Are the morals of our owners important to you?

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Unfortunately, it's the green eyed monster that makes football fans act as if they're taking the moral high ground.
I suspect if some corrupt billionaire owner bought spurs and funded a massive trophy haul precisely none of those slating the like of Chelsea, City and now Newcastle would stop supporting Spurs.

Also worth noting that Newcastle have zero history. They've won fuck all, nothing, for 50+ years.
But because they're not Chelsea who are a more local rival, they won't be slated relentlessly by our fans for that.
The fact is Saudi Arabia are one of the worst totalitarian regimes around they make the mob that own City look clean. Football broke when it became too big and we started letting criminals and totalitarian regimes own clubs. The fact is these people do not give a shit a football they are in it for the status and power so it does matter because it allows these people with massively opposing views to the British people to have a say in how Parts of Britain are run at the same time they are making money from those communities.

Look at the say that Levy has in the shaping of the local area of Tottenham and imagine if it was not a profit making business man but someone who wanted to reshape the views of an area. Owning a football club gives you way too much access to a local area and generally the supporters will come to your defence if the club are performing.
 
The fact is Saudi Arabia are one of the worst totalitarian regimes around they make the mob that own City look clean. Football broke when it became too big and we started letting criminals and totalitarian regimes own clubs. The fact is these people do not give a shit a football they are in it for the status and power so it does matter because it allows these people with massively opposing views to the British people to have a say in how Parts of Britain are run at the same time they are making money from those communities.

Look at the say that Levy has in the shaping of the local area of Tottenham and imagine if it was not a profit making business man but someone who wanted to reshape the views of an area. Owning a football club gives you way too much access to a local area and generally the supporters will come to your defence if the club are performing.
Criminals have always been involved in owning or financing football clubs. Organized crime have used pro sports to launder money forever. Either through ownership through shell companies or through dodgy sponsorships.

We need to draw a line at countries owning clubs however. Crime I think we will have to work on eliminating at the source first and foremost.
 
Rather you than me....

She's gone from this:

5a132ab3f914c31d008b517e


To this in about a year:

5568.jpg


It'd be like copping off with the fit brunette head alien from from V!
from Amanda to Adam in a year
 
The fact is Saudi Arabia are one of the worst totalitarian regimes around they make the mob that own City look clean. Football broke when it became too big and we started letting criminals and totalitarian regimes own clubs. The fact is these people do not give a shit a football they are in it for the status and power so it does matter because it allows these people with massively opposing views to the British people to have a say in how Parts of Britain are run at the same time they are making money from those communities.

Look at the say that Levy has in the shaping of the local area of Tottenham and imagine if it was not a profit making business man but someone who wanted to reshape the views of an area. Owning a football club gives you way too much access to a local area and generally the supporters will come to your defence if the club are performing.
Alright, well, as the video I was replying to showed, be a moral warrior and cut everything out of your life that you are, unquestionably doing, that contributes to immoral behaviour around the world.
Stop driving your oil guzzling car. Switch your electric to renewable sources, stop using corporations that trade on slave labour, stop consuming goods that drain resources and again use underpaid workers.
Whether something is bad or really bad stops mattering really.
It's like saying a quick painless kill is somehow better than a slow and painful kill. They're both pretty shit.
 
Alright, well, as the video I was replying to showed, be a moral warrior and cut everything out of your life that you are, unquestionably doing, that contributes to immoral behaviour around the world.
Stop driving your oil guzzling car. Switch your electric to renewable sources, stop using corporations that trade on slave labour, stop consuming goods that drain resources and again use underpaid workers.
Whether something is bad or really bad stops mattering really.
It's like saying a quick painless kill is somehow better than a slow and painful kill. They're both pretty shit.

Rubbish.

All this amounts to is "I'm never gonna heal all the world's ills so fuck it all: why bother with any of it?"......

Some people's need to drive (consume petrol or run electric car); doesn't mean they can't make an effort to keep their carbon footprint as low as possible by other means.

....etc.
 
Rubbish.

All this amounts to is "I'm never gonna heal all the world's ills so fuck it all: why bother?"......

Some people's need to drive (consume petrol or run electric car); doesn't mean they can't make an effort to keep their carbon footprint as low as possible by other means.

....etc.

Actually completely pointless when 100 companies in the world are responsible for 71% of all global emissions. You can make a very reasoned and fair argument that average people shouldn't be expected to make big changes in their lives when the corporations who have a real impact aren't bothering to change a thing.
 
Actually completely pointless when 100 companies in the world are responsible for 71% of all global emissions. You can make a very reasoned and fair argument that average people shouldn't be expected to make big changes in their lives when the corporations who have a real impact aren't bothering to change a thing.

'Completely" or comparatively?

