Shearergol

This is critical to their vision 2030. Not a chance that if this is revived PIF aren't the majority shareholders. Yeah agree with this. I don't think it's gonna happen but if it does it's gonna involve PIF.

Forget how many goals he scored simply by following up rebounds. Don't see many strikers doing that these days.

America

That thread is interesting. The lass is using someone else’s photo

Ashley? Masters Penn

Source: https://theathletic.com/1963663/2020/07/30/newcastle-united-takeover-withdraw-staveley-ashley-pif-premier-league/ So at that point it appears Bein really got their hooks into the PL somehow. Another issue, and one I want to shift the focus to briefly, is the supposed opposition from other premier league clubs. The only teams I saw specifically mentioned were Tottenham and Liverpool, but let's assume the entire top 6 had reservations along with others. On what grounds would they be objecting? This is a question I can't find an answer to that sounds like anything other than sour grapes. Well you'd think that most people would object to Saudi's owning a club in the PL based on moral issues . It "shouldn't" have any standing in the PL tests, but you can see why the majority of people/clubs would object to it. It's like why Daniel Bryan refuses to be part of the WWE events in Saudi Is that not referring to the premier league clubs objecting? In which case it's absolutely nothing to do with human rights and 100% due to sour grapes/not wanting to upset the status quo. That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying that if they were pushed for an answer as to why they object, they could cite human rights issues etc. We all know the sale should have gone through, we all know the PL are corrupt, we all know the top 6 don't want competition.

I didn't ask what people would object to, and tagging clubs onto an answer about people and trying to suggest it is the same thing doesn't really work imo. So you don't feel clubs in the league can express moral reasons for not wanting a Saudi owned club in the PL? That's surely just your take on things? Why can individuals, human rights groups, other companies all have morality reasons to object to it but clubs can't? Again, I'm not saying any of these objections should stand, I'm saying it will be the reason given, and nobody could argue with it. Are morality reasons part of the O&D test? No, hence my second line. IF (and it's not confirmed) that the reason the PL haven't accepted is because they don't want to upset the other clubs then obviously there will be hell on. However, that's never going to be proved.

Pretty Green / Liam Gallagher designed that? Class. I'm having it.

I didn't ask what people would object to, and tagging clubs onto an answer about people and trying to suggest it is the same thing doesn't really work imo. So you don't feel clubs in the league can express moral reasons for not wanting a Saudi owned club in the PL? That's surely just your take on things? Why can individuals, human rights groups, other companies all have morality reasons to object to it but clubs can't? Again, I'm not saying any of these objections should stand, I'm saying it will be the reason given, and nobody could argue with it.

Source: https://theathletic.com/1963663/2020/07/30/newcastle-united-takeover-withdraw-staveley-ashley-pif-premier-league/ So at that point it appears Bein really got their hooks into the PL somehow. Another issue, and one I want to shift the focus to briefly, is the supposed opposition from other premier league clubs. The only teams I saw specifically mentioned were Tottenham and Liverpool, but let's assume the entire top 6 had reservations along with others. On what grounds would they be objecting? This is a question I can't find an answer to that sounds like anything other than sour grapes. Well you'd think that most people would object to Saudi's owning a club in the PL based on moral issues. It "shouldn't" have any standing in the PL tests, but you can see why the majority of people/clubs would object to it. It's like why Daniel Bryan refuses to be part of the WWE events in Saudi

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts? Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time. Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/ Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters. Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer. So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool. And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time? Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it. Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment. Who else is left?... Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy? Already been answered countless times - because the PL have concerns he will have control of (or major influence in) the club, which is against their rules as a state cannot own a club. Right, so they want it so they can reject it? So basically they have every right to be asking for this if it's going to be the case (you say it's easily solved)

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts? Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time. Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/ Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters. Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer. So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool. And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time? Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it. Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment. Who else is left?... Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy?

Absolutely, debate makes the forum work. But if you're putting opinions out as facts you're gonna be called out on it.

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts? Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time. Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/ Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters. Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer. So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool.

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts?

Seems a little cruel. Cruel? It was more cruel on anyone having to watch this guy try to play football. Aye, cruel. Poor bugger turns up for his first day back at training 'Who are you then?' 'Er, it's me, Ayoze, remember?' 'Never heard of you mate' I think he meant ignore Joelinton ever existed. That's the joke.

That's where I am with it.

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please?

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla?

It will absolutely have an effect, like the thread states, things like this effect future commercial deals. A company can easily say we aren't prepared to give you as much money as last time because your (PL) brand has been negatively effected and we're unsure about being associated with that. That hits the PL hard and I'm sure masters would not want to be getting phonecalls from the commercial director asking what the fuck is going on. Even so, they can't be seen to passing this purely based on fans tweeting corruption messages. I think they're just finding a water-tight reason to fail it now (or at least say why it would fail if PIF hadn't withdrawn)

Harsh. He's probably a really nice person.

Any chance we can get this thread to drop of the first few pages soon? I realise the irony of me bumping it to the top again, before anyone mentions it.

Ha, you get the feeling it's pointless supporting this club, even the 1969 version?

Tons more evidence of that than there is of PIF still being involved in a bid to buy the club.

Shit ones too it seems.