The Newcastle striker has been fined by the club for refusing to wear the shirt with club sponser Wonga. Initial fine is £50,000 rising to £47,560,288 if he hasn't paid it by Friday !! ..
has anyone told him to use the sliders, jokes aside, good on him for appearing to have morals although I'm sure someone will enlighten me as to any misdemeanours I'm not aware of
Good on him for having some morals. Paracitic firms / legalised loan shark's praying on vulnerable people. Disgrace how this country / government allows them to trade. If the swans took up sponsorship with such a company - my season ticket would be in the bin. With him all the way on this. Newcastle have sold their sole with this mob.
I would like to point out there are 2 other players in the Newcastle squad who are muslim but have no problem with wearing the shirt.
It means 2 muslims are happy to play in the shirt and 1 isn't. They are the same faith but have different interpretations. It will be interesting to see how Newcastle deal with this and what the fall out will be.
taff, as you say there are all sort of muslims. my son in law is a muslim and would not have a bar of the sunni, Shiite crap. he left bosnia due to the persecution by that serb dude. 2 do 1 don't, all depends where they are from and what muslim beliefs they have. tbh he doesn't seem to have too many, must be the aussie lifestyle. but I will say good on the Newcastle dude for sticking to his principles.
Musty, Bosnian muslims were generally secular in comparison to other muslims in Europe and the Arabian states. I have some good friends from my time in Tuzla during the war. I am not clear on what divides the muslim faith or any faith but they are all free to air their views.
Good on him to stick to his principles ! But weren't they sponsored by virgin money last season? And don't we play in the Barclays Premier League ?
I'm sure Wonga are worse...but we were sponsored by 32Red last season...an online gambling company, so not exactly a responsible company to have advertised. Don't want to start an argument, just saying.
Can see your point and a fair argument. Bookies / Casino's are akin to booze companies, cigarette companies (funnily enough they are banned!). The main difference is that bookies / casinos / booze / cigarettes are all related to addiction when problematic. Legalised loan sharkes target all factors of society that may be vulnerable for many many reasons, that are simply trying to make ends meat. The other key difference; - Bookies / Casino's although can get people into trouble - offer fair game - i.e. reasonable odds in most cases. Their profits come from the game / % payout / overodds, etc. They skim the difference generally (e.g. 3% approx take on roulette). Yes you can bet at londer odds - but you accept higher risk/reward. - Legalised loan sharks put up whatever interest rates they feel like ranging into several 1000s %. Simply no justification for this regardless of risk - people that high risk should be protected, and not able to dig deeper holes. Atleast bookies, etc have self exclusion. Im sure everyone will have many perspectives on this - and perhaps I am a little biased as I actually like bookies / casino's since I have made many many thousands from them when you know how to work them. I still stand by the view though that they dont belong in the same bracket as the vultures of society. Agree they were sponsored by Virgin Money previously - but VM stick to reasonable interest rates - akin to other financial intituations. Personally if I were in govt - I would cap the maximum interest rate possible at 50% - any higher risk - then money should not be loaned.
I find Ceesay's stance very amusing. Having lived in a muslim country I know first hand how they behave,and hypocrisy is the word that springs to mind. Gambling,drinking,womanising,incest,stealing,lying,cheating,corruption,rape,mugging,kidnapping,murder. I could go on but no point really. Now I am not accusing Ceesay,per se,of any of these. These activities are everyday occurences,and carried out by muslims. When Ceesay signed his contract with Newcastle did he specify that he would not wear a shirt sponsored by the likes of Wonga? Unlikely. Newcastle often have sponsors whose products offend islam,viz,Newcastle Brown,Virgin,so he would have been fully aware of this. Muslims tend to play the "faith" card when it suits,i.e. after they have gained employment. Only recently there were instances where one man refused to serve alcohol,and another pork products. They were pandered to by their employers. They should have lost their jobs,as should Ceesay,if he persists with his religious nonsense. I would NEVER employ a muslim, under any circumstances.
This is going to hurt but I partially agree with LIB! Virgin Money and Wonga are the same beast, if Cisse played in a VM shirt then why Wonga is any different? Both loan money. It has nothing to do with the differing interest rates. Muslims have a banking system which have donations payable on top of the loan. Sorry is it not the same as interest?
I had an account with an islamic Bank. No interest was paid,profit sharing being the islamic preference. Now,the problem with that system is that the investor does not know what his return,if any,will be. Whereas,with a conventional account,interest rates are known up front. Every six months I received my profit,but I never knew how it was arrived at. It was ALWAYS less than I would have received had I invested in a more conventional account. Consequently,I always felt that the islamic way had short changed me.
Lib, I haven't got a clue how an Islamic bank works so any insight is welcome. On a related point I had a Muslim colleague who appeared to be a real nice guy until you spoke about religion. He had, by European standards, some pretty extreme beliefs. Anyway we were chatting about him not gambling and I asked if he was in the company pension scheme. He said he was and I then explained how the scheme worked. Fail play to him he was in my office the next day requesting his pension contribution cease.