Anyqay, just an example..... Point remains.
 
'Completely" or comparatively?

Just an example..... Point remains.

If every average person made big changes to their lives to lower emissions, there would be no real change to global emissions. So pointless in the grand scheme of things.

I think the overall point is the onus shouldn't really be on football fans to make moral decisions about ownership, they're not the people with the responsibility to make a stand. That should be up to the Premier League, and above that the government .. to decide who they let run businesses in the country.

Those are the people with the power, knowledge and influence .. and the buck stops with them, not Steve from Newcastle who is just happy Ashley's gone. People are obviously entitled to take their own moral stances, but I don't blame or think less highly of fans who stay fans of the oil clubs.
 
If every average person made big changes to their lives to lower emissions, there would be no real change to global emissions. So pointless in the grand scheme of things.

I think the overall point is the onus shouldn't really be on football fans to make moral decisions about ownership, they're not the people with the responsibility to make a stand. That should be up to the Premier League, and above that the government .. to decide who they let run businesses in the country.

Those are the people with the power, knowledge and influence .. and the buck stops with them, not Steve from Newcastle who is just happy Ashley's gone. People are obviously entitled to take their own moral stances, but I don't blame or think less highly of fans who stay fans of the oil clubs.

Obviously my point wasn't really about climate change.....

Who's responsibility is it to influence those whom have the power/influence/etc.?

Who do you think stands to most successfully stem the tide of corruption/abuse/etc.?

A) A passive disengaged society whom only have an eye for personal gratification

Or

B) An engaged, socially conscious populous?
 
Obviously my point wasn't really about climate change.....

Who's responsibility is it to influence those whom have the power/influence/etc.?

Who do you think stands to most successfully stem the tide of corruption/abuse/etc.?

A) A passive disengaged society whom only have an eye for personal gratification

Or

B) An engaged, socially conscious populous?

B) .. But I'd rather the pushback started against something that wasn't 'bad people run this football club' and perhaps was more focused on 'disabled people are robbed of dignity/money to survive' and all the other stories that are forgotten within a week.

I view football as an escape for a lot of people. It's a way for them to get away from the politics and misery which surround the rest of life, and embrace something irrational and tribal. So when people sort of just accept the corruption that has enveloped every other industry in the world, I'm not surprised. Football is a lot of people's sanctuary from those realities.

It's why I don't really blame or get angry at the Newcastle fans celebrating like other people do.

Oh and as for whose responsibility it is, specifically in football it would be the government. It's not like football fans get any power to vote for who is appointed in the Premier League or who is allowed in to the league.
 
If every average person made big changes to their lives to lower emissions, there would be no real change to global emissions. So pointless in the grand scheme of things.

I think the overall point is the onus shouldn't really be on football fans to make moral decisions about ownership, they're not the people with the responsibility to make a stand. That should be up to the Premier League, and above that the government .. to decide who they let run businesses in the country.

Those are the people with the power, knowledge and influence .. and the buck stops with them, not Steve from Newcastle who is just happy Ashley's gone. People are obviously entitled to take their own moral stances, but I don't blame or think less highly of fans who stay fans of the oil clubs.

You're talking about emissions.
I'm talking about taking the moral high ground.

By driving a petrol/diesel car you're buying oil products. Like it or not, the oil trade is infested with filth, criminals and immoral people.
 
You're talking about emissions.
I'm talking about taking the moral high ground.

By driving a petrol/diesel car you're buying oil products. Like it or not, the oil trade is infested with filth, criminals and immoral people.

I agree. There is no ethical consumption of basically anything under capitalism. Most people are just trying to get by, and I don't blame the average consumer just like I don't blame the average City fan. People can say that citizens should be more socially conscious but when you're worried about paying the bills, feeding the family etc, who owns Manchester City and their crimes halfway across the world aren't going to matter much.
 
I agree. There is no ethical consumption of basically anything under capitalism. Most people are just trying to get by, and I don't blame the average consumer just like I don't blame the average City fan. People can say that citizens should be more socially conscious but when you're worried about paying the bills, feeding the family etc, who owns Manchester City and their crimes halfway across the world aren't going to matter much.

For the record, I drive gas guzzling cars, I consume like a beast and have absolutely no issue saying I'm not cleaner than clean.
Which is why I don't pretend to be better than the rest when it comes to dirty owners.
People are fickle when it suits them.
 
