quoting him right now on this 'magnificent' turn of events!

No shame and selective amnesia across the board.

Saudi-Premier League-Little Tory England.....a dysfunctional marriage made in a cesspit that absolutely deserves one another.

As for Saudi Arabia, who 'made' them in the first place?









Anonymous said...

"You say that PIF have shares in Facebook, Twitter etc, then why don't you set an example & boycott these platforms, and while your at it stop using your car, as there's a good chance it's running on fuel from Saudi".

Using social media outlets to expose the crimes of a political regime that happens to have shares in those social media outlets isn't hypocritical, it's smart. Use and exploit THEM whilst you can, before they inevitably get round to shutting you down- which both Facebook and Twitter are notorious for. They shut down the accounts of their own democratically elected President just 7 months ago for crying out loud. They're a tool. Use and exploit them as a tool.

There's a better chance that the fuel AAV puts in his car (if he's even got one, a bit presumptuous on your part tbh) comes from Trinidad & Tobago. Saudi Arabian fuel imports into the UK don't even rank in the top 15.





Samdemanne said...

Dont worry. Travelling fan's will never let NUFC supporters forget the scum they tolerate owning their club. I can see flags with Khashoggi's face, mock beheadings and innovative chants about Sharia law being quite the thing from the visitor stands at St James'...

Anonymous said...

Freddy Shephard, Mike Ashley, Royal Saudi tinpots......is the water flowing through the Tyne some kind of magnet for shit?

Hadrian should have built his wall a few miles further south.

Anonymous said...

.....'quoting him right now'......

Not Freddy Shepard (dead), but Sir John Hall (Tory donor).

Speaks volumes....

Unknown said...

Disgraceful attitude, Murders don't matter, misogyny doesn't matter, executions don't matter, only football. You're a fucking clown, I'd be ashamed if these awful cunts took over my club, but I guess that trophies are all you care about, you shallow, brainless cunt.

Unknown said...

And don't forget Liverpool's owners and all their goods supplied by sweat shops

Anonymous said...

@Unknown

Says the fellow who voted for Corbyn. You remember when he championed Fidel Castro as the pinnacle of social justice despite the torture, blood theft, police state antics? ... the whole she-bang basically and here you are trying to stroke your flagging erection by laying into some football fans. You flagrant, unadulterated narcissist.

Unknown said...

Money talks but it don't sing & it don't walk!

Anonymous said...

@Unknown

Cringe.

David Parry said...

Anon.

There are definitely legitimate criticisms to level at Castro, but the people whom he expropriated and drove out of the country were the most ruthless and brutal kind of capitalist oppressors and exploiters, people who had ties to the American mafia, and who used child slave labour and hired literal gangsters to assassinate union organisers. They don't deserve one iota of sympathy.

Nasser said...

You must mention the name of the fabricator of this distortion of Saudi Arabia, which is the club Tottenham, which Al-Maliki refused to buy their club.. You are a clown and his mercenaries.

Anonymous said...

@David Perry.

Urgh, I've no idea what makes you think I've sympathy for Trujillo mate. Probably some fevered daydream on your part. Really says a lot about you and how you need to view your political opponents. After him however; it got a lot worse didn't it?

So: The rape, torture and murder of political dissidents: Legitimate criticism. Got you.
That's the complete clampdown on a free press, literally stealing every possible resource from any Cuban apart from the communist elite (ironic name I know, but there you go) to fund the lavish lifestyle of aforementioned elite whilst individuals starve.

You have actually watched interviews with ex cubans who talk about the horrendous hospital conditions (you don't actually think Castro told the truth on health standards right?), or the forced abortions?

That's whom Corbyn was praising. If you don't believe me just check out the human rights abuses list on amnesty international site. One would almost think you were desperately trying to deflect by bringing up Trujillo as if at any point I'd given him 'sympathy'.

David Parry said...

'I've no idea what makes you think I've sympathy for Trujillo mate.'

You're getting your Latin American countries muddled up. Trujillo was the despot that the US propped up in the Domininan Republic for over three decades. I'm on about the pre-Castro ruling class of Cuba.

'So: The rape, torture and murder of political dissidents: Legitimate criticism. Got you.'

Pointing those things out is legitimate criticism, yes.

'literally stealing every possible resource from any Cuban apart from the communist elite (ironic name I know, but there you go)'

I hold no candle for the Castro regime but this is hyperbolic nonsense.

'You have actually watched interviews with ex cubans who talk about the horrendous hospital conditions (you don't actually think Castro told the truth on health standards right?), or the forced abortions?'

You mean the people I was referring to earlier - the literal child slave owners who hired gangsters to assassinate trade union organisers - and their descendants? They wouldn't have an axe to grind in the slightest!

David Parry said...

*Dominican Republic

Anonymous said...

Lol, my bad on Trujillo.

"Pointing those things out is legitimate criticism, yes." So the rape, torture, theft of private property and peoples livlihoods, forced abortions ... Are examples that Corbyn thinks are exemplars of social justice. Just checking what you think on my original comment there spud.

"I hold no candle for the Castro regime but this is hyperbolic nonsense." No it's not, the state took over every means of production and distributed it as they saw fit which led to: mass starvation and poverty.

"You mean the people I was referring to earlier - the literal child slave owners who hired gangsters to assassinate trade union organisers - and their descendants? They wouldn't have an axe to grind in the slightest!"


No. The individuals who escaped Castro's regime. The regime you agree enforces the atrocities which we literally just exchanged over. Poor deflection on your part there .

Anonymous said...

@David Perry

Wow, imagine absolutely glazing over the atrocities experienced by individuals who've seen their families taken and tortured from them for dissidence, who've had to float over on rafts made from car doors and explaining them away as defectors from the old regime.

