How Would We Feel if the Saudis Took Over Burnley?

[KRBFC]

I know. What's your point?

Some people taking the moral high ground likely voted and gave power to people, who then armed Saudi Arabia and dropped airstrikes in Syria.
People like to sit and throw stones, we should look closer to home.


Maybe we should question the morals of those sheep voters, are they part responsible?

[KRBFC]

Newcastle fans are in a difficult spot because I’m not sure how easily I could just walk away from my club, or even stop attending. But surprised to see the number of people on here who would have no issue with our club being run by the Saudis if it brought success. Symptomatic of the today’s generation of plastic football fans. Anyone noticed how many people are walking around in PSG shirts these days?

And as quoon says, putting morals aside, it must be such a hollow feeling to be a fan of a club like Man City

but us lot wouldn't be plastic fans, I'm sure alot of the City fans were fans before the takeover.

[fidelcastro]

Some people taking the moral high ground likely voted and gave power to people, who then armed Saudi Arabia and dropped airstrikes in Syria.
People like to sit and throw stones, we should look closer to home.


Maybe we should question the morals of those sheep voters, are they part responsible?

It's the Tories that have been in power since 2010 and I've never voted for them, so no hypocrisy here.

[boatshed bill]

What’s not to like? It would completely change not just the club but one of the poorest parts of the country and provide the youth of Burnley with a lot of opportunities.

I'd love to know what these opportunities would be?

[Rileybobs]

People like to sit and throw stones

In fairness to the Saudis they only do that to adulterers.

[CFS]

I'm all for it would love it me personally. Understand those that are against it but money talks move on.

[ClaretTony]

No thanks. Burnley are one of the few proper success stories in football. From the top to the bottom and all the way back again without any sugar daddies or massive debt distorting things. We've done it all the right way in comparison to the vast majority of clubs and that's something I'm really proud of. I've no interest in the plastic success of city, Chelsea, and all the rest and I wouldn't want to become like them. It's all so hollow.

And that's before you even get near the human rights side of it.

Spot on quoon

[Roosterbooster]

How many innocent people did the UK bomb and kill in Iraq and Syria? why does nobody mention that.

Last I looked, the UK government wasn't tableing a bid to buy us

Have to agree with a lot of Spiral's comments. And I'd desperately hope we wouldn't ever be bought by a Saudi like consortium. Would it stop me supporting us?? I don't know. I'd be supporting the club, not them. It'd certainly make me think twice

[Rileybobs]

but us lot wouldn't be plastic fans, I'm sure alot of the City fans were fans before the takeover.

Watching a Burnley side owned by the Saudi state fielding a world eleven would be the most plastic, unauthentic thing I could imagine.

It’s quite interesting that a few of the people who would be in full support of this are the ones who are never happy supporting Burnley. Kind of makes sense really.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Every one of us has a morality level beyond which we wouldn’t give something the time of day. If we express that as a high jump, my bar is about 2m off the ground and this Saudi takeover is about 20m up.

So without doubt my time supporting the Clarets would be done. People may say how would I feel if hundreds of millions were spent on players and we had a new shiny ground? I’d feel the same. There wouldn’t be any achievement, any success would be purely bought. Jack Walker did it of course, but that’s small fry by today’s numbers and to be fair to him he was a decent guy in comparison which is a huge difference.

I take great pleasure from Burnley punching above our weight. We need to “level up” the town, but if we do that by becoming owned by Saudi Arabia despite being a huge western democracy, we may as well give up now.

[fidelcastro]

Watching a Burnley side owned by the Saudi state fielding a world eleven would be the most plastic, unauthentic thing I could imagine.

It’s quite interesting that a few of the people who would be in full support of this are the ones who are never happy supporting Burnley. Kind of makes sense really.

And it tends to be the ones who don't attend games!

[Newcastleclaret93]

I'd love to know what these opportunities would be?

Just as side effect it is estimated that city’s title run in 2019 added an extra £220m to the local economy, due to tourism, hospitality etc…

Not to mention the complete redevelopment of the clubs which results in millions being pumped into the local community. City spent an estimated £200m on there training ground alone.

They have also given over £10m to local schools to improve opportunities for kids in the area.

[boatshed bill]

Watching a Burnley side owned by the Saudi state fielding a world eleven would be the most plastic, unauthentic thing I could imagine.

It’s quite interesting that a few of the people who would be in full support of this are the ones who are never happy supporting Burnley. Kind of makes sense really.

I don't see why you are happy with players bought by a US company but draw the line at Saudi billionaires

[Newcastleclaret93]

Watching a Burnley side owned by the Saudi state fielding a world eleven would be the most plastic, unauthentic thing I could imagine.

It’s quite interesting that a few of the people who would be in full support of this are the ones who are never happy supporting Burnley. Kind of makes sense really.

Out of interest Riley what type of owner would be acceptable? Or are you just against the club spending big money?

Surely everyone wants to see the best possible eleven play for Burnley

[Rileybobs]

Just as side effect it is estimated that city’s title run in 2019 added an extra £220m to the local economy, due to tourism, hospitality etc…

Not to mention the complete redevelopment of the clubs which results in millions being pumped into the local community. City spent an estimated £200m on there training ground alone.

They have also given over £10m to local schools to improve opportunities for kids in the area.

Jimmy Saville did some great work for charity.

[RMutt]

I wonder if there’s enough appetite for boycotts. I appreciate that could be seen as an advantage to Newcastle and damages home clubs’ finances but the Premier League wouldn’t like empty stadiums for all Newcastle games.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Jimmy Saville did some great work for charity.

Riley do you fill up your car with petrol/ Diesel?

[Rileybobs]

I don't see why you are happy with players bought by a US company but draw the line at Saudi billionaires

You can’t see the difference in ethics between our owners and Newcastle’s?

[Newcastleclaret93]

I wonder if there’s enough appetite for boycotts. I appreciate that could be seen as an advantage to Newcastle and damages home clubs’ finances but the Premier League wouldn’t like empty stadiums for all Newcastle games.

Newcastle is absolutely bouncing over this news. Don’t think you will find an empty seat at Newcastle

[boatshed bill]

Just as side effect it is estimated that city’s title run in 2019 added an extra £220m to the local economy, due to tourism, hospitality etc…

Not to mention the complete redevelopment of the clubs which results in millions being pumped into the local community. City spent an estimated £200m on there training ground alone.

They have also given over £10m to local schools to improve opportunities for kids in the area.

So what specific "opportunities" were created?
Believe me, the injection of capital doesn't necessarily filter down.

[Spiral]

Similar to how to Man City’s owners did it with there local community

You know, I don't want to make this even remotely political lest the thread be yanked, but we have elections for this kind of thing. Like I said above, you aren't reasoning to your conclusion and determining that the takeover of a football club by such a morally bankrupt set of people is just because of the investment in the local area — this is a by-product of the takeover and a pillar of sportswashing — no, you're driven (though as a supposed Burnley fan I'm not quite sure why) by the chance of success on the pitch and that alone, and all other arguments in favour of such a takeover are peripheral and in search of moral justification, because if investment in local communities was such a pressing concern to people, people would take care of it at the ballot box without defending or aligning themselves with some of the most reprehensible people on the planet. This argument about community investment is all about metaphorically cleaning your conscience. Community investment in the context of sportswashing is but a crumb thrown by billionaire owners to the plebs, people toward whom these owners are utterly, utterly indifferent. You've decided there's a transactional relationship which is agreeable to you. Other people would rather not deal with such monsters. You reveal your character by stating where you stand on these kind of transactions.

[CFS]

Just as side effect it is estimated that city’s title run in 2019 added an extra £220m to the local economy, due to tourism, hospitality etc…

Not to mention the complete redevelopment of the clubs which results in millions being pumped into the local community. City spent an estimated £200m on there training ground alone.

They have also given over £10m to local schools to improve opportunities for kids in the area.

I wouldn't bother explaining we all know what the owners have done and are still doing in the community of Manchester these dudes on here haven't been out of Burnley that's why they wouldn't want it.

[KRBFC]

Watching a Burnley side owned by the Saudi state fielding a world eleven would be the most plastic, unauthentic thing I could imagine.

You're right tbh, it definitely suits a club like Newcastle more.

[boatshed bill]

You can’t see the difference in ethics between our owners and Newcastle’s?

To be perfectly honest, no I can't. Oops, except the volume of money involved in the takeover.

[Rombald]

Newcastle is absolutely bouncing over this news. Don’t think you will find an empty seat at Newcastle

You seem almost as excited at "there" news.....

[Newcastleclaret93]

You know, I don't want to make this even remotely political lest the thread be yanked, but we have elections for this kind of thing. Like I said above, you aren't reasoning to your conclusion and determining that the takeover of a football club by such a morally bankrupt set of people is just because of the investment in the local area — this is a by-product of the takeover and a pillar of sportswashing — no, you're driven (though as a supposed Burnley fan I'm not quite sure why) by the chance of success on the pitch and that alone, and all other arguments in favour of such a takeover are peripheral and in search of moral justification, because if investment in local communities was such a pressing concern to people, people would take care of it at the ballot box without defending or aligning themselves with some of the most reprehensible people on the planet. This argument about community investment is all about metaphorically cleaning your conscience. Community investment in the context of sportswashing is but a crumb thrown by billionaire owners to the plebs, people toward whom these owners are utterly, utterly indifferent. You've decided there's a transactional relationship which is agreeable to you. Other people would rather not deal with such monsters. You reveal your character by stating where you stand on these kind of transactions.

