Arsenal v Leeds and good news about freedom of expression

By Bulldog Drummond

The police have stated that no action will be taken against Crystal Palace supporters who raised a banner in protest at the Saudi takeover of Newcastle United.  So freedom of expression lives to fight another day despite the efforts of at least one Newcastle fan or representative of the Saudi state, who claimed that the blood-stained sword was a racist symbol.  So instead the blood-stained sword is now the symbol of the club.

And so we move on.   For our first league cup game of the season against West Brom, there were a lot of suggestions we would lose.   We didn’t.  We won rather easily, as we did at home to Wimbledon in the last round.   The team on that night was…


Soares, Holding, Tavares, Mari

Partey, Lokonga, Maitland Niles

Nketiah, Lacazette, Martinelli

We might also note that Folarin Balogun came on for Eddie on 83 minutes

As for the injuries we have two men down… Xhaka out to Christmas, and Tirney who is said to have recovered from his ankle problem.

I can’t see Tierney being risked for this match, however.

But there is one odd bit of news: apparently, the five substitution rule has been re-introduced after it was introduced for the semi-final and final last season.  Goodness knows what the League is playing at.

In the earlier rounds, clubs could use three substitutions but it seems now the decision has been made for it to be five, for reasons that will undoubtedly not become clear at this point or any other point.

And yet there was a period of 31 games in which we managed to beat them just three times!   Which should forever be a warning to the AAA about demanding new managers and booing your own team.

Just in case you don’t believe me that set of games ran from 7 November 1959 through to 10 December 1977.  If you really want to see all the details of the games they are here.

Leeds United have won the League three times and the FA Cup once.  The last league win was 1992.  Of late things have not gone so well, as since 2003 in nine matches against Arsenal they have had seven defeats and two draws.

Leeds United are of course related to Leeds City – a team that was kicked out of the League fmid-season or not providing suitable accounting records when asked to.  In a very curious set of events Leeds’ place, partway into the season, was taken by Port Vale, who took Leeds’ results as their own.

This is of interest to Arsenal because the Leeds City manager was Herbert Chapman, who was then banned from football for life – which was the general punishment for anyone that the League Management Committee didn’t like.

Leeds City then reformed as Leeds United with the same ground, and same board of directors, and applied for membership of the Football League, which was immediately granted and the club started again in the second division – along with Port Vale who kept their place.

As for Herbert Chapman now banned from football for life, he was working in a coal and coke works, before being invited to take up a job in football once more with Huddersfield Town.  He appealed against his ban and won  the case.

Funny ol’ game.

More anon.


10 Replies to “Arsenal v Leeds and good news about freedom of expression”

  1. Totally unrelated to your post above but, on your thread of Free Speech, I had the displeasure of visiting a FO LO post and then I saw it:

    An endorsement of Stonewall!!! That well known marxist wokery outfit that needs to be banned.

  2. my pick would be (3-4-3):
    all these lads deserve a start (and they’ll do us proud anyway!!)
    besides, i think MA did hit upon something with his 4-4-2 last friday, we don’t want any of these ten lads (+ odegaard) getting injured
    we need to build momentum in the league, and that’s exacly what an away win at leicester will allow
    lastly, given the situation leeds are in the league at the moment, i don’t think “el loco” will pick his first XI either

  3. Start a comment with free speech but end it with suggesting a ban for people trying to speak. How do some people think?

    But I guess for right wing conservatives free speech means them being able to freely abuse people with alternative lifestyles.

  4. What I get frustrated with is people saying that simply because our Government trades with the Saudis that somehow makes jumping in to bed with them simply to win a football trophy acceptable. Sorry but I cant agree.

    Global politics, and along with it Global economics, is a huge and complex beast. As I said a few weeks ago, if as a Nation we blacklisted every Country, Nation State or Regime, whatever, in the World because we din’t like their politics, Laws or human rights record, there would be very few countries in the World we could trade with. If you took into account historical indiscretions I would argue there are valid reasons not to trade with China, India, Russia, and the USA, to name but 4. So it is a massive and complex problem, way beyond my pay grade.

    So I’m not saying we should or shouldn’t have trade agreements with the Saudis, what I’m saying is, there is a massive difference between that and taking their money simply to win a football trophy and in the end, when all’s said and done, the Newcastle ‘deal’ is simply the Saudis using football to give themselves credibility on the World stage.

    This is not Newcastle’s fans fault, and to a degree I understand why they are excited, but surely this is bigger than football.

    This is peoples rights, liberties and ultimately lives we are talking about, and people are dancing in the streets in celebration, and that cant be right.

    They may as well be dancing on their graves.

  5. The Saudis may never win, buy, the Premiership but if things do proceed as planned every goal at next year’s World Cup will have players and fans dancing on the graves of migrant workers.

    Some might say, ‘Nothing new then.’ What might be abhorrent this time around is our failure to respect the dignity of each human being.

  6. Nitram,

    In pervious Untold Arsenal articles you’ve commented on, I have read how you have occasionally written about the complex moral issues relating to trading with other nations with questionable human rights records etc.

    Further to your frustration in today’s comment can you perhaps add a bit more meat to the bone? If football is the biggest sport (business) in the world, and the Premier League is ‘biggest league’ in the biggest sport (business) in the world why wouldn’t wealthy investors want a piece of that business?
    Why is it not alright for the Saudis to invest in this business but it is OK for them to invest (trade) in others?

    As a MCFC fan, I think ADUG have done a pretty good job turning around Manchester City’s fortunes. I enjoy the football they play now and normally the results are pretty good too. If their takeover of MCFC was about sports washing then I think it has slightly backfired; but I don’t think it was about that at all. Until ADUG took control of MCFC I don’t recall reading much, if anything, about Abu Dhabi’s human rights record on football forums.

    How much anguish does the ‘Fly Emirates’ shirt sponsorship cause you?

  7. From Felix Tamsut’s (@ftamsut) Twitter feed:-

    “A Bayern Munich member has filed a motion for the club not to prolong its sponsorship deal with Qatar Airways.

    The motion will be discussed at the club’s AGM in November.”

    Felix is a journalist for DW Sport in Germany.

  8. Tim

    It’s not about what THEY want to invest in, it’s whether YOU want to accept their investment.

    Rightly or wrongly the uk Government may well say, we would prefer not to but we trade with the Saudies, as well as other, what shall we call them, ‘undesirables’ because if we didn’t our economy would collapse. Newcastle have chosen to do so, as did Man City, simply to win a football match. Neither is particularly tasteful and I’d rather neither happened, but if you can’t see the difference I’m a bit at lost as to what to say to you.

    I don’t expect you or anyone else to stop supporting your team. And if you’re happy that’s up to you.

    But if the Saudies rolled up at our door I would be gutted and I would say as much, as I have about our sponsors.

  9. Nitram,

    If you did not accept Dubhai’s sponsorship other than explaining you were gutted on Untold Arsenal, what actions have you taken?

    In a utopian world MCFC would be fan owned, all our players would have joined as youngsters and come through the academy, the profits generated from sporting success and other footballing business activities given to good causes locally, and world class, entertaining football played on the pitch without ever having to resort to the dark arts; unfortunately, the world isn’t like that.

    Is PIF Newcastle? Is ADUG MCFC? Is Stan Kroenke Arsenal? I think MCFC is more than who the owner happens to be and I am pretty sure you feel the same way about Arsenal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *