Montey

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action? Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million). So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs. Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League. So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford? Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves?

The court room argument would be that BeIN Sport took on the MENA rights with existing knowledge that they could not deliver into all countries within the MENA region. That if BeIN Sport was concerned about being asked to pay money for the whole region when they could not broadcast into every country in that region (ergo, they were concerned about paying for the right to broadcast into KSA knowing they could not do so) then they should have addressed that with the Premier League before making the agreement. An analogy - it is akin to buying a car where you know, before you buy it, that the car won't turn left - you can't then go back to the dealer and insist on your money back because the car won't turn left. In other words, BeIN Sport knew all of the limitations and issues with the product (rights license) they purchased before they made the purchase, therefor they can not come back and complain about one of those faults. To your question - Yes, if KSA purchased the licensing rights for 2022/23 and they could not get cooperation with Iran or Qatar, then they would face the prospect of not being able to broadcast into those countries. It is why there are a number of countries that have single-country agreements with the EPL. For example, Israel is in the MENA region but has it's own arrangement with the EPL to broadcast games within Israel - because they are in a conflict situation with Qatar and its allies.

I understand what your saying, but I think your position ignores the geopolitical reality of the relationship between KSA and Qatar. I find hypothetical analogies can be helpful in these scenarios, so here's one that may help. Imagine for a moment that an American television company (e.g. ABC) purchased the rights to broadcast the Premier League into the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war. In our hypothetical scenario, whilst ABC may own the rights for EPL broadcasting into the USSR, the relationship between the USA and USSR is such that the USSR does not permit ABC to actually deliver that broadcast. In this hypothetical scenario, citizens within the USSR still want to watch EPL games so they form their own group to pirate games, then Chelsea FC gets sold to a Russian billionaire with ties to the USSR government. Would the American broadcaster have the right to sue the EPL for revenues lost (revenues not achieved) because they couldn't broadcast into the USSR? I think the answer would obviously be "no", because the American broadcaster knew before they purchased the rights they were never likely to be able to deliver that broadcast into the USSR - in other words, in our hypothetical, ABC were stupid because they paid the EPL money for something they couldn't use. Now, let's translate this to the situation we are discussing. Qatar and KSA are in the equivalent of the cold war that America and the USSR experienced. There is no diplomatic relationship between the two countries, and there are embargoes in place on trade and other activities (e.g. travel) between KSA and its allies, and Qatar and its allies. This has been the situation since things turned completely sour in June 2017 (refer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis). On 10th August 2018, BeIN Sports announced it had secured exclusive rights to broadcast the EPL in the Middle East and North Africa (refer: https://www.beinsports.com/en/premier-league/video/bein-sports-secures-exclusive-premier-league-/949495), which means it was announcing that it had paid for the right to exclusively broadcast EPL games into countries with whom Qatar had no diplomatic or trade relationship. The key point being that the sanctions enacted by KSA and its allies against Qatar (in 2017) happened before BeIN Sports acquired the rights for the 2019/20 to 2021/22 seasons (in 2018). Thus, I would contend, that BeIN Sports had knowingly paid for rights it could not execute on - this is their own error and not the error nor responsibility of the EPL (the EPL was likely laughing all the way to the bank). Going for another analogy, it would be akin to you purchasing an item that was always illegal to use and then attempting to sue the government because they were not permitting you to use it. You would be laughed out of court. This is why I think that any assertion that the issue with the takeover is based on piracy is not correct - the argument is not strong enough and KSA/PIF can easily argue that BeIN Sport paid money for rights they had no ability to fulfil; that BeIN Sport has no legal standing in KSA because of there being no trade permitted between KSA and Qatar, and that this condition existed before BeIN Sport purchased the rights package from the EPL.