Alright, well, as the video I was replying to showed, be a moral warrior and cut everything out of your life that you are, unquestionably doing, that contributes to immoral behaviour around the world.
Stop driving your oil guzzling car. Switch your electric to renewable sources, stop using corporations that trade on slave labour, stop consuming goods that drain resources and again use underpaid workers.
Whether something is bad or really bad stops mattering really.
It's like saying a quick painless kill is somehow better than a slow and painful kill. They're both pretty shit.
That guy has every intrest to defending Newcastle because he works as a youtuber on one true geordie's TV show the Kick Off so he is trying to obscure the argument with the what about this argument.
B) .. But I'd rather the pushback started against something that wasn't 'bad people run this football club' and perhaps was more focused on 'disabled people are robbed of dignity/money to survive' and all the other stories that are forgotten within a week.

I view football as an escape for a lot of people. It's a way for them to get away from the politics and misery which surround the rest of life, and embrace something irrational and tribal. So when people sort of just accept the corruption that has enveloped every other industry in the world, I'm not surprised. Football is a lot of people's sanctuary from those realities.
The push back has to start some where and the fact football is now filled with some of the most despicable people possible trying to gain more and more influence is a massive problem. The fact is Football in not an escape from politics it is always highly influenced by politics.
 
B) .. But I'd rather the pushback started against something that wasn't 'bad people run this football club' and perhaps was more focused on 'disabled people are robbed of dignity/money to survive' and all the other stories that are forgotten within a week.

Cool.... Not everyone ignores/forgets those other issues tho.... It's not really fair to assume/suggest that they do.

Football is simply the subject at hand.

I view football as an escape for a lot of people. It's a way for them to get away from the politics and misery which surround the rest of life, and embrace something irrational and tribal. So when people sort of just accept the corruption that has enveloped every other industry in the world, I'm not surprised. Football is a lot of people's sanctuary from those realities.

But by your above reckoning most people ignore those ills (much like eg a Newcastle fan wearing Arab headgear is ignoring whatis convenient to their own gratification)..... So which is it? ......Are we all pomplacent DGAFs or in need of escape?

It's why I don't really blame or get angry at the Newcastle fans celebrating like other people do.

I can only speak for myself but my anger fundamentally lies with those that allowed the takeover to happen.....

(I posted those pics as a tie in to that jouno making the assumption that all the Geordies are all morally torn.)

Oh and as for whose responsibility it is, specifically in football it would be the government. It's not like football fans get any power to vote for who is appointed in the Premier League or who is allowed in to the league.

Sure, but again: perhaps we could be doing more to influence said government......?
 
I agree. There is no ethical consumption of basically anything under capitalism. Most people are just trying to get by, and I don't blame the average consumer just like I don't blame the average City fan. People can say that citizens should be more socially conscious but when you're worried about paying the bills, feeding the family etc, who owns Manchester City and their crimes halfway across the world aren't going to matter much.

There are levels and degrees....

There's no denying this fact.
 
Make it a simple question.

Do your (potential) owners behead people in public, advocate the stoning to death of adulterers and gays, murder dissident journalists abroad, torture and murder atheists and apostates and so on?

Yes? Then they're not "fit and proper". No? On to other criteria.

Buying from Amazon or filling your car up with petrol (leaving to one side the fact that very little petrol in Europe comes from SA) simply isn't equivalent.
 
Make it a simple question.

Do your (potential) owners behead people in public, advocate the stoning to death of adulterers and gays, murder dissident journalists abroad, torture and murder atheists and apostates and so on?

Yes? Then they're not "fit and proper". No? On to other criteria.

Buying from Amazon or filling your car up with petrol (leaving to one side the fact that very little petrol in Europe comes from SA) simply isn't equivalent.

But then the British sell the Saudis weapons, so you'd think a football club is quite trivial in comparison.

As a great man said, it's a funny old game.
 
But then the British sell the Saudis weapons, so you'd think a football club is quite trivial in comparison.

As a great man said, it's a funny old game.
True, but this is an example of the fallacy of whataboutery in an argument (I'm not accusing you of this by the way).

"A is wrong"
"But what about B?"

At this point, if you invite the "whatabouter" to concede that both A and B are wrong, they will frequently move on to something else, as if the limit of their argument was that B being also wrong somehow excused A. A good example of this recently was the defence that supporters of Jeremy Corbyn presented when Labour was accused of anti-Semitism - "What about Islamophobia in the Tory Party?" Any attempt to get them to agree that both were indefensible was met with silence.

As I say, I'm not saying this is your position, far from it. A (Saudi Arabia buying Newcastle) and B (Britain selling shit loads of arms to Saudi Arabia) are both ethically wrong - indeed, B is worse, seeing as it directly results in the death and oppression of people as opposed to simply attempting to portray that country in a better light.

That said, no government of any colour has sought to reverse UK policy, nor has any opposition party (to my knowledge) firmly pledged to do so. In the case of the NUFC takeover however, an independent body had a chance to draw a line in the desert sand but instead looked the other way.

squirrel-huh.gif
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom