More Important Than Football

[highburyJD]

good post

any1 coming the rocket 4this redaction meeting b4 the game?

[Wayno]

good post

any1 coming the rocket 4this redaction meeting b4 the game?

err which meeting might that be?

[Belfast Boy]

Just out of curiosity, does Roman's governorship of one of the worst places in Russia, funding hospitals and schools out of his own pocket count as giving something back?

Sorry it would be utterly utterly utterly laughable to even consider that one.

The Chukota province of Russia only has a population of 56,000 compared with 145,000,000 throughout the rest of the Russian Federation.

It's the equivalent of sucking all the money out of London and donating a bus shelter to the inhabitants of Foulness Island.

Yeah and let's not forget the only reason he crossed 7 time zones to become mayor or whatever over a bunch of yak farmers in the first place, was that there is no local tax system in place and therefore facilitates some of RA's firms like Sibneft paying some of the lowest corporation tax in the world, around 7% if I remember correctly is it any wonder he's worth over half as much again as when he bought the Chavs, which comes in at around 4B of pure profit, in a little over 3 yrs!!!

[highburyJD]

good post

any1 coming the rocket 4this redaction meeting b4 the game?

err which meeting might that be?

http://www.arsenal-world.co.uk/news/loa ... &id=360713

[Wayno]

good post

any1 coming the rocket 4this redaction meeting b4 the game?

err which meeting might that be?

http://www.arsenal-world.co.uk/news/loa ... &id=360713

Thank you highburyJD, the link was not present in your original post. I will be in the Rocket on Saturday but I have to be quite honest and say that I am there first and foremost for the beer and banter and not because I want to rid the world of Jabba. But I will listen and more than likely march to the stadium with the rest of them....baaa baaa

[highburyJD]

cheers wayno
at least listening is a start!

[Wayno]

cheers wayno
at least listening is a start!

It's the least I can do and I did watch Newsnight on Tuesday in reference to the child labour issues in Uzbekistan. Who knows I may yet become a political activist, though drunk down and out is most likely

See you in the Rocket and please say hello

[T.S]

TS does have a point about "Western" economic strength being largely a product of the slave trade

Except that Spain and Portugal, the orginators of the Atlantic slave trade have had a weaker economy than say Japan, who had no involvement in the Atlantic slave trade.

Fine, let’s nitpick. My point does not concern who may or may not have been involved in the slave trade, you’re just saying things to score points. My point is that we partook in it. The mention of Spain and Portugal is irrelevant.

I think it's a bit rich of someone to come on here and start talking about how people like Usmanov and Abramovich have an obligation to their nations, when they themselves are living in a nation which is built upon an even more sinister institution than that of the corrupt Soviet state in which the Oligarchs thrived under Gorbachev.

They have an obligation to their nations due to the extremely bent process of privatization in Russia in the late 80s/early 90s, how they appropriated their wealth in the first place.

And I think the fact that the slave trade was banned in Britain in the first half of the 19th century makes it a bit different seeing that the enormous flight of capital from Russia's resources to fund spoilt footballers is happening in this very decade. What would you like me to do, jump in a time machine to the sixteenth century and protest against the Atlantic slave trade as it is being formed?

Also, the beneficiaries of the ill gotten gains of the slave trade were the likes of us in Britain. The beneficaries of this are us in Britain again (to fund a football club that is doing a very good job of funding itself), how is it a bit rich to turn round and say 'no thanks pal'? Is this the logic 'come on you've accepted blood money in the past, it's a bit rich to turn it down now'.

Also interesting you note the slave trade, seeing that the Russian mafia seem to have a very prominant role in the modern version of the slave trade i.e. the people traffickers capitalising on the human misery that has ensued from post-soviet economic collapse.

(Response to paragraph 1) If they have an obligation to their states, then anyone who has ever benefited from an ill-gotten gain is then obligated to the victim of that gain. Britain is a fine example of this, and yet, they escape your wrath because that was a long time ago. My friend, I’m afraid that’s a bit ignorant.

(2) Oh, so the slave trade was banned, was it? Oh well fantastic! That means we can sweep it under the rug, eh? I’m not going to be drawn in to getting petty on this thread again, but please, don’t be ridiculous. To assume that just because something this severe happened such a long time ago, that it is now somehow less significant is not good practice. I reiterate, our economy would not be as strong as it is today without it. That’s right; I’m talking about our economy TODAY.

(3) If it were simply ‘no thanks pal’, then there would be no problem. It was the way in which you chose to say ‘no thanks pal’ which I took exception to, which it appears I’m not allowed to do. Anyway, if you have issues with the fact that our economy is (in direct reference to our economy today) built on such tyrannical institutions such as the slave trade, then I apologise. All I can go on is what I’ve read on here, and what I read on here seemed a bit rich to me. Why? Because you were arguing your point with what seemed to be a ‘holier than thou’ mentality, which I thought was unjustified seeing as the origin of our nation’s wealth is anything but holy.