But it is about legal cases - because it's about what one party can force the other party to do via the courts (either as a matter of criminal law, civil law, or commercial law). If BeIN can't convince a court to make an order on their behalf, then BeIN can't have a court order the Premier League to do anything or face any penalty. If they can't get the courts to order the Premier League to do anything, then all BeIN can do is threaten to not participate in the next round of bidding for licensing rights. Which is hardly a threat given there are other parties who could outbid them in 2022. I would just about guarantee that the rights agreement, sold by the Premier League to the broadcasters, will say that it is the responsibility of the rights holder to enforce those rights - that whilst the Premier League will provide all possible assistance to the rights holder in pursuing their rights it is still 100% the responsibility of the rights holder to enforce them and the rights holder has no legal recourse against the Premier League for violation of those rights by a 3rd party. This means that as long as the Premier League is seen by all rights holders to be doing all they reasonably can then the rights holders have no case against the Premier League for which BeIN's "lawyers would be hovering". So this means the only actual obvious risk to the Premier League is, that by approving the takeover there exists the perception that they are devaluing those rights. But, the Premier League could easily argue that they are not devaluing the rights because the rights holders are not losing any revenue as a result of the approval (i.e. SkySport's revenue will not go down; BeIN Sports revenue will not go down since they are not getting revenue from KSA anyway due to their diplomatic issues). Additionally, let's hypotheticalise a scenario where the takeover has been approved and BeIN throws their toys out of the pram by refusing to bid for 2022 and beyond - do we really think that SkySports, ITV, BBC, and other broadcasters will also refuse to bid? Of course they won't, they'll be in there as they always are, bidding the same amount they would if the takeover didn't happen, because they want the revenues from broadcasting EPL games. So, to me, the argument that the Premier League is denying the takeover because of piracy is just a weak deflection away from more likely, less legally legitimate, reasons for not wanting the takeover to go through. This is why I am more inclined to think the behavior of the Premier League is more about what the "preferred 6 clubs" want or don't want. That if the refusal to approve the takeover was about piracy and that piracy was a fully legitimate reason to refuse then the League would have officially refused the takeover and announced piracy as the reason. The fact that the takeover was not officially refused says to me that piracy is not the actual reason - so I start looking for other reasons. It's the only explanation I have seen that actually makes sense (is understandable) - piracy seems a weak argument; human rights seems a hypocritical argument; organisation structure issues seems a weak argument; protecting vested interests seems a strong argument.

Something I don't understand, from a few comments that have been made... What legal case would BeIN Sports have against the Premier League if the League did approve the takeover? The Premier League is not legally responsible for enforcing the licensing rights sold to BeIN Sports, it is the responsibility of the rights holder to enforce the rights they have paid for - unless the Premier League were spectacularly stupid and agreed in the rights agreement to enforce those rights. But, it would be spectacularly stupid for the Premier League to have agreed such a thing (I think it would be unheard of) because no business is ever willing to take on a risk over which they have no control. The suggestion is that BeIN has "lawyers hovering" ready to sue the Premier League if they approve the takeover, but sue the League for what? So, I am not seeing what BeIN Sports could legally do to the Premier League other than refuse to bid for the next rights package in 2022 (this is no small thing, but not something they'd have "lawyers hovering" for).

