Gary Neville
- Thread starter jymufc20
- Start date
Peter Lim's mate talks politics.
Gary follows the crowd in a lot of way. He has the correct takes but this man has been praising Citys owners for years so it’s a bit late now. It’s not as if it wasn’t glaringly obvious back when he was saying it.
you gotta remember he’s stepping into politics now.
you gotta remember he’s stepping into politics now.
I think there is two ways to look at it.
Praising owners is one thing but whenever I have heard him praise City, its more the structure rather than the owners.
He always goes on about the structure, culture that is built etc...
Yeah but also he spoke about how we should welcome the Saudi owners at Newcastle because he believed having more exposure on what we consider terrible parts of their society could be a catalyst for change in the Saudi society. He received a lot of criticism for that take on this very forum.
I think it's two different matters.
I meant you can see that at football operation, management level, the football ambition Abramovich and City owners place on their teams result in better structures than many of these "innocent" American owners' clubs. We can't deny that.
The issue with letting everyone and anyone taking over club is PL, FA, and UK government responsibility. The regulation seems to be loose, where fans have very little to none input over these takeover. It's not something new, but now that Putin's Ukraine invasion, it should really make those people with power to think about revise the regulations.
Last edited:
Yeah, I don't think I have ever heard him mention anything about their less than savoury backgrounds. Its always been about how well run they are as a club and the structure they have in place.
Not entirely sure i see the comparison with Derby and Bury ref ownerships like Abramovich, Saudis etc
The invasion of Ukraine and worldwide sanctions on Russia hardly changes the fact that Abramovich hasn’t changed overnight. The issues with Abramovich are the same as they’ve been since before he bought Chelsea, which is the entire point. Our deal with Aeroflot was hardly a problem before the invasion, massive problem after. Gary Nevilles problem with Abramovich is overnight and a result of the invasion of Ukraine, a conflict he isn’t an active part in, it’s by association and now the entire western world suddenly has a problem in regards to oligarks and wants to wash their hands, and there you have Gary Neville with another passionate rant about something that‘s been a problem since fecking 20 years ago.
I take the point that RA wasn't a fit person to come into the PL in the first place but you're downplaying his role with this 'active part' stuff.
By active part, do you mean he's not actually got a gun in his hand?
Is your point here just that Neville is a bit of a hypocrite or do actually think the things he's saying are wrong? If it's the former it's a little churlish.
Neville is frustrating to listen to on the current situation at Chelsea because it's taken him too long to get it half-right. There have been valid and well-documented concerns about the sorts of people buying into British football for decades. Since he went into punditry Neville has consistently argued that big money coming into the game is a good thing and he's consistently shrugged off the various ethical concerns on the grounds that politics and football don't mix. Whilst it's refreshing to hear that he's reassessing his views, it's years overdue and much of the damage has been done.
I also think he's being naïve in his view that Abramovich being sanctioned is the start of a natural progression which will affect the likes of City and Newcastles' owners. Abramovich's ownership of Chelsea is under this level of scrutiny because of Ukraine and Ukraine alone, not because football (or Britain generally) has magically grown a conscience and become uncomfortable with our institutions being used to launder the money and reputations of some of the worst people around. If he's passionate about preventing the English game from being coopted to serve dodgy interests, people like him need to use their platforms to fight for it, keep it on the agenda week-after-week. To their credit, Carragher and Neville both agreed that managers should be held accountable for their decision to work for these people. The one very easy thing football can do to show solidarity with the people suffering under, say, the Saudi regime, is to stigmatise players and managers signing for Newcastle United to the extent that it undermines the attempt at sportswashing.
I also think he's being naïve in his view that Abramovich being sanctioned is the start of a natural progression which will affect the likes of City and Newcastles' owners. Abramovich's ownership of Chelsea is under this level of scrutiny because of Ukraine and Ukraine alone, not because football (or Britain generally) has magically grown a conscience and become uncomfortable with our institutions being used to launder the money and reputations of some of the worst people around. If he's passionate about preventing the English game from being coopted to serve dodgy interests, people like him need to use their platforms to fight for it, keep it on the agenda week-after-week. To their credit, Carragher and Neville both agreed that managers should be held accountable for their decision to work for these people. The one very easy thing football can do to show solidarity with the people suffering under, say, the Saudi regime, is to stigmatise players and managers signing for Newcastle United to the extent that it undermines the attempt at sportswashing.