No I think I am just realistic. For example I fill up my car with fuel, this is directly funding said “monsters”.

I was also work in an industry that is heavily funded by similar nations.

I think unless you completely rule out the products/ companies that these nations are tied to from your life then you are just being a hypocrite

[Jakubclaret]

It’s easy to say you would be against something when you know something is unlikely to happen anyway, would them same people who are opposed keep the same stance if it did become a reality, I think 99% of the people would rapidly be in favour if the Saudis did takeover.

[CFS]

It’s easy to say you would be against something when you know something is unlikely to happen anyway, would them same people who are opposed keep the same stance if it did become a reality, I think 99% of the people would rapidly be in favour if the Saudis did takeover.

This

[Rileybobs]

Out of interest Riley what type of owner would be acceptable? Or are you just against the club spending big money?

Surely everyone wants to see the best possible eleven play for Burnley

I don’t know why you’re reducing the argument to such a degree. I would be happy for the club to be run by anyone with the resources and ability to advance the club who has good morals and the club’s interests at heart. Out of interest, is there any owner who you would find unacceptable?

I’m not against the club spending big money, but I would rather be sustainable and spend what we generate.

[Rileybobs]

Riley do you fill up your car with petrol/ Diesel?

Yes. Why?

[fidelcastro]

It’s easy to say you would be against something when you know something is unlikely to happen anyway, would them same people who are opposed keep the same stance if it did become a reality, I think 99% of the people would rapidly be in favour if the Saudis did takeover.

Not this.

[CFS]

Already talking about the aim is PL title can you imagine that was us. If only lol we just about got Lennon to commit and people are still talking.

[JohnMac]

Need to define 'Saudis' really as I don't know if it is the ruling family or some bloke with loads of wealth. I mean are they all tyrannical despots or is it just the odd one?

Either way it wouldn't overly bother me, our own elected rulers don't give a toss about the public so morality isn't a factor to me.

[Newcastleclaret93]

I don’t know why you’re reducing the argument to such a degree. I would be happy for the club to be run by anyone with the resources and ability to advance the club who has good morals and the club’s interests at heart. Out of interest, is there any owner who you would find unacceptable?

I’m not against the club spending big money, but I would rather be sustainable and spend what we generate.

I couldn’t really care less who the owners are, as long they move the club forward and don’t threaten it’s existence.

I assume from the above that you think pace and co are good morally and have the clubs interests at heart?

[Jakubclaret]

Not this.

You’d be like a rat up a drainpipe in reality, you kid yourself but nobody else I think will be completely convinced

[JohnMac]

Camels to replace the aging Donkeys we sign annually?

[Rileybobs]

I couldn’t really care less who the owners are, as long they move the club forward and don’t threaten it’s existence.

I assume from the above that you think pace and co are good morally and have the clubs interests at heart?

Your first sentence says a lot.

Your assumption is wrong. I was happy with the previous ownership and was realistic and understanding enough of the constraints that we had to work in to operate sustainably and sensibly. I was sceptical of the takeover, and in many ways I am more so now than before it happened. But there’s nothing to suggest that our new owners have bad morals or don’t have the club’s interests at heart.

[fidelcastro]

You’d be like a rat up a drainpipe in reality, you kid yourself but nobody else I think will be completely convinced

You really don't know me at all, do you?

[Spiral]

No I think I am just realistic. For example I fill up my car with fuel, this is directly funding said “monsters”.

I was also work in an industry that is heavily funded by similar nations.

I think unless you completely rule out the products/ companies that these nations are tied to from your life then you are just being a hypocrite

I don't want to repeat myself so I'll direct to to my first post on this thread, post 17 on page 1, where I've addressed these kind of points. If you're genuinely curious, have a look, though I suspect you're going to ignore it.

Oh, and by the way, if you can't see the difference betweek ALK and SA, you're ignorant, wilfully or purposefully. Have a look...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496778

[Newcastleclaret93]

Your first sentence says a lot.

Your assumption is wrong. I was happy with the previous ownership and was realistic and understanding enough of the constraints that we had to work in to operate sustainably and sensibly. I was sceptical of the takeover, and in many ways I am more so now than before it happened. But there’s nothing to suggest that our new owners have bad morals or don’t have the club’s interests at heart.

I am not sure I agree, how can owners have the clubs interest at heart, when they are taking on debt that if we relegated will cause long term problems.

[CrosspoolClarets]

No I think I am just realistic. For example I fill up my car with fuel, this is directly funding said “monsters”.

I was also work in an industry that is heavily funded by similar nations.

I think unless you completely rule out the products/ companies that these nations are tied to from your life then you are just being a hypocrite

Even if Bin Salman had physically dug up the oil himself and poured it into my car it would pale into insignificance compared to a billion pound investment (incl future infrastructure and player purchases) from what is alleged to be a sovereign wealth fund controlled by the state.

That the Premier League appear to be saying this fund isn’t sovereign is one of the most laughable things I have heard in recent years. They really are a bunch of money grabbing sellouts.

[Rileybobs]

I am not sure I agree, how can owners have the clubs interest at heart, when they are taking on debt that if we relegated will cause long term problems.

You don’t know that the debt will cause long term problems if we are relegated. And the act of taking on debt doesn’t suggest that the owners don’t have the club’s interests at heart.

Quite amusing though because weren’t you all giddy about the takeover of our club? Where did you think the money was going to come from to move us forward?

[CFS]

Your first sentence says a lot.

Your assumption is wrong. I was happy with the previous ownership and was realistic and understanding enough of the constraints that we had to work in to operate sustainably and sensibly. I was sceptical of the takeover, and in many ways I am more so now than before it happened. But there’s nothing to suggest that our new owners have bad morals or don’t have the club’s interests at heart.

Sure they do.

[Jakubclaret]

You really don't know me at all, do you?

I do & I know how much you’d crave the club to have some sustainable success which will never happen without substantial investment, things don’t happen overnight but it’d grow on you & the more success would be like an addictive drug the same applies to lots of people it’s ingrained into our mindsets.

[Newcastleclaret93]

I don't want to repeat myself so I'll direct to to my first post on this thread, post 17 on page 1, where I've addressed these kind of points. If you're genuinely curious, have a look, though I suspect you're going to ignore it.

Oh, and by the way, if you can't see the difference betweek ALK and SA, you're ignorant, wilfully or purposefully. Have a look...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496778

I don’t think I have compared the two owners?

I just don’t see the difference between purchasing a Saudi product for my car and a Saudi product for entertainment.

Again if I felt so strongly about humanitarian issues on the opposite side of the planet I would have to change my life considerably.

[CFS]

I don't want to repeat myself so I'll direct to to my first post on this thread, post 17 on page 1, where I've addressed these kind of points. If you're genuinely curious, have a look, though I suspect you're going to ignore it.

Oh, and by the way, if you can't see the difference betweek ALK and SA, you're ignorant, wilfully or purposefully. Have a look...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496778

Was he in charge in 2017?

[Newcastleclaret93]

You don’t know that the debt will cause long term problems if we are relegated. And the act of taking on debt doesn’t suggest that the owners don’t have the club’s interests at heart.

Quite amusing though because weren’t you all giddy about the takeover of our club? Where did you think the money was going to come from to move us forward?

I think you must have mistaken me for someone else. I have been one of the more vocal on this board about the takeover.

I would suspect an owner to be able to purchase a club with there own money.

It may be manageable but I would find it incredibly interesting to see how a club with a turnover of 30 odd million in the championship afford that level debt.

[Bordeauxclaret]

You were backing that Farnell character from what I remember.

[fidelcastro]

I do & I know how much you’d crave the club to have some sustainable success which will never happen without substantial investment, things don’t happen overnight but it’d grow on you & the more success would be like an addictive drug the same applies to lots of people it’s ingrained into our mindsets.

Wrong again. My first comment tonight was agreeing with VegasClaret about how disillusioned I'm becoming with football in general. Stories like this one today only make me more fed up. Gurning geordies behaving like children on Christmas Eve, whilst their club sells its soul to the devil just doesn’t make me want what they're going to get.

Sorry to shatter your illusion of me

[Spiral]

Need to define 'Saudis' really as I don't know if it is the ruling family or some bloke with loads of wealth. I mean are they all tyrannical despots or is it just the odd one?

Either way it wouldn't overly bother me, our own elected rulers don't give a toss about the public so morality isn't a factor to me.

The crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman is an autocrat, and has steered the diversification of the country's investment. It's state instructed. Part of a strategy by his, and other oil-dependent countries to enmesh their economies with other wealthy countries, thus providing a sort of personal insurance policy for the rulers of these countries against uprising at home, and antagonism from foreign countries where they have investments. The PL wanting 'assurances' about the nature of the ownership model is just them wanting to maintain plausible deniability, a piece of paper they can wave about if this blows up in everyone's face somehow.

To be more precise on your second point, it isn't so much an indictment of own leaders that they appear not to care about the public and are thus morally bankrupt, but rather that the public tolerate this supposed moral bankruptcy in our leaders and in fact reward it at elections. If the argument is to be made that our own leaders are morally bankrupt (I'm not making that argument because I don't want the thread to be pulled), it's not on them, it's on us, because we elect them. The kind of cynicism you're expressing is where an absence or morality leads you.