But if you didn't have to do something you probably wouldn't. And when you ignore something long enough,usually it goes away. I keep seeing the 360 account saying let's turn the screw, rallying calls to Mps, etc etc, Yes at least they're doing something fair enough,but the elite in this world dont give a shit about anyone, so given the fact they're not forced to respond bothers me a bit. And will Stavely and Ashley actually bother to drag this through court, or just move on. There are at least 3 versions of things that an organisation "have to" do - "have to" in the sense of what the law forces them to do; "have to" in the sense of what they are contractually required to do to comply with the agreement"; and "have to" in the sense of what it would be incredibly foolish to not do. "Have to" as a matter of law is anything that an organisation has to do or face a criminal sanction (jail time, fines, civil rulings, etc.) On this front, in respect of the NUFC Takeover matter, there is likely nothing that the Premier League has to do. Although there are some suggestions that the Premier League may be in contravention of laws around "restraint of trade" or "cartel" behaviors - these could be the basis for Ashley launching legal proceedings against the Premier League. "Have to" as a matter of contract law (complying with an agreement) is something they must do or risk the other party(ies) suing them for breach of contract, and demanding damages to compensate for any losses or losses of revenue. There has been some (in my opinion, robust) suggestion that there are requirements within the O&D Test portion of the rules of the Premier League that require (must do) the league to respond and provide answers as a result of a sale of club being agreed - this may be the basis for Ashley launching action against the Premier League on the basis that those rules form part of the contractual agreement that NUFC have with the Premier League, as a member club of that league; that by not complying with those rules the Premier League have violated the terms of the contract thereby opening the opportunity for Ashley(NUFC) to sue the league for that breach of contract. "Have to" as a matter of risk avoidance is something that they would be foolish not to do lest a greater impact come to pass as a result of not doing it. This is the area where pressure from the MP's, the Prime Minister, councilors, fans, and other interested parties resides. The intention is to show the league that they have to do what is being asked of them or a greater cost will befall them (e.g. loss of sponsors, cooperation, introduction of new regulations from MP's, commissions of inquiry, etc) - that is to say that the threat is that if the League doesn't do what is being asked then, for example, MP's may commission an inquiry into foreign interference in the running of English football that may put Masters under oath for questioning (a result he would not want). This is why NUFC fans, and the buying consortium need to be doing everything they are in parallel - it's about backing the league into a corner that makes them believe that not doing what is being asked risks a worse outcome than if they do it. Ashley will push the first and second points hard with the league (threatening them with regulatory breach investigations and lawsuits based on commercial agreement breaches); MP's will push the first and third points (threatening investigations into regulatory breach investigations, hearings, investigations, new regulations, etc); and fans will push the third point (that the league, the league's sponsors, the league's supporters, the league's partners will all be targeted and their operations interfered with, and anything else the fans think of doing). If all of these things are done together the league may be convinced it is better to concede than to keep resisting.

They don't have to, but can you imagine the reaction we'd be seeing if it was Man U/Tottenham/Arsenal that PIF were trying to buy. It would never be off the Skysports front page, and Masters would have been hauled up before a Parliamentary Comittee already to explain I don't believe so. This is why the process is so flawed. In reference to the recent ombudsman and political or MP interactions, PM and local Mps? Must a response be given? I think if not they're untouchable and only a legal battle in court settles this. I don't believe there is anything that obliges them to say anything - but the risk they run by not responding is if they piss enough MPs off those MPs may enact legislation or regulatory rules that do oblige them to things they don't want.

SkySports changing their social media policy as a result of the petition is the best thing possible for the petition. Whenever something has been banned, or those in control try and hide something, the general public is immediately drawn to that thing. What needs to happen now is for everyone to be tweeting about how SkySports is changing their social media police because of the Newcastle United petition, and providing a link to the petition. For example: It can re-energise the petition and drive the number even higher.

