Do the Sheikh's ethics concern you?

[Moschops II]

And if this doesn't happen?

LFC could well be wishing we'd have taken our chance when we had it.

 

I actually think that now Abramovich is involved in football then the only way to keep the game competetive is for other clubs to go down a similar, more classy and moralistic of course, route.

 

It's not cheating or buying success (if indeed success comes), it's levelling the playing field.

 

With every boom, there's a bust, even if you're only looking at it from a economic perspective. I'm not thinking in terms of "cheating" - I'm thinking of the money flooding into the game now inevitably flooding out again. Be interesting to see where we all are when it happens.

[El Rojo]

With regard to the Israeli thing, more power to him for taking positive, peaceful, affirmative action against a state that acts with impunity safe in the knowledge than Uncle Sam will bail them out of any hassle.

 

It's hardly up there with Western blockades that deprived critically ill Iraqi civilians of the medicines to save their lives over the last 15 years.

 

I may change my mind on this if he doesn't buy us Alves.

[CharleyKnight]

Not at all, in fact I admire his ethics!

[Moo]

With every boom, there's a bust, even if you're only looking at it from a economic perspective. I'm not thinking in terms of "cheating" - I'm thinking of the money flooding into the game now inevitably flooding out again. Be interesting to see where we all are when it happens.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you.

 

But can we risk staying the same?

[Guest bigf00t]

With regard to the Israeli thing, more power to him for taking positive, peaceful, affirmative action against a state that acts with impunity safe in the knowledge than Uncle Sam will bail them out of any hassle.

 

It's hardly up there with Western blockades that deprived critically ill Iraqi civilians of the medicines to save their lives over the last 15 years.

I may change my mind on this if he doesn't buy us Alves.

 

Not to mention all the innocent palestinians suffering from the withdrawal of aid simply because they democratically elected a govt the "west" dont agree with.

[Red Nick]

Apparently our potential new owner is less than perfect after some journo's decided to make an issue out of the fact that his country bans Israeli's from going to Dubai, that he hires children for work, and that Arabian women in Dubai don't have the freedoms they have in the west.

 

Does anyone really care about any of this, or are you just interested in his money funding our impending domiantion of the world?

 

Well if we had concerns about Thaksin then surely we should have concerns about the Sheikh, its all about levels of badness I suppose.

 

Also some of the replies on this thread are extremely racist

[isr]

Fuck off troll. You show yourself completely incapable of arguing the issues, instead resorting to petty name-calling. Everything I've said has been brushed aside with a "so what" or "things are different there" or "Britain isn't perfect either", as if that makes a royal fucking difference.

 

Thats a shame. I thought that at least you could read. Whether my arguments are accepted or not is one thing, but I DID argue the issues (particularly in the original thread).

 

I had no idea I was picking a net fight with a blind guy. I feel like a bully now :(

 

 

Cunt.

 

What, no more "twunt"? At least your spelling has improved. Not bad for a blind guy.

[Wig]

There should be more options than just 'yes' and 'no' - it's far from a black and white subject so to speak...

 

I know. I was going to put no, untill I seen the reason for it. I've just left it. I'm knackerd.

[Carradona]

I know. I was going to put no, untill I seen the reason for it. I've just left it. I'm knackerd.

 

Yes same here, People might say "no" but not for the reason that hes pumping loads of money into the club.

[Wig]

Yes same here, People might say "no" but not for the reason that hes pumping loads of money into the club.

 

I seen Al (atk) at the match today mate. He couldn't find his ticket, he was nearly out! ;)

[Carradona]

I seen Al (atk) at the match today mate. He couldn't find his ticket, he was nearly out! ;)

 

Where was his ticket? Aint you the steward i was talking to a while back?

[Wig]

Where was his ticket? Aint you the steward i was talking to a while back?

 

It was in his pocket.

 

I don't think it was me mate. I've only been there for this season and this was the first time I seen Al at the match.

[Carradona]

It was in his pocket.

 

I don't think it was me mate. I've only been there for this season and this was the first time I seen Al at the match.

 

No, i meant through the PM, because i wanted to know what "operation anfield exercise" was. :$

[Guest Raddy]

In business terms the deal looks pretty agreeable for us, but the wealth gap between the bigger and smaller clubs is starting to grow so much that the game is becomin less and less competitive, and less interesting as a result. People are becoming reconciled to the fact that one of four clubs - and more likely one of just two clubs - is going to win the league every year. So we might get some success as a result of all this, but will it be worth anything like as much as it was in the past?

 

when has it been any different? especially since sky took over?

 

there has always been a select few of elite, richer, succesful clubs

 

i'd like to know the alternatives for raising enough money to pay for a new stadium and compete for the best players, while stopping us sliding more and more down into mid-table mediocrity, while other more ambitious clubs like villa, spurs and man city move above us.

 

ps. torres and alves are in the bag.

[bigredruss]

it's a muslim country and there outdated ideas have no effect to us, they are pretty liberal. i have no problems with it personally

[Guest Raddy]

they own most of england now anyway.

[Captain]

when has it been any different? especially since sky took over?

You have some history to catch up on.

[Guest Raddy]

really?

 

seeing as you only started supporting us post roy evans, i'll give you a history lesson.

 

4 teams have won the premiership in 16 years, one of those was a complete one off, and two were down to the billions of the russian. it's hardly been an even playing field has it?

[RSM]

(just re-read this. If this boring, long-winded post doesn't kill this thread stone dead, nothing will!)

 

1) The Israel thing is a red herring. I've already discussed that at more length in the other thread. Quick analogy: Israelis get hassled travelling to UAE? How do Arabs get treated travelling to Occupied Palestine?

 

Swings and roundabouts.

 

2) Camel jockeys. That was a real eye-opener for me, and is a genuine cause for both shame and concern. Without trying to sweep things under the carpet (honest), I would say that whatever practices were in vogue, were there before he came into power as well. He didn't institute them (unless I'm wrong about that as well!). And, well - what country/society doesn't have dirty hands?

 

But, this is still a valid concern. Lets hope that the reforms which have been instituted (forced or not) are actually fully implemented (in spirit as well as in deed).

 

3) Re: alleged "freedoms" afforded to women. Rather a sexist way of looking at things, BUT each society is different, and has its own norms of what is considered right and proper. I'm not sure why people think that its GOOD if Arab women are half-naked on a beach, and BAD if they are dressed conservately (not talking burka here).

 

The whole women in Islam thing has been really misunderstood in the West, partly because of the inability to distinguish between mysogonist behaviour as a result of cultural tendencies, as opposed to Islamic teachings. IE: does a Turk/Pakistani mistreat his wife because of some backward cultural notions, or because he's a Muslim. Or, just maybe, he's doing it because he's an ass (ever considered that?).

 

But, I don't think that discussion is even relevant here. I think the term "tolerance" has lost its meaning for many in the West, where it has come to mean "you must adopt what I consider to be fair and tolerant, or prepare to be bombed/invaded", as opposed to "ok, you have your opinion, I have mine, lets all run our own societies as we see fit".

 

In a nutshell: the conservatism of Arab society and family life is no-one's business, outside of that society. Least of all LFC, and its supporters.

 

 

Bottom line

-----------

if you want to compare him with other leaders in that region, at least he uses the majority of his wealth to better the lot of his subjects. Which, in the end, is all it comes down to.

 

well said!

[RoboRiise]

oh yes... the vote...

 

that which keeps the people in control of the govt... good on you lad.

 

You're right to say that the vote is somewhat misleading as a measure of true democracy, i.e. the ability of the people to chose those that govern them. Clearly the high principles behind the idea of one man, one vote are sound and as a concept I firmly support them, however my experience is that the deviations from that ideal imposed by the mechanics of organising elections and by the voter having a quantised selection of options from which to select, often doesn't live up to the lofty ideals.

