Topic: FSG discussion thread

[Red Beret]

Exactly. That is the extent of their argument. I just wish they had the decency to own it rather than try to hide behind the whataboutery.

Aye. When you're only argument is essentially "you're just as bad as me", you've already lost the debate.

Well we're not just as bad as you. There IS a line, and those people are on the wrong side of it.

[Red Beret]

People are seeing that the rules of the game have gone. Anyone can walk in now if they have the cash. Genuine murderers are actually welcome. Totalitarian states are welcome. Gay fearing/hating, women fearing/hating people are welcome. All pass the 'fit and proper' test now, as long as they bring their money. People are seeing a free-for-all, and some want to be part of the looting. It's all a bit "well someone else smashed the door down, so I may as well grab myself some sportswear and a telly too."

Yep. I just want to add that these maggots currently infesting our forum are angry because we are trying to enforce the rules and want to see the authorities enforce the rules, whilst they want to have a free for all and stick their snouts in the trough. Just because the majority are doing it, doesn't make it right.

Should be called the "fit and show me the money" test from now on.

LOL about 10 seconds before I saw that I was thinking we should use "worraboutery" 

[G Richards]

Just wondering if anyone has a viewpoint on a more palatable Middle East option?

Lots of points have been made about the Saudis. It seems obvious that that will attract most uproar and protest from fans.

But is there a ‘least bad’ Middle East option that we could, reluctantly, go along with?

Or does the bulk of RAWK have a clear ‘nobody from the Middle East’ stance?

[Dim Glas]

Just wondering if anyone has a viewpoint on a more palatable Middle East option?

Lots of points have been made about the Saudis. It seems obvious that that will attract most uproar and protest from fans.

But is there a ‘least bad’ Middle East option that we could, reluctantly, go along with?

Or does the bulk of RAWK have a clear ‘nobody from the Middle East’ stance?

 I am sure I read the same post from you last night, no replies to that?

[Red Beret]

I am sure I read the same post from you last night, no replies to that?

He did. He's asked again now that Saudi has firmly been ruled out. Maybe he has a list of ME countries and he's crossing them off one by one?

[rob1966]

Just wondering if anyone has a viewpoint on a more palatable Middle East option?

Lots of points have been made about the Saudis. It seems obvious that that will attract most uproar and protest from fans.

But is there a ‘least bad’ Middle East option that we could, reluctantly, go along with?

Or does the bulk of RAWK have a clear ‘nobody from the Middle East’ stance?

Forbes did a top 20 most dangerous places for LGBTQ+ people to visit in 2021, Saudi was ranked 2nd, Oman 5th, Qatar 8th and the UAE 9th. Only 1% of respondants in Dubai thought the city was safe for LGBTQ+ people.

So basically, if you care about the rights of LGBTQ+ people, then you don't want middle eastern money.

I've been to Dubai, our taxi driver was a woman, hotels employed women, they weren't covered up or anything like, I never saw workers being abused, all the ones I spoke to seemed happy, it didn't feel forced when they were chatting to me, it seemed an OK, quite relaxed and safe, if pretty soulless place. Then I find out about their laws on various things and I don't have any desire to go back to that place now.

Juventus for example have an academy or something along those lines in Cyprus, it was just up the road from us when we stayed in Paphos last year, I'd much rather that when LFC wanted to do warm weather training we went somewhere like that or to Tenerife and swerved Dubai - I know City were there in Tenerife one January when we were on holiday a few years ago.

[Black Bull Nova]

Yep. I just want to add that these maggots currently infesting our forum are angry because we are trying to enforce the rules and want to see the authorities enforce the rules, whilst they want to have a free for all and stick their snouts in the trough. Just because the majority are doing it, doesn't make it right.

Should be called the "fit and show me the money" test from now on.

 

I only wish football clubs could have fit and proper tests for their fans as well

[Black Bull Nova]

Just wondering if anyone has a viewpoint on a more palatable Middle East option?

Lots of points have been made about the Saudis. It seems obvious that that will attract most uproar and protest from fans.