Last edited:
How am i downplaying his role and how much of an active part is he? Does he advise Putin on the ongoing invasion, did he recommend it?
The use of the term active part is in itself downplaying it. You've presumably used that term because you know he's supplying steel to build their tanks.
But again I'm still confused as to where you stand on the Chelsea thing. Yes, Gary can be a hypocrite and gets things wrong but I think he's right here and it should put more scrutiny on the PL and who they allow to buy clubs.
I don't go along with the, 'where were you with your criticism before the Ukraine conflict?' argument and I still have a healthy level of respect for Gary Neville.
Abramovich is a man with a significant amount of clout which would dwarf that of a SkySport pundit, albeit a popular and (generally) well-liked one. Neville could have been quickly isolated and condemned as a racist if he had pursued a consistent agenda against foreign owners. He may have put himself in a compromised position by setting himself in opposition to an extremely wealthy man with questionable connections. Neville is clearly not stupid and generally picks his words and arguments carefully.
Just because Neville is spouting off now, does not mean that this is not something that he has been ruminating over for a while. I very much doubt it's a kneejerk reaction but more his taking advantage of a weakening of Abramovich's position thanks to the huge impact the illegal Ukraine occupation and genocide has had on all areas of public life, especially for Russian nationals complicit in Putin's despotic and disgraced regime.
Ultimately, Nev is not the person who gave RA the opportunity pf owning a football club. The fact that everyone knows who he is does not give him the influence to determine matters of business.
Abramovich is a man with a significant amount of clout which would dwarf that of a SkySport pundit, albeit a popular and (generally) well-liked one. Neville could have been quickly isolated and condemned as a racist if he had pursued a consistent agenda against foreign owners. He may have put himself in a compromised position by setting himself in opposition to an extremely wealthy man with questionable connections. Neville is clearly not stupid and generally picks his words and arguments carefully.
Just because Neville is spouting off now, does not mean that this is not something that he has been ruminating over for a while. I very much doubt it's a kneejerk reaction but more his taking advantage of a weakening of Abramovich's position thanks to the huge impact the illegal Ukraine occupation and genocide has had on all areas of public life, especially for Russian nationals complicit in Putin's despotic and disgraced regime.
Ultimately, Nev is not the person who gave RA the opportunity pf owning a football club. The fact that everyone knows who he is does not give him the influence to determine matters of business.
It’s not about downplaying it. Supplying steel to build their tanks isn’t really being an active part unless he was specifically supplying steel to invade Ukraine. By all means, you’re supplying steel used for tanks so it’s obvious that they might be used in an armed conflict at some point, but that doesn’t make him more actively involved (albeit it’s handy to use it for the sanctions imposed) than in the other wars they’ve raged over the years. Nothing has really changed in terms of Abramovich.
In terms of the Chelsea thing, he shouldn’t have been allowed to buy them in the first place, just like Thaksin, the Abu Dhabi boys, Saudi‘s shouldn’t have been allowed to buy clubs. It’s a bit fecking funny that BSkyB wasn’t allowed to buy us in 98 due to how it would have a negative effect on the rest of the league, yet there were no objections to saddling us with an absolutely mental debt in relations to the Yank takeover, which could have completely fecked the club. No issues welcoming Thaksin either. Bizarre. Abramovich and Abu Dhabi buying title after title certainly hasn’t had an effect on the league…The only real concern they had with Saudi Arabia was in relation to certain copyright spat.
It’s fecking obvious that there should be much much more scrutiny on buying clubs, but this has been the case for over 20 years now. Gary Neville discovering this simply because Abramovich went from being dream owner to persona non grata over night is fecking funny. I honestly can’t stand the fecker.
Everyone is allowed to change their opinion and I suppose some small amount of respect is due for him at least admitting he has had the wrong outlook on these ownerships that are directly connected to horrible governments, but it's the absolute conviction with which he originally states these half-baked views and the influence the man has that continues to grate.