 

For example, in the last UK general election, approximately 22.9% of the electorate voted for our current government (or more accurately, for a local member of parliament representing the party from which our current government is drawn). 20.9% of the electorate voted for the Conservative party.

 

So, less than a quarter of the electorate voted for the party that runs the country at the moment. Within twelve months, the party won't have the same leader that it had at the last election, which means we'll have a new Prime Minister and none of us have any say at all in that, unless we're paid-up members of the Labour party.

 

Finally, that 22.9 of the electorate's votes won the Labour party 55% of the seats at the last election. By contrast, the Conservative party's 20.9%, just 2% less, won them 31% of the seats.

 

Democracy is a myth they sell you to keep you quiet.

[Captain]

really?

 

seeing as you only started supporting us post roy evans, i'll give you a history lesson.

 

4 teams have won the premiership in 16 years, one of those was a complete one off, and two were down to the billions of the russian. it's hardly been an even playing field has it?

Ah, the Premiership. That's history, eh?

 

There is a big difference between earning your wealth, and being handed it on a silver platter.

 

Liverpool FC has earned its wealth (and stature) in world football, Chelsea FC hasn't. Therein lies the difference. As much as I detest the mancs, they too have earned their place.

[RSM]

So you don't agree that the Right Way is to treat people with respect?

 

To (for example) pay them a decent living wage, give them decent living conditions, and allow them to form trades unions?

 

It's not a question of us in the West "believing" we are right - we fucking know we're right. You treat people as you would wish to be treated yourself. Simple and correct.

 

Quick question ST, where do you buy your clothes from? Ever bought or wear Nike? Adidas? products? Or even drink at starbucks or consume products by Nestle? or even drink Tea and coffee?

 

"Right" about what?

 

Get off your western hight moral ground.

[cochcaer]

In business terms the deal looks pretty agreeable for us, but the wealth gap between the bigger and smaller clubs is starting to grow so much that the game is becomin less and less competitive, and less interesting as a result.

 

Not really, those with a big fanbase will always be near the top. Whilst club's like Forest or Wimbledon have exited the top flight we now find ourselves sandwiched between Portsmouth and Reading. (an idea that would have been scoffed at once)

[Vincent Vega]

You're right to say that the vote is somewhat misleading as a measure of true democracy, i.e. the ability of the people to chose those that govern them. Clearly the high principles behind the idea of one man, one vote are sound and as a concept I firmly support them, however my experience is that the deviations from that ideal imposed by the mechanics of organising elections and by the voter having a quantised selection of options from which to select, often doesn't live up to the lofty ideals.

 

For example, in the last UK general election, approximately 22.9% of the electorate voted for our current government (or more accurately, for a local member of parliament representing the party from which our current government is drawn). 20.9% of the electorate voted for the Conservative party.

 

So, less than a quarter of the electorate voted for the party that runs the country at the moment. Within twelve months, the party won't have the same leader that it had at the last election, which means we'll have a new Prime Minister and none of us have any say at all in that, unless we're paid-up members of the Labour party.

 

Finally, that 22.9 of the electorate's votes won the Labour party 55% of the seats at the last election. By contrast, the Conservative party's 20.9%, just 2% less, won them 31% of the seats.

 

Democracy is a myth they sell you to keep you quiet.

 

Are you not a member of a trade union then RR? I'm not a member of the Labour Party but was able to vote on the leadership before Blair was in due to being a member of the GMB (I'm now a member of the CWU). Incidentally, I voted for Margaret Beckett last time because I thought Blair was a fake and Prescott was useless, how right I was.

[Bloodred]

Well, it's black and white for me - I'm not concerned with his politics, just his money. Maybe if he was doing something really evil, like drowning kittens or eating babies I would oppose his takeover of Liverpool. But aside from kidnapping children to work in his stables, he seems to be an okay guy.

 

Im quite ok with the "eating babies" as long as I get more leg room.