I mean, considering the revolution was in the late fifties and you've still got individuals still trying to come over, that's some robust septuagenarians you're imaging there.

Man, I even fessed up to getting Trujillo mixed up, I do hope you take back that comment. You're falling into the trap of looking the tyrannical, middle class socialist type.

Anonymous said...

@David Perry

"There are definitely legitimate criticisms to level at Castro, but the people whom he expropriated and drove out of the country were the most ruthless and brutal kind of capitalist oppressors and exploiters, people who had ties to the American mafia, and who used child slave labour and hired literal gangsters to assassinate union organisers. They don't deserve one iota of sympathy."

Why on earth would you think I sympathise with them? What an asinine comment.

David Parry said...

'So the rape, torture, theft of private property and peoples livlihoods, forced abortions ..'

I see you snuck in 'theft of private property'. I don't accept private property as legitimate, especially if you're talking about the property of child slave-owning landowners who hired literal gangsters to assassinate union organisers. I don't see state property as legitimate either, and so I'm not going to sing the praises of the Castro regime for what it did in nationalising that property. My point is simply 'fuck the people whom the Castro regime expropriated - they deserve no sympathy!'.

'No it's not, the state took over every means of production and distributed it as they saw fit which led to: mass starvation and poverty.'

Both of starvation and poverty were lessened under the Castro regime. That's a fact, whatever else one might say about said regime.

'The individuals who escaped Castro's regime.'

... who were child slave-owning landowners, certainly in the beginning.

David Parry said...

'Why on earth would you think I sympathise with them?'

You seemed to be seeking to enjoin sympathy for them with your remark about 'blood theft'.

David Parry said...

'Wow, imagine absolutely glazing over the atrocities experienced by individuals who've seen their families taken and tortured from them for dissidence, who've had to float over on rafts made from car doors and explaining them away as defectors from the old regime.'

I'm talking specifically about the people whom you described earlier as having been subjected to 'blood theft'. Those people most definitely were either part of the Batista regime or associates and beneficiaries of it.

Anonymous said...


"I see you snuck in 'theft of private property'." Nope, Castro did it, I'm stating it as fact. It's not like I've dressed up a historical reference in a particularly pithy metaphor or tried to sneak it under through the back door of this conversation dressed as a washerwoman spud.

"I don't accept private property as legitimate, especially if you're talking about the property of child slave-owning landowners who hired literal gangsters to assassinate union organisers." What has this got to do with Corbyn supporting Castro?

"I don't see state property as legitimate either, and so I'm not going to sing the praises of the Castro regime for what it did in nationalising that property." Well done. Corbyn didn't, as was my original point.

"My point is simply 'fuck the people whom the Castro regime expropriated - they deserve no sympathy!'." Yes, you've said. It's asinine. It has nothing to do with the original comment and doesn't change or counter my point that; Corbyn supported torture, property theft and the list of author human rights abuses?

"Both of starvation and poverty were lessened under the Castro regime. That's a fact, whatever else one might say about said regime." Nope, you actually can't prove this. The U.N statistics on starvation and childbirth and any statistic they have on Cuba; are given to them by the Cuban regime. A regime that's (according to amnesty international and the U.N itself as well as it's defectors, real defectors and not your imaginary octogenarians making breast stroke across the sea) completely destroyed the free press. We do know that Castro lived in a villa and off the shore on a million dollar yacht paid for by the Cubans own resources, as does his descendants. Corbyn was ok with this.

"'The individuals who escaped Castro's regime.'

... who were child slave-owning landowners, certainly in the beginning." Well done mate, progress of a sort. Thank you for agreeing that the sources of evidence I was referring to at the atrocities for the regime that Corbyn supported are legitimate. I'm glad you've corrected yourself, all it took was me pointing out the starkly obvious to your continuing asinine comments.

Anonymous said...

@David Perry

"You seemed to be seeking to enjoin sympathy for them with your remark about 'blood theft'."

Nope, never met them and they sound pretty heinous. But I disagree with stealing their blood (if that's what you're stating Castro did). It's an infringement on their basic human rights, which are sacrosanct, as terrible as their crimes were.

I mean, fancy being so unbelievably zealous in the pursuit of your own perverse sense of justice that you'd justify doing something as barbaric as blood theft to these individuals and justify it because they were 'bad men'. I mean, imagine not actually having lived under the preceding regime, then commenting that it's what those men deserved from the comfort of all that Western civilisation has to offer you, when comparatively you've known nothing but a life of ease and a full stomach? As if you're the paradigm of justice and intelligence to pass sentence on these people as opposed to; Going through the courts to be judged for a prison sentence by a jury of their peers?

I mean, makes you think what you'd do to someone if you thought they deserved it and you had that power over them, doesn't it? Hypothetically of course.

Anonymous said...

@David Perry

"I'm talking specifically about the people whom you described earlier as having been subjected to 'blood theft'. Those people most definitely were either part of the Batista regime or associates and beneficiaries of it."

Sure you are. Now.

;)

David Parry said...

I'm not here to defend Jeremy Corbyn. I'm sorry to disappoint you.

'But I disagree with stealing their blood'

Hold on. Are you talking about actual theft of people's blood here?

Anonymous said...

@David Perry

"I'm not here to defend Jeremy Corbyn. I'm sorry to disappoint you."
So no point in responding with the pre-Castro line of reasoning you've taken. Is this a conversation turn you pull often: Your mother is talking to a friend about Tesco sales and you chirp in with; Well Safeway's were more consistent with half price offers back in the day!

I'm literally pointing out the ex labour leaders failings, you've clearly stated you've no interest in them, which is the point of my comment. You then start banging on about historical issues from an entirely different government and freely admit there's no link with my original point?

Not only that you then accuse me of sympathising with said government on no discernible grounds?

What happened to you and was it at a young age?