It's important for people to know how commercial & civil court cases work - commercial & civil law is as much about bullying the opponent as it is about whether or not you could win a court case. The reason for this is as a way to get leverage over the opponent, to bring them to the negotiation table and to get them to be willing to compromise. The purpose of Mike Ashley or the buyers threatening legal action against the Premier League would not be about getting the court to order the Premier League to overturn any decision the League has (or has not) made (the court likely couldn't do this). Any court case would be about obtaining a ruling for compensation for losses/earnings incurred due to the decision the Premier League has made (where a decision to not act is also an active decision by the League). In this context losses (or lost earnings) would include costs incurred during the deal negotiation, lost potential profits, and/or the appreciation/depreciation of assets caused by that decision/action/inaction - in other words a HUGE amount of money. Now, it is not necessary to actually prosecute such a case in court, as it is often enough for the party(ies) threatening legal action to convince their opponent that should it go to court they would lose and would face a substantial financial penalty. In the case of Ashley and/or the buyers it would be to convince the Premier League that should the Premier League lose the case they are likely to have a substantial penalty awarded against them (e.g. £300m of lost revenue by Mike Ashley, or the difference between that and any new valuation of the club; £17m lost deposit by the buying consortium; legal costs of running such a case; etc). If the Premier League could be convinced that they are facing such a large financial penalty then they might be convinced to be more compromising - i.e. the intent of threatening legal action would be to convince the Premier League that if they do not approve the takeover then they face the prospect of a lengthy, expensive court case, and they face the prospect of a massive ruling against them that could devastate the financial viability of the league (could the League afford a court case costing them up to £500m?) If the League is convinced that this outcome is even moderately likely then the League is more likely to engage properly with the buyers & seller to see the deal approved and completed. This is, in my opinion, why Staveley has asked fans to get involved - the idea is to show the Premier League that should the case end up in court there is a substantial chance the League could lose and that the court would receive substantial support from the public in ruling against the League (courts are sensitive to public opinion too). So, all of this (the public campaigning, the threats of legal action, etc) is about mounting substantial pressure on the Premier League to convince them that should they persist as they have and/or formally reject the takeover then they face the prospect of financial destruction at the hands of the courts.

Yeah, I think the PL have got themselves into a real shitshow and wish the whole thing just didn't exist. They've obviously got themselves a cartel of powerful opponents to the takeover (the chosen few PL clubs, Qatar via BeIN Sports, others with an axe to grind) who they really don't want to put offside - if these interests weren't applying extraordinary pressure on the PL then the takeover would likely have been approved within the aforementioned 4-5 weeks. I doubt if they are worried about getting sued by those who want to stop the takeover, but they obviously risk commercial arrangements (with the likes of BeIN) and risk a potential revolt from those leading PL clubs (who they may fear leaving the PL to form a new European super league). But, whilst the PL may wish to bow to those powerful interests (forcing the takeover to not happen) they don't have a clear (or even token) set of criteria against which they can justify stopping the takeover, meaning if they do they know they will get sued into oblivion. They can't afford to define a specific reason for rejecting the takeover because that will give Ashley and the buying consortium a tangible thing to sue the PL over (because it will very obviously be a justification that won't stand up in court). This leaves the PL under the impression they are in an impossible position - but, the problem they have not reconciled themselves to is that, laws (in this case mostly commercial law, but likely some regulatory laws too) trump other commercial risks. If/when the PL are forced to say "rejected" and forced to give a reason then they risk a substantial lawsuit from Mike Ashley, the buying consortium, and potentially other interests who stand to lose from the takeover not happening (e.g. Newcastle City Council, Reubens, others). Even if the PL decides that the potential lawsuit is going to cost them less than the cost of pissing off BeIN Sport (Qatar) or the preferred clubs, the lawsuit could still cause the PL to go bankrupt because the amounts of money are so huge. The PL have only got themselves to blame for this - it is through their negligence and incompetence that they did not anticipate the consequences of the ODT (as it is written) and did not properly manage the process from the beginning. They also failed to hold other clubs, those that were purchased prior to the current ODT, to the same standard - and courts take a dim view of hypocrisy. They stuck their heads in the sand, probably assuming that fat-Mike would screw up the deal and they wouldn't have to worry about it, and know they're royally fecked! In reality what they need to do is accept their medicine, approve the takeover, and then pucker up to kiss the arses of BeIN and the lead PL clubs for the next decade by way of apology. That is the only way they save this - otherwise they may cause the whole Premier League to collapse. They've screwed this up so bad they may cause the league itself to cease to exist (due to lawsuits, loss of lead clubs, loss of sponsors, loss of broadcasting revenues).

Ashley/Charnley need to just go in and start tipping tables over, hoying paper balls, stabbing people with pens etc. Just create carnage. Metaphorically speaking, this. Ashley (Charnley acting for Ashley) needs to go into PL AGM and say that Ashley has a s***-ton of legal advice that says he could sue the Premier League and all member clubs who have deprived him of natural justice (deprived him of the ability to sell his club to anyone who meets the O&D Test criteria) and that if they don't get off their arses and pass the sale then the next time he sees them will be in court. Would love this apparently the meeting is via video link so nothing to stop Mike dialling in from Miami. Hell, he could give his lawyers his proxy and have his lawyers dial in on his behalf.

Ashley/Charnley need to just go in and start tipping tables over, hoying paper balls, stabbing people with pens etc. Just create carnage. Metaphorically speaking, this. Ashley (Charnley acting for Ashley) needs to go into PL AGM and say that Ashley has a shit-ton of legal advice that says he could sue the Premier League and all member clubs who have deprived him of natural justice (deprived him of the ability to sell his club to anyone who meets the O&D Test criteria) and that if they don't get off their arses and pass the sale then the next time he sees them will be in court.

The best way to kill that off as an influence on the process is to agree with it and demand it be retrospectively applied. e.g. "The NUST agrees that the owners and directors test should include all elements considered important by the Premier League and its member clubs. All clubs should be held to that assessment each year and at the commencement of each season be required to prove their compliance with the requirements of the O&D Test prior to their participation in the coming season's competition." Such a response can't be accused of being against human rights, and it would be difficult for anyone to argue that the assessment shouldn't be an ongoing compliance requirement. Consequently we would quickly see existing Premier League clubs rush to veto such a change (because they would fail the test and have to be ejected from the league).

Aren't PIF, PCP, Reuben likely to have the same NDA? There are likely at least 3 separate NDA's in play here. The first NDA is likely to be between the members of the buying group, having agreed a partnership structure they would have an agreement that includes an NDA to not discuss/disclose the nature of their partnership, their actions, or their communications unless all parties agree. The second NDA is likely to be between the buying group as a consortium and Mike Ashley and/or Mike Ashley's organisation(s). This NDA would be to permit the buying group and Mike Ashley to communicate about the potential sale (e.g. conduct due diligence, negotiate terms, etc) and to ensure that neither party (buyers or sellers) will disclose anything about the deal without all parties agreeing to that disclosure. The third NDA is likely to be between the Permier League and NUFC, with NUFC acting as an agent on behalf of the buyer (e.g. passing communication, etc), to ensure that the dealings between NUFC and the Premier League are done confidentially, unless all parties agree to a disclosure. So, this means that whilst NUFC or the buying group could not disclose details of their exchanges with the Premier League, the buying group and the seller could potentially agree (between them) to disclose details of what they had agreed without violating the NDA with the Premier League. It all depends on what inter-dependencies and inter-commitments exist between several NDA's.

Rest assured that you are not the only person who has been physically upset by this development. Many have been hanging onto the beacon of this takeover whilst enduring the COVID-19 pandemic. With the takeover's collapse many are feeling lost and without something positive in their lives. As a diagnosed anxiety sufferer, I have found this takeover collapse a real blow to my mental health - switching regularly between rage and hopelessness. Stay strong, we're on this journey with you.

Turns out it was "sit down and shut up" then. No wonder they didn't want to release the response at the time. Releasing it had nothing to do with the content of the response as we've explained countless times. We never hid the fact is was a basic acknowledgment. Absolute rubbish this mind, there's nothing in that letter or response that warranted withholding it from their members once the reply was received. As it has been since they first started out NUST is all about creating a perception that they are in the loop and involved way more than they really are, no better example than this one. I was a member early on but quickly realised my mistake. They've written a letter to the Premier League been ignored / got a holding letter back, and then announced that "they've had a response". Absolute jokers. This couldn't be further from the truth. What did it achieve? What came of the instruction of your legal counsel ultimately? Are you a Member of the Trust? If you are (I don't think you are) and have concerns in this regard you should email [email protected]. Question dodged I've already explained I used to be a member but packed it in. If you took the time to read what I posted rather than just react blindly to criticism you'd have seen that. At the end of the day the Trust went to all of the trouble of instructing legal counsel and got the exact same stock answer as everyone else, which was entirely predictable. If you were a Member you would have received a detailed explanation as to why the letters were not released until now. The overwhelming majority understand that position. You're stilll avoiding the question, so we're done here now. Don’t know how you deal so civilly with people determined to be cunts. Oh the irony of congratulating someone for being "civil" whilst calling their critics "cunts".