But is there a ‘least bad’ Middle East option that we could, reluctantly, go along with?

Or does the bulk of RAWK have a clear ‘nobody from the Middle East’ stance?

Probably worth searching the options if a state is involved.


https://www.amnesty.org.uk/issues

[SamLad]

I only wish football clubs could have fit and proper tests for their fans as well

Or RAWK 

[redbyrdz]

Just wondering if anyone has a viewpoint on a more palatable Middle East option?

Lots of points have been made about the Saudis. It seems obvious that that will attract most uproar and protest from fans.

But is there a ‘least bad’ Middle East option that we could, reluctantly, go along with?

Or does the bulk of RAWK have a clear ‘nobody from the Middle East’ stance?

I'd rather we were not owned by a state, whether ME or not. But if we were to be owned by a state, I definitively don't want one that discriminates against people based on their gender, religion, nationality, politics,or who they love, how they dress, or what they say.

[Son of Spion]

Just wondering if anyone has a viewpoint on a more palatable Middle East option?

Lots of points have been made about the Saudis. It seems obvious that that will attract most uproar and protest from fans.

But is there a ‘least bad’ Middle East option that we could, reluctantly, go along with?

Or does the bulk of RAWK have a clear ‘nobody from the Middle East’ stance?

I tried to answer your other similar post last night but couldn't really word it correctly so I scrapped it.

It sort of bothers me to frame it as ''no Middle East.'' That, wrongly, hints towards racism or at least xenophobia. For me, it's not about ''oil money'' as such either.

It's all about would our new owners be a state that murders people? Would it be a state that abuses its people and persecutes gay people? Now they could come from anywhere in the world, so it's not just a Middle East thing.

I believe we just want decent owners, and if decent owners came from the Middle East then all well and good. This doesn't answer your question though, and I don't have an answer personally. I honestly don't know who out there, from the ME or anywhere else, would fall into what the bulk of LFC fans would class as in fit and proper owners for us category.

If we become state owned, it's difficult to see how that could be palatable. I mean how many states looking to buy football clubs are even remotely clean? I know Abu Dhabi fans have said ''ah, but you're owned by Americans'' when hitting back at our comments, but being owned by Americans is not the same as being owned by America. I know America isn't looking to buy football teams, but if it was I wouldn't want them either. I wouldn't want Russia if they were looking to buy clubs. Or China. That list is far from exhaustive too.

All we want is decent owners who can compete but without being industrial scale human rights abusers and murdering bastards looking to cleanse the blood from their hands by associating themselves with our world famous name. Owners who will value our club and the fans who dedicate much of their lives to it. Personally, I don't care where in the world such owners come from, just so long as they are as decent as can be in such a cut-throat business.

I'm not sure I worded that right either, but I'll leave it up for now.

[rob1966]

I tried to answer your other similar post last night but couldn't really word it correctly so I scrapped it.

It sort of bothers me to frame it as ''no Middle East.'' That, wrongly, hints towards racism or at least xenophobia. For me, it's not about ''oil money'' as such either.

It's all about would our new owners be a state that murders people? Would it be a state that abuses its people and persecutes gay people? Now they could come from anywhere in the world, so it's not just a Middle East thing.

I believe we just want decent owners, and if decent owners came from the Middle East then all well and good. This doesn't answer your question though, and I don't have an answer personally. I honestly don't know who out there, from the ME or anywhere else, would fall into what the bulk of LFC fans would class as in fit and proper owners for us category.

If we become state owned, it's difficult to see how that could be palatable. I mean how many states looking to buy football clubs are even remotely clean? I know Abu Dhabi fans have said ''ah, but you're owned by Americans'' when hitting back at our comments, but being owned by Americans is not the same as being owned by America. I know America isn't looking to buy football teams, but if it was I wouldn't want them either. I wouldn't want Russia if they were looking to buy clubs. Or China. That list is far from exhaustive too.