You just know
You just know
You just know
What did he do now?
You've nailed it mate.
Also I get that he didn't outright praise the owners but he's ignored how they've funded these amazing footballing operations.
Anyone with half a braincell can see that the reason that the Likes of City/Chelsea can do things that nobody else in the league can do (Without some sort of hardship) is because of the funding from their ethically questionable (at best) owners.
The only one that can come close is United and they are hamstrung by their Leech owners.
He's a tad arrogant and presents his opinions as fact.
I dont like him as a pundit and as ex player turned pundits go only Scholes is worse.
Scholes is almost as bad as Merson when it comes to punditry.
I think the opposite, he's head and shoulders above any united pundit. He has ideas I don't agree with, but thats just life. In terms of communication, trying to analyse games, why clubs do what they do etc there's no one really better. I also think the fact he's been a player, coach, manager, owner is a reason why he's able to give a better insight than most others.
Scholes is bottom of the barrel punditry. He seems like the type to manage a team and expect them to ping passes like he could and then wonder why they can't.
Carragher is a lot better imo.
Dreadful wind up merchant
Sometimes. But he's been saying a lot of things right regarding United.
Has he feck. He thinks he’s got all the answers because Liverpool are successful all of a sudden. He doesn’t watch United and the only reason he has any idea what’s going on at United is because Neville is sat next to him. He says whatever he thinks will wind up United fans and make Neville uncomfortable, he has no idea when it comes to United.
Agree to disagree.
I do actually prefer Carragher's analysis of games whilst preferring gary for a more holistic analysis of clubs, managemente etc. They are a good duo.
Gary, Scholes, Rio and Evra should be no where and give opinions around how the club should run…. All are living in a lala land of expecting another SAF to come ….. it will not happen, football has evolved and there aren’t characters like SAF anymore in football…..
Gary say we shouldn’t hire Conte….. tell me one good reason, why not apart from bull crap around how he doesn’t fit united …. What Is a united fit? ole, moyes, poch?They are not winners….
Open your eyes and get club winning again before demanding best
Gary say we shouldn’t hire Conte….. tell me one good reason, why not apart from bull crap around how he doesn’t fit united …. What Is a united fit? ole, moyes, poch?They are not winners….
Open your eyes and get club winning again before demanding best
I find it hard to understand the hate towards G Nev. I agree with pretty much all he says he was a great player for us, he’s a great pundit, proving to be a great business man and voice for the average bloke. I wish he was involved in running our club and not Salford. He wants what Is best for united and the fans I think
I get this vibe a lot with a fair few of our players who are around the punditry scene right now. Scholes, Evra, Rio off the top of my head. These guys had "it". They were among some of the most naturally gifted players that I've ever watched, and I get the feeling that they take it for granted just how good they were and probably think that just about anyone can be as good as them with the same requisite effort/coaching that they had.
Admits he's been wrong on foreign investment in clubs, also talks politics and how he'd prefer to work for Liverpool than the Conservative party!
To be fair he's already working for Liverpool so he won't need to make any adjustments.
I’m glad he’s finally seen that these oligarchs are not good for football because they are inevitably tied into bad shit but I have to laugh at his reasoning and the irony for welcoming them in the first place.
“They made it more competitive”…
Since Man City’s takeover in 2008, a total of 40 domestic trophies have been won…
Man City and Chelsea have won 21 of those, more than half between two clubs and this guy thinks that’s made it more competitive.
Yeah it broke up United and Arsenal but you’ve just put two clubs in their place whos success is purely down to money and has no redeeming qualities to it that I’d argue United and Arsenal had at least.
The only reason why that trophy count isn’t higher for the oil clubs is because the league was lucky enough to have two of the greatest ever managers in Fergie and Klopp.
It was always about breaking the monopoly United had on the game, competition was never the aim. The same journos/pundits calling out foreign owners now knew exactly what the off field issues were but ignored them because it changed the dominant names on the cups but what they actually did was legitimise these clubs. The second they let Abramovich in, this was the inevitability.
He's against Conte being manager but has suggested Simeone?! His logic on this just doesn't stack up.