Like what? The NUST can hardly critique NUFC for poor communication whilst also being poor at their own communication. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy I admit, to date, not a heck of a lot (besides posting on Internet forums and Twitter). But, to be honest (saying this whilst aware of your last comment, which I will address in turn), I don't know what I can do from the other side of the world - you tell me and I'll do what I can! Yes - I am a paid up Lifetime member. Not yet, but here I am now - you tell us supporters what you need help with! You need to be leaders, not a knitting circle. Do you take phone calls at 3am? Do you think UK MP's will pay any attention to letters from people outside of their constituencies, let alone from another country? Do I have any club, player, ex-player, contacts? Will UK businesses listen to people who don't buy their products (they're not sold in Australia)? The answer to each of these question is quite obviously no. That is why any efforts, any campaign, needs to be lead and predominantly fulfilled by people in Newcastle Upon Tyne and the United Kingdom. Am I willing to help - yes, but you need to tell me and others what you need help with. I am confident there are a lot of passionate NUFC supporters around the world, but the leadership, direction, and primary action has to come from those who are on the ground in Newcastle and the United Kingdom. Here's a quote that seems mighty relevant, “You know what they call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk.” - The West Wing (S5,E8) If the NUST need more help then NUST needs to ask for help; the NUST needs to tell people what they need help with. At the moment the NUST is looking a bit like a weekend walking club, not a representative of NUFC supporters. My first suggestion, which is very simple to action, is - stop getting so offended by criticism. Listen to any criticism, have a willingness to take it on board and engage with it, accept and acknowledge any potentially valid criticism, be better for the criticism you receive (don't just reject it out of hand, especially from paid members as this is a great way to alienate and lose members). I am confident no reasonable person expects the NUST to come up with all ideas nor to be the sole actors in any required action. But, you guys did volunteer to be the leaders of the NUST - so be leaders! If you need help, work out what you need help with and ask for it! Don't sit there and sulk while you pound away on your keyboard!