(4) Again, this is you just trying to score points. That is so loosely related to this topic that if I asked you to explain it, I’d just get more ambiguous and unrelated points like this. This is quite clearly going so far off topic, that I can’t really give much by the way of response to it.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't start spouting off about how much of a debt those two owe to their states when our nation owes a huge debt to the slave trade (or those affected by it, more specifically).

So would it be a bit rich to state that Africans who sold other Africans as slaves owed a debt to Africa?

And we shouldn't spout off about the debt that these two owe to their states when it is us that would be gaining an advantage from it, making us guilty by association of we allow it to pass unnoticed?

Good God. Once again, you’re going off topic in order to score points so that your post looks a bit more impressive to the likes of HighburyJD who were always going to agree with you anyway seeing as you’re arguing with me. I’ll explain why this is irrelevant – you were discussing Russian oligarchs (amongst other things) and I provided the Atlantic slave trade (with specific reference to our nation) as a counter argument. Whether Africans owe money to Africa is neither here nor there. If you or I, or anyone else for that matter, were to answer that question, it would have nothing at all to do with what we’re discussing.

Unless I’ve got you mistaken, you seem to be getting far too carried away now. This whole discussion has been pretty heated and both you and I are guilty of acting like children. I’m making an effort to not be drawn in to mudslinging and point scoring and I’d kindly ask that you do the same. This point is, yet again, completely off topic. I’m not trying to condemn or defend anyone. So again, there isn’t really much I can say about this point.

Anyway, my point is that, although I do think that Usmanov's gains are ill-gotten, and therefore, am opposed to the idea of him taking any part in this Club

Then what the fuck are you moaning about?

I reiterate. Cut the childish point scoring out. Before you start slagging me off in your next post, I know I’ve been guilty of it too. If you want to have a decent discussion about this, then we can have one. But come on, cut this out. To answer your question though, (what the fuck am I moaning about?) I am opposed to the mere one-sidedness of your argument. I am opposed to people making such damning judgments of people they’ve never met when, as far as I can tell, they haven’t researched the topic very well. It just stinks of hypocrisy. Another thing I am really opposed to is the fact that, just because I was a bit aggressive in my first post to you here (or maybe I’m giving you too much credit; maybe you’re pissed off just because I disagreed) you (and a few others) have just disregarded anything I’ve said when others on here have actually taken the time to recognise some of the points I’ve made, even if they don’t necessarily agree with them. I get the feeling that if I were to write “the sky is blueâ€

[Wayno]

Look, let's stop acting like children for a second. We've clearly gotten off on the wrong foot, and I apologise for being as aggressive and rude as I was in my first response to you on this thread

If your thread only consisted of only the above then it would have been perfect and you would have come across as being a true gent, sometimes TS less is more

[T.S]

Yeah well Wayno, you know me, much like Gus, I like to stand my ground. However, as I said, this thread has gone way too far and it's getting a little bit ridiculous. I'm all up for a decent conversation, but this was just degenerating into playground mudslinging (of which Cus and I were both guilty of) and so if it's going to stay like that, you can count me out.

Wayno, you wouldn't happen to be in to Feng Shui, minimalism and all of that shit, would you? I've got to remember that 'less is more' line

[Wayno]

Wayno, you wouldn't happen to be in to Feng Shui, minimalism and all of that shit, would you? I've got to remember that 'less is more' line

I think I may have tried it once with Japenese twins If I remeber rightly, I didn't put much in but they seemed to love it Very minimalistic

[daz10_uk]

Just spent about an hour reading this thread from start to finish as i wasnt around when it was being written by you lot earlier yesterday and the day before........ All i can say is im glad i left school at 16 and have spent years on the dole if all thats what i would have been learning at uni....

Now lets get back to Senderos and Song being shit (Sorry smoothy) . . . and lets start laughing at Sp*rs again

[I Hate Hleb]

DAZ,

I'VE ENJOYED THIS THREAD SO MUCH - EXCEPT FOR THE INSULTS - THAT I RE-READ ALL THE POSTS AGAIN. GUESS WHAT, I STILL HAVEN'T GOT A SCOOBY HOW IT ALL GOT OUT OF HAND!!

IF YOU GUYS CONTINUE IN THIS VAIN, I MIGHT BE FORCED TO READ THEM ALL YET AGAIN JUST TO GET CONTEXT AND PERSPECTIVE. DON'T DO THAT TO ME FELLAS!! PLEASE? I WANT A LIFE!!

[Cus Geezer]

Fine, let’s nitpick. My point does not concern who may or may not have been involved in the slave trade, you’re just saying things to score points. My point is that we partook in it. The mention of Spain and Portugal is irrelevant.

