Tottenham Takeover Talk

[fecka]

I take it you've not worked in Saudi though. And this is my point.

This link provides a lot more nuance on this than your post tries to - https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/human_rights_rule_law_index/

Saudi ranks at 22.

Ethiopia, who sponsor Arsenal's shirt, rank at 17. Where's the uproar about accepting sponsorship money for sports washing there?

Qatar ranks at 88, UAE at 60. Brazil (36), Turkey (28) and India (46) all rank worse than those two nations and yet there would be no uproar if there was investment from those nations and they are all seen as Western / Western compatible.

Yes they have some hard laws, but then the USA is filled with racism, sexism and now has harsh anti-abortion laws. There's shades of grey all over the place, but the reality is that a lot of countries that we deem as "ok" are pretty shitty in reality.

You can't lump Saudi and Qatar into the same bucket, there's a wide gap between the two of them.

And in terms of Asian workers dying in the thousands, i'm sure 50%+ of the people reading this right now are doing so an iphone / ipad that was manufactured by exploited Asian workers, from whom many hundreds/thousands of which are now dead. It's very easy to point a finger at a regime who do bad things (and we should point fingers) but then we also need to look at what we are helping to perpetuate daily as well.

You do realize that the site you linked to rank by how bad they are, not how good they are? North Korea at 9th, Russia at 12th, Eritrea at 11th, etc.
The lower the rank, the better. "Human rights and rule of law index, 0 (high) - 10 (low)"

This means Saudi ranks as the 22nd worst country in the world in terms of human rights. And regarding Arsenal, it's Rwanda, no? So I'm not sure what your point is?

 

[bc205]

I take it you've not worked in Saudi though. And this is my point.

This link provides a lot more nuance on this than your post tries to - https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/human_rights_rule_law_index/

Saudi ranks at 22.

Ethiopia, who sponsor Arsenal's shirt, rank at 17. Where's the uproar about accepting sponsorship money for sports washing there?

Qatar ranks at 88, UAE at 60. Brazil (36), Turkey (28) and India (46) all rank worse than those two nations and yet there would be no uproar if there was investment from those nations and they are all seen as Western / Western compatible.

Yes they have some hard laws, but then the USA is filled with racism, sexism and now has harsh anti-abortion laws. There's shades of grey all over the place, but the reality is that a lot of countries that we deem as "ok" are pretty shitty in reality.

You can't lump Saudi and Qatar into the same bucket, there's a wide gap between the two of them.

And in terms of Asian workers dying in the thousands, i'm sure 50%+ of the people reading this right now are doing so an iphone / ipad that was manufactured by exploited Asian workers, from whom many hundreds/thousands of which are now dead. It's very easy to point a finger at a regime who do bad things (and we should point fingers) but then we also need to look at what we are helping to perpetuate daily as well.

Sorry but this whole post is a massive strawman.

No one has argued that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have uniquely bad human rights records, or that they have the same human rights records. They are specifically linked in this conversation (alongside the UAE) because they are the primary countries buying big stakes in football clubs and sporting tournaments in order to sportswash their human rights records.

If India, Turkey, Hungary or Poland etc, were trying to buy a football club in order to launder their reputation then there would be exactly the same types of criticism. The criticism is not specifically because they are middle eastern countries, it is because people are opposed to sportswashing.

Also, it is Rwanda who sponsor Arsenal, not Ethiopia. And there has been plenty of criticism of this sponsorship deal, both from fans and the media.

Arsenal's Visit Rwanda sponsorship and the dark side to a sportswashing agenda

Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain both have multi-million sponsorship agreements with the Rwandan government but the actions of authoritarian president Paul Kagame and the arrest of Paul Rusesabagina have led to allegations of human rights abuses

www.mirror.co.uk

Arsenal face moral and social questions over Visit Rwanda sponsorship deal

Arsenal have renewed their lucrative sponsorship deal with Visit Rwanda, despite the country facing allegations of human rights abuses, including claims that vocal critics of Rwandan president Paul Kagame are being murdered or disappearing

www.football.london

Angry fans call for Arsenal to end 'Visit Rwanda' sponsorship deal

Arsenal are facing pressure from fans to sever ties with shirt-sleeve sponsor Visit Rwanda in light of the UK govt's new partnership with the African country to address illegal immigration.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Rwanda's £30m Arsenal sponsorship divides opinion

The deal with the football club will pay for itself in increased tourism, insist officials

www.theguardian.com

Liew: Arsenal’s Rwanda deal yet another case of the moral apathy poisoning football

Arsenal this week signed a new sponsorship deal with central-east African nation Rwanda. Fans were taken aback by the news – but only because the badge on the sleeve looked ugly

www.independent.co.uk

 

[brasil_spur]

You do realize that the site you linked to rank by how bad they are, not how good they are? North Korea at 9th, Russia at 12th, Eritrea at 11th, etc.
The lower the rank, the better. "Human rights and rule of law index, 0 (high) - 10 (low)"

No shit sherlock, I knew my pre-school maths classes would come in useful one day.

This means Saudi ranks as the 22nd worst country in the world in terms of human rights. And regarding Arsenal, it's Rwanda, no? So I'm not sure what your point is?

Then you're being facetious or ignorant, or perhaps just living up to your username

My point, which isn't hard to understand, is that Saudi at 22 is not the same as Qatar at 88. You can't just say Saudi and Qatar and have them mean the same thing, as there's quite a difference in their human rights records and in the case of Qatar they have a better record than countries like Brazil, India and Turkey, which no-one would bat an eye-lid at in terms of that nation investing into a football club.

Yeh my bad on the Rwanda, still rated worse for human rights than Qatar though.

 

[brasil_spur]

Sorry but this whole post is a massive strawman.

It's really not and as I said i'm not arguing anything other than you can use Saudi Arabia and Qatar as interchangeable countries in the argument of sports washing, it's just not accurate.

No one has argued that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have uniquely bad human rights records, or that they have the same human rights records. They are specifically linked in this conversation (alongside the UAE) because they are the primary countries buying big stakes in football clubs and sporting tournaments in order to sportswash their human rights records.

The poster I was replying to was literally using Qatar and Saudia Arabia as being the same thing.

If India, Turkey, Hungary or Poland etc, were trying to buy a football club in order to launder their reputation then there would be exactly the same types of criticism. The criticism is not specifically because they are middle eastern countries, it is because people are opposed to sportswashing.

I'd debate that point highly, very highly in the example of say Poland that you've given there. There is a definite level of anti-muslim sentiment / cultural misunderstanding in some of what is posted and again putting two countries that are geographically close but actually quite far apart in terms of human rights record into the same bucket highlights this point.

Again i'm not saying that neither of these countries aren't sports washing, they definitely are, to some extent, but you can't use them interchangeably in the same argument IMO.

Also, it is Rwanda who sponsor Arsenal, not Ethiopia. And there has been plenty of criticism of this sponsorship deal, both from fans and the media.

Arsenal's Visit Rwanda sponsorship and the dark side to a sportswashing agenda

Arsenal and Paris Saint-Germain both have multi-million sponsorship agreements with the Rwandan government but the actions of authoritarian president Paul Kagame and the arrest of Paul Rusesabagina have led to allegations of human rights abuses

www.mirror.co.uk

Arsenal face moral and social questions over Visit Rwanda sponsorship deal

Arsenal have renewed their lucrative sponsorship deal with Visit Rwanda, despite the country facing allegations of human rights abuses, including claims that vocal critics of Rwandan president Paul Kagame are being murdered or disappearing

www.football.london

Angry fans call for Arsenal to end 'Visit Rwanda' sponsorship deal

Arsenal are facing pressure from fans to sever ties with shirt-sleeve sponsor Visit Rwanda in light of the UK govt's new partnership with the African country to address illegal immigration.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Rwanda's £30m Arsenal sponsorship divides opinion

The deal with the football club will pay for itself in increased tourism, insist officials

www.theguardian.com

Liew: Arsenal’s Rwanda deal yet another case of the moral apathy poisoning football

Arsenal this week signed a new sponsorship deal with central-east African nation Rwanda. Fans were taken aback by the news – but only because the badge on the sleeve looked ugly

www.independent.co.uk

Yeh I fucked up, Rwanda rated 82nd still rated worse than Qatar in 88th.