All we want is decent owners who can compete but without being industrial scale human rights abusers and murdering bastards, looking to cleanse the blood from their hands by associating themselves with our world famous name. Owners who will value our club and the fans who dedicate much of their lives to it. Personally, I don't care where in the world such owners come from, just so long as they are as decent as can be in such a cut-throat business.

I'm not sure I worded that right either, but I'll leave it up for now.

You've worded that sound mate

[Son of Spion]

You've worded that sound mate

I'm still chopping and changing it a bit, but I'm glad the gist of it got through intact. 

[G Richards]

Thanks all! Yes, I asked the question about possible palatable Middle East options last night. There was some response, but not a direct response to that question, so I tried it again.

It is clear RAWK does not want Saudi involvement, for all the egregious stuff we can all name. That would attract the most fan protest. So I was wondering if there was a more palatable Middle East option?

I was wondering about Kuwait. A large global coalition came together to help them, 30 years ago, when Iraq invaded. To my knowledge I don’t think Kuwait are even close to being among the worst in the Middle East. Mind you, I am not aware of any links with them, so it is just hypothetical.

[G Richards]

Son of Spion, thank you. Just read your post. I liked the thought about Middle East framing, and I didn’t mean to sound xenophobic in that.

I am seeing some consensus coming through:

Definite no to Saudi Arabia.
Almost a definite no to nation state involvement.
If nation state is to be considered, let’s examine the track record of the nation state. Almost certainly it won’t be good, either on war, murder, arms, or human rights abuses. So probably ruled out.
Individuals from certain states are ruled out too, as they don’t really have separate wealth from the ruling authority, and so it would be a nation state purchase by proxy.


So, with all that said, in the absence of footballing authorities who have the stomach to apply rules and financial restriction, we are probably looking at another private citizen or group to come to the fore. My best guess is American.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Thanks all! Yes, I asked the question about possible palatable Middle East options last night. There was some response, but not a direct response to that question, so I tried it again.

It is clear RAWK does not want Saudi involvement, for all the egregious stuff we can all name. That would attract the most fan protest. So I was wondering if there was a more palatable Middle East option?

I was wondering about Kuwait. A large global coalition came together to help them, 30 years ago, when Iraq invaded. To my knowledge I don’t think Kuwait are even close to being among the worst in the Middle East. Mind you, I am not aware of any links with them, so it is just hypothetical.

Their human rights record is terrible, worse than Uganda in the recent table released. I am vehemently opposed to any Middle Eastern country owning this club, a club steeped in politics.

[G Richards]

Thanks for the Kuwait info.

[Son of Spion]

Son of Spion, thank you. Just read your post. I liked the thought about Middle East framing, and I didn’t mean to sound xenophobic in that.

I am seeing some consensus coming through:

Definite no to Saudi Arabia.
Almost a definite no to nation state involvement.
If nation state is to be considered, let’s examine the track record of the nation state. Almost certainly it won’t be good, either on war, murder, arms, or human rights abuses. So probably ruled out.
Individuals from certain states are ruled out too, as they don’t really have separate wealth from the ruling authority, and so it would be a nation state purchase by proxy.


So, with all that said, in the absence of footballing authorities who have the stomach to apply rules and financial restriction, we are probably looking at another private citizen or group to come to the fore. My best guess is American.

You didn't sound xenophobic to me. It's just that I know opposition to the current ownership here of City and Newcastle is often met with the xenophobia accusation. That's why I tried to put distance between that and what I was trying to say in my post.

You mentioned Kuwait so I just looked up their stance on gay people. Just one issue of many issues, but here is what I found.

Summary table
Same-sex sexual activity legal   No (Penalty: 7 years in jail)
Equal age of consent   No
Anti-discrimination laws in employment only   No
Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services   No
Anti-discrimination laws in all other areas (incl. indirect discrimination, hate speech)   No
Same-sex marriages   No
Recognition of same-sex couples   No
Stepchild adoption by same-sex couples   No
Joint adoption by same-sex couples   No
LGBT people allowed to serve openly in the military   No
Right to change legal gender   No
Conversion therapy illegal   No
Access to IVF for lesbians   No
Commercial surrogacy for gay male couples   No
MSMs allowed to donate blood   No

It's a bit messy due to copy and paste I'm afraid.

Just on that issue alone I'd struggle with them.

[24/7]

Irrelevancies will be deleted.

[SamLad]

Irrelevancies will be deleted.

I read that as a Dalek saying it. 

[Historical Fool]

The discussion has spiraled out of control.

The scope of the conversation was about prospective owners. Fans on RAWK have weighed in on various nation state owner possibilities, and they don’t pass muster for most fans, on numerous issues, including lgbtq+ laws.

If players are wanting to buy LFC then their viewpoint on lgbtq+ issues is relevant, as we are talking about prospective owners.

I think you make a good point about not dismissing people en masse, and it seems fair to hear them out.

Again… cultop didn’t make this thread to ‘discuss prospective owners’.

[24/7]

Again… cultop didn’t make this thread to ‘discuss prospective owners’.

Agreed - let's at least stay remotely connected to the topic - no more daleks, cows, cybermen or jellyfish or whatever.......

[SamLad]

Agreed - let's at least stay remotely connected to the topic - no more daleks, cows, cybermen or jellyfish or whatever.......

damnit!!!!

[24/7]

damnit!!!!

Ta. Dis'll do.

[Black Bull Nova]

e were due a clear up because we don't have Kant and Hume on here to debate the lines around morality but then I suppose they are regarded as irrelevant in modern day debate so would be deleted after their PM is received.

As for Daleks


<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/JOqhRx_11Rg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/JOqhRx_11Rg</a>

Apologies if people think "put it in the curry" is racist for 1975

[So… Howard Philips]

We were due a clear up because we don't have Kant and Hume on here to debate the lines around morality but then I suppose they are regarded as irrelevant in modern day debate so would be deleted after their PM is received.

The Monty Python Philosopher Song?

http://www.songlyrics.com/monty-python/the-philosophers-song-lyrics/

[G Richards]

Again… cultop didn’t make this thread to ‘discuss prospective owners’.

In recent pages that was what was being discussed, when I joined in.

The thread is about FSG. Obviously lots of circular arguments ensue, as they always do. Good owners. Sensible businessmen. Run the club according to its means. Etc. But wait. Too stingy or timid. They should spend their own money on infrastructure. A spreadsheet here and there. We could have bought this midfielder or that. Protagonists on each side. Rinse and repeat.

The key news to break that endless discussion is that they have put the club up for sale, in whole or part.

If this isn’t the thread to discuss prospective owners, what is the correct thread? I looked, but I couldn’t see?

[24/7]

If this isn’t the thread to discuss prospective owners, what is the correct thread? I looked, but I couldn’t see?

You're more than welcome to start a thread on any specific topic that you don't see covered. A few days ago, there appeared to be legs to a version of a buyout that may or may not have included the Saudi state (in all but name) - and from there the topic broadened out. We'll always give some flexibility on a wide topic but occasionally we'll lock-and-trim, like just now.

By all means, feel free to start a discussion you'd like to have. If the site feels it's relevant enough, it'll stay open.

I mean, it's not like I haven't started threads myself which disappear (altogether too rapidly sometimes) into RAWK obscurity - although I'm happy to see the LFC Women's team thread more lively these days.

Anyway, hope that helps.

[Red Beret]

You're more than welcome to start a thread on any specific topic that you don't see covered. A few days ago, there appeared to be legs to a version of a buyout that may or may not have included the Saudi state (in all but name) - and from there the topic broadened out. We'll always give some flexibility on a wide topic but occasionally we'll lock-and-trim, like just now.

By all means, feel free to start a discussion you'd like to have. If the site feels it's relevant enough, it'll stay open.

I mean, it's not like I haven't started threads myself which disappear (altogether too rapidly sometimes) into RAWK obscurity - although I'm happy to see the LFC Women's team thread more lively these days.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Apologies for taking things off topic.

[24/7]

Apologies for taking things off topic.

Nono, that's ok. We all do it sometimes. Our task at the Towers is to get the threads back on track when they wander...

[NaivetyinBlack]

Isn't Klopp and the team in Dubai right now ?

Wonder if we'll see an announcement soon about new owners.

[reddebs]

Isn't Klopp and the team in Dubai right now ?

Wonder if we'll see an announcement soon about new owners.

Not yet, they're all still on holiday then they're back at Kirkby on Monday 5th before they fly out a few days later.

[Knight]

The personal ethical views of an individual/ company potential owner, owing to religion, ideology etc, isn't of a huge amount of interest to me.

But states owning football clubs as sports washing projects... no thanks. 

[newterp]

How the world turns. Last year we were on the brink of an unprecedented season.

This year we need a new front office and new owners.

And we are having no luck with hit vegan chicks.

[4pool]

No new owners yet?  Will check back later. 

[G Richards]

You're more than welcome to start a thread on any specific topic that you don't see covered. A few days ago, there appeared to be legs to a version of a buyout that may or may not have included the Saudi state (in all but name) - and from there the topic broadened out. We'll always give some flexibility on a wide topic but occasionally we'll lock-and-trim, like just now.

By all means, feel free to start a discussion you'd like to have. If the site feels it's relevant enough, it'll stay open.

I mean, it's not like I haven't started threads myself which disappear (altogether too rapidly sometimes) into RAWK obscurity - although I'm happy to see the LFC Women's team thread more lively these days.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Cheers, yes that’s helpful, thank you.

Like all reds I’m watching with great interest as the club is up for sale, in whole or part. Here’s hoping we end up with a good owner. The list of suitors that are better than FSG seems very small, while the list that are worse seems like a long list.

Fingers crossed.

[west_london_red]

Forbes did a top 20 most dangerous places for LGBTQ+ people to visit in 2021, Saudi was ranked 2nd, Oman 5th, Qatar 8th and the UAE 9th. Only 1% of respondants in Dubai thought the city was safe for LGBTQ+ people.

So basically, if you care about the rights of LGBTQ+ people, then you don't want middle eastern money.

I've been to Dubai, our taxi driver was a woman, hotels employed women, they weren't covered up or anything like, I never saw workers being abused, all the ones I spoke to seemed happy, it didn't feel forced when they were chatting to me, it seemed an OK, quite relaxed and safe, if pretty soulless place. Then I find out about their laws on various things and I don't have any desire to go back to that place now.

Juventus for example have an academy or something along those lines in Cyprus, it was just up the road from us when we stayed in Paphos last year, I'd much rather that when LFC wanted to do warm weather training we went somewhere like that or to Tenerife and swerved Dubai - I know City were there in Tenerife one January when we were on holiday a few years ago.

The thing with migrant workers is you have to remember people chose to go there, and I can’t emphasise that enough. Several uncles and cousins on both my mum and dad’s families, and my wife’s have gone there, and not just gone there once, some have gone back there repeatedly. And that’s not to do white collar, skilled work, or even slightly less physically demanding work like waitering or work in a hotel, it’s to work as drivers or as labourers. A labourer in India will earn about 400-500 rupees a day (that’s about £5) and in Dubai it’s about £800 a month, and when it comes to driving jobs it’s probably safer in Dubai than in India (although one of my uncles did die in a car accident in Dubai). There was also the added benefit that restricted access to alcohol and drugs would keep them on the straight and narrow (there was a lot of heavy drinkers on my mums mums side).

[Samie]

One thing I'm finding a bit odd is that the media narrative now that the mancs are also up for sale is that it's a " One or the other" type of situation. Like if the mancs are sold first we won't be sold.

[TepidT2O]

Isn't Klopp and the team in Dubai right now ?

Wonder if we'll see an announcement soon about new owners.

6-9 months is the likely timeframe…..if it’s a quick sale that is

[Norse Red]

https://twitter.com/LivEchoLFC/status/1596486427319177217
ICYMI: Liverpool takeover latest as Premier League rule change unlikely to impact Saudi Arabia interest #LFC