Well no, you mention the slave trade as being important in the strength of Britain's economy - slavery didn't create the industrial revolution, slavery didn't invent the Spinning Jenny which allowed Britain to produce a high volume of textile goods to consistant quality. Slavery didn't invent the railways that would transport goods and workers from one end of the country to another. Nor did it invent the modern computer, as the Englishman Alan Turing did.

If the economies of Northern European states had been totally reliant on plundering and slavery, they would have gone the same way as Spain and Portugal. Spain had pissed it's new wealth up the wall fighting religious wars with protestant nations and wanting to reconquer Jeruselem from the Muslims, Northern European states saw the value of reinvesting.

(Response to paragraph 1) If they have an obligation to their states, then anyone who has ever benefited from an ill-gotten gain is then obligated to the victim of that gain. Britain is a fine example of this, and yet, they escape your wrath because that was a long time ago. My friend, I’m afraid that’s a bit ignorant.

(2) Oh, so the slave trade was banned, was it? Oh well fantastic! That means we can sweep it under the rug, eh? I’m not going to be drawn in to getting petty on this thread again, but please, don’t be ridiculous. To assume that just because something this severe happened such a long time ago, that it is now somehow less significant is not good practice. I reiterate, our economy would not be as strong as it is today without it. That’s right; I’m talking about our economy TODAY.

Thanks for tagging me a political viewpoint that I've never stated I had?

How do you know that I'm not in favour of reparations for slavery? or believe that debts owed to us by former colonies should be dropped?

Britain's conduct in the slave trade escapes my wrath because a seventeenth century slave trader is not trying to buy my club, a Russian oligarch is. And again how can I counter the Atlantic slave trade of the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries from 2007 without doing some sort of Sam Beckett-style quantum leap to put right past wrongs?

I can however register my disgust at Russian oligarchs growing fat and playing with their wealth in the premiership - which is what I'm doing.

(3) If it were simply ‘no thanks pal’, then there would be no problem. It was the way in which you chose to say ‘no thanks pal’ which I took exception to, which it appears I’m not allowed to do.

When did I say that?

Again, this is you just trying to score points. That is so loosely related to this topic that if I asked you to explain it, I’d just get more ambiguous and unrelated points like this. This is quite clearly going so far off topic, that I can’t really give much by the way of response to it.

I'm not trying to score points at all, I'm arguing the very same point that I started the thread with. And as for going off topic, it was you that mentioned the trans atlantic slave trade not me.

Good God. Once again, you’re going off topic in order to score points so that your post looks a bit more impressive to the likes of HighburyJD who were always going to agree with you anyway seeing as you’re arguing with me.

Christ why the persecution complex? I, and I'm sure Highbury JD also, have better things to do with our time than spend endless hours trying to get one over on Tony Saunders.

I reiterate. Cut the childish point scoring out. Before you start slagging me off in your next post, I know I’ve been guilty of it too. If you want to have a decent discussion about this, then we can have one. But come on, cut this out.

Cut what out? again I'm not point scoring I am arguing the same point as I was from the opening thread, the only obstacle to an enlightened discuss about this is you firing a broadside at anyone with a counter argument.

I am opposed to the mere one-sidedness of your argument. I am opposed to people making such damning judgments of people they’ve never met

I can only form a damning judgment about people I've actually met?

Hands up who's actually met Ashley Cole?

Are you going to criticise those who make such a damning judgment about his behaviour?

Now see, you’re just getting involved in something that had nothing to do with you. It’s very off topic so I’m assuming that you said it to score points again. However, seeing as we’re nitpicking again, condescending someone who you feel has been rude to you, in my book is justified

Well you talk about being hypocritical and now you're guilty of it yourself.

It's ok for you to be condescending, and therefore rude to others. If however they display rudeness in your direction it's beyond the pale.

You being condescending to any argument on this thread that didn't agree with your own proceeded any rudeness that came back in your direction from HighburyJD or myself - which personally I don't think I have actually been rude to you personally, if you believe so then do point it out.

Well, I did actually explain it in my very first post, but if I haven’t explained it after, it is because no one has asked me to. Why should I elaborate on something no one has asked me to elaborate on? You’re really getting way too carried away here.

I did earlier on on this thread.

If you're referring to the Americans, I've backed this point already. Americans are known for having far less interest in Football than other nations, they are now swarming around the Premiership with great enthusiasm in a way they would never have dreamed of two decades ago, I wonder why?

And on another thread you have expressed the difficulties with getting tickets through the box office - well imagine if those difficulties included getting yourself over to Los Angeles for a game - as Kronke has expressed enthusiasm for in the wake of last week's NFL game in London, in order to boost the Premiership's global (in essence - American) profile. To claim this as a peice of xenophobia is ridiculous, it's plain common sense, man.

However, I'm not going to be drawn in to this mudslinging any more as, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm tired of it.

well there was no mud slung from me in the first place

[T.S]

Ah, my mistake. It was all me. You had nothing to do with it at all.

Mea culpa, mea culpa.