Very few of those articles are highlighting their human rights record and sports washing agenda though.

 

[bc205]

It's really not and as I said i'm not arguing anything other than you can use Saudi Arabia and Qatar as interchangeable countries in the argument of sports washing, it's just not accurate.

The poster I was replying to was literally using Qatar and Saudia Arabia as being the same thing.

I'd debate that point highly, very highly in the example of say Poland that you've given there. There is a definite level of anti-muslim sentiment / cultural misunderstanding in some of what is posted and again putting two countries that are geographically close but actually quite far apart in terms of human rights record into the same bucket highlights this point.

Again i'm not saying that neither of these countries aren't sports washing, they definitely are, to some extent, but you can't use them interchangeably in the same argument IMO.

Yeh I fucked up, Rwanda rated 82nd still rated worse than Qatar in 88th.

Very few of those articles are highlighting their human rights record and sports washing agenda though.

All of those articles were highlighting Rwanda's human rights record and the nature of their government, that is the whole reason why people were critical of the shirt sponsorship deal. The primary reason for Rwanda to make that sponsorship deal was for sportswashing.

You seem to be continually misunderstanding the arguments against sportswashing and state-owned football clubs. It's not about race, or differing levels of human rights abuses. It's a really really simple argument, that no state should be allowed to use a football club, or major sporting tournament, in order to launder their reputation.

This issue is basically the same as when people protested the Olympics in Beijing or the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are both leading proponents of using football to sportswash their image. Therefore football fans and journalists are highly critical of them being allowed to do this. It's really that simple. Comparisons to Joe Lewis or Turkey etc are completely irrelevant to that argument because they do not use football clubs to launder their image. Roman Abramovich would be a fair comparison because he did use Chelsea to do this.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia are interchangeable in this argument, because they are using the same methods to get the same results. That is the point that the other poster was making, and why your earlier comparison to Joe Lewis was nonsense.

 

[Sloop]

I take it you've not worked in Saudi though. And this is my point.

This link provides a lot more nuance on this than your post tries to - https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/human_rights_rule_law_index/

Saudi ranks at 22.

Ethiopia, who sponsor Arsenal's shirt, rank at 17. Where's the uproar about accepting sponsorship money for sports washing there?

Qatar ranks at 88, UAE at 60. Brazil (36), Turkey (28) and India (46) all rank worse than those two nations and yet there would be no uproar if there was investment from those nations and they are all seen as Western / Western compatible.

Yes they have some hard laws, but then the USA is filled with racism, sexism and now has harsh anti-abortion laws. There's shades of grey all over the place, but the reality is that a lot of countries that we deem as "ok" are pretty shitty in reality.

You can't lump Saudi and Qatar into the same bucket, there's a wide gap between the two of them.

And in terms of Asian workers dying in the thousands, i'm sure 50%+ of the people reading this right now are doing so an iphone / ipad that was manufactured by exploited Asian workers, from whom many hundreds/thousands of which are now dead. It's very easy to point a finger at a regime who do bad things (and we should point fingers) but then we also need to look at what we are helping to perpetuate daily as well.

The index you are using is one for human rights AND rule of law, not just human rights. In global terms, Qatar appears to rank much more highly for the rule of law than for human rights, so I don't think that's the best index to use here.

This is the source I looked at for rule of law data:
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Indicator-Data/ESG/Governance/Rule-of-Law/
And this is the source I looked at for human rights data:
https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights

(Qatar ranking highly for the rule of law is, of course, a good thing.)

 

[SandroClegane]

The index you are using is one for human rights AND rule of law, not just human rights. In global terms, Qatar appears to rank much more highly for the rule of law than for human rights, so I don't think that's the best index to use here.

This is the source I looked at for rule of law data:
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Indicator-Data/ESG/Governance/Rule-of-Law/
And this is the source I looked at for human rights data:
https://ourworldindata.org/human-rights

(Qatar ranking highly for the rule of law is, of course, a good thing.)

How is it a good thing when the laws are oppressive and extreme, and exist to keep order for the ruling class?

 

[felmani26]

Keep coming to this thread in the vain hope of some tangible ownership/investment news and instead it's debating the ethics of owners and/or states - take it to the Debate and Discussion section guys.

 

[Tucker]

Keep coming to this thread in the vain hope of some tangible ownership/investment news and instead it's debating the ethics of owners and/or states - take it to the Debate and Discussion section guys.

Yup, until there’s some actual news people should stop bumping this.







Yes I understand the irony of me bumping this thread.

 

[Bluto Blutarsky]

How is it a good thing when the laws are oppressive and extreme, and exist to keep order for the ruling class?

MAGA

 

[SuperSpurs69]

If the Qatar bid for utd is successful then I wonder if Jim Ratcliffe would look to invest in another club. I know he's a utd fan so I wonder if he'd just call it a day.

 

[alexis]

My major problem with ENIC is they prioritise the business before the football. They show zero desire to want to win a trophy and it trickles down to how we perform. We don’t take any of the cups seriously, the conference league for example, we should have aimed to win that. We are capable of winning the Carling cup, and push for the FA cup.

Instead we sack a manager before a final and consistently prioritise the league over any other competition.

To me, it’s so simple what our identity should be. We are never really going to compete with the state run clubs and that’s understandable. So why are we not putting all effort into finding the next up and coming stars, the best coaching and scouting staff and prioritising the cups. They don’t even attempt to create any identity, just flit between coaches and players we either don’t need or don’t fit the system.

ENIC always want the top 4 trophy, but then don’t even invest that money properly into the squad. Last season we were told we would have £150m investment. Well what happened to the normal budget for players? The additional Champions league and event’s revenue? And they didn’t even go on to spend the full £100m, so another season goes by without being competitive, and honestly, what did we buy with it?

Everything about our football club is is geared towards making the maximum amount of money but the football side is left as if someone steps back and says “that’ll do”.

Unfortunately we seem to have been too successful as a business but not on the pitch. Who now would pay the asking for spurs when you could buy AN Other where you could do a villa or Newcastle. Lot of change from our asking when we don’t have the on pitch success without the history or kudos of successful football clubs.

 

[Tottenhamboy85]

If the Qatar bid for utd is successful then I wonder if Jim Ratcliffe would look to invest in another club. I know he's a utd fan so I wonder if he'd just call it a day.

I read he would go after Lille

 

[McFlash]

Bloody hell, I keep seeing this get bumped and coming in to find that people are still arguing about who the baddest baddie is!
Even having a baddie stat-off.

 

[SuperSpurs69]

I read he would go after Lille

Ineos own nice though so wouldn't there be a possible conflict of interest?

 

[Tottenhamboy85]

Ineos own nice though so wouldn't there be a possible conflict of interest?

I prob read it wrong

 

[makeveli]

Levy or Lewis don’t if I made this cash cow with my other property investments I would spin the world dry to, they made it they invested in it they did it , the washing machine never gets dry

 

[Tyler24durden]

Rio Ferdinand about 30 minutes ago said that the Qatari bid is being accepted for Man Utd.

That’s a game changer for Utd now if true.

I had hoped they would go with Ratcliffe for our own chances.

 

[bombarda]

Rio Ferdinand about 30 minutes ago said that the Qatari bid is being accepted for Man Utd.

That’s a game changer for Utd now if true.

I had hoped they would go with Ratcliffe for our own chances.

Them buying Man Utd rather than somebody else is the absolute best outcome for the rest of the league. United already spend money like it’s going out of fashion, so this won’t add another super power. It’ll just clear the debt of the team that are already the biggest spenders.

 

[Danfunkel]

Them buying Man Utd rather than somebody else is the absolute best outcome for the rest of the league. United already spend money like it’s going out of fashion, so this won’t add another super power. It’ll just clear the debt of the team that are already the biggest spenders.

100%

Imagine it was Arsenal, or West Ham?