I agree, the fans need to stick together - but this does not mean that the fans should be shouted down for criticising their representatives. Organisations get better for listening too, taking on board, and evolving based on the criticism they receive. In reference to your question, "what more could they do beyond what they tried?" I refer you to my previous post, about 2 up from your post, where I listed 7 other things they could have done. But your list is essentially get the backing of the likes of famous footballers, politicians, even the Royal Family. That is far from easy and in some circumstance (the Royal Family), nearly impossible. It's unrealistic. Sorry, but I think you are not thinking this through enough... The players I nominated were purely examples. Some will have contacts and access that permit them (should they be so motivated) to engage with the Premier League directly, others can use their ability to get their head on television and ask public questions of the Premier League, whilst others may only be able to add their name to a list of ex-players who support the takeover. The idea is about building and applying pressure to the Premier League and to convince the Premier League that they will upset more people by denying the takeover, than they would by permitting the takeover. I think this is a great example of where you're not thinking things through enough, indeed it may also be necessary to help other clubs see things differently. The way the Premier League has handled this has massively negative implications for all other clubs at all levels of English football, and if 10 Premier League clubs are against the takeover then that means up to 10 may be in favour of the takeover. The way the Premier League has handled this takeover has directly devalued every other club in English football. Imagine for a moment you are the owner of Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal, Manchester United, Tottenham, Liverpool, or some other clubs and you decide it's time to sell your football club. You've invested heavily in the club over the years and would like a profit on that investment when you sell it. How many individuals or groups, from anywhere in the world, could raise the funds to buy your club? Consider that the Premier League has effectively ruled out any of those buyers or buying groups that may have a similarly dubious history as Saudi Arabia (e.g. anyone with links to Putin, or the Chinese Communist Party, or Qatar, or Abu Dhabi, etc), now how many potential buyers are there for your club? By the Premier Leagues actions, in relation to this NUFC takeover, those top level clubs may find there are very few potential buyers when they decide it's time to sell. Now, also consider the ambitions or desires of other, smaller, clubs. Those clubs have effectively been told by the Premier Leagues actions that they will never be permitted to have a large money buyer come in and indeed should they find one that would pass the O&D Test, in it's newly moralised form, there is a good chance that the preferred clubs within the Premier League would effectively veto any sale. Indeed, the first club that would be protesting any future big-money sales would be Newcastle United and its fans, on the basis of what-goes-around-comes-around. I think other clubs in the Premier League, the Championship, and even League 1 could be convinced to show their support for the NUFC takeover. Businesses in the area can present an argument to the Premier League that they may, in the future, limit their dealings with or willingness to support the Premier League. The Premier League has very much demonstrated that they are motivated by money, so businesses sympathetic to NUFC might be willing to communicate their displeasure to the Premier League who may become concerned at the loss of potential future sources of revenues. I disagree with this too. One of the lessons of the past few years is just how reactive major corporations are to sensitive issues, where those corporations perceive a threat to their brand. We've seen companies shut down or name whole product lines because of a name or some tenuous link to some cause. Think of the Gillette advertisements and campaigns in support of equality that have resulted in them losing billions in sales, or the Nike campaigns triggered by equity campaigners that resulted in them losing billions in revenues. There is ample evidence to show that small numbers of highly active social media and media campaigners can quickly cause major international corporations to change their behavior, even when that behavior costs them billions. Some communication with Premier League sponsors telling them that their brands will be impacted in specific markets (e.g. in the North East of England, in Saudi Arabia) may cause them to, at least, express some concern to the Premier League. I just flat reject this line of thinking. Yes, some noisy MP's were getting their 5 minutes of profile by going against the takeover (some were possibly even getting their bag of money from Qatar too, but we'll never have more than suspicions on this), and yes some MP's are against the Saudi Regime. But enough MP's obviously don't have sufficient concern about trading with Saudi Arabia otherwise why would the UK be permitted to sell Saudi Arabia weapons? To suggest that more MP's are against the Saudi regime than are for it is just to deny simple facts (i.e. if it were true, there would be no weapons sales from the UK to Saudi Arabia). Again, I disagree. Members of the Royal Family are active ambassadors for UK foreign relations and trade. They are frequently used by the government as part of international trade missions and used by the government to create and maintain trade relationships. - for example, Prince Andrew (until 2011) served as Britain's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. Given that Saudi Arabia is considered a major trading partner of the United Kingdom (did I mention weapons sales earlier?), it may well be that someone within the broader family might be predisposed to communicate their support for the NUFC takeover to the Premier League (as being an excellent trade outcome for the United Kingdom). Yes, this final point, is the biggest issue in achieving any of this - volunteers only have so many spare hours in the week. But, I think in special circumstances volunteers can be asked to put in a special effort; additionally extra volunteers can be asked for to help with some of the leg work (e.g. drafting letters, sending emails, telephoning people and organisations, identifying targets of interest). The key thing is, this is about building and applying pressure to the Premier League. The Premier League is behaving the way it is because it is afraid of the consequences of approving the takeover. What they need to be shown is that the potential consequences for not approving the takeover is worse. But, they won't listen to a letter from a supporters organisation - the supporters organisation is of no consequence to them and they know the supports organisation can not directly impact them. This is why, if anything is going to be achieved by the NUST on this matter, it needs to be done by building a massive level of support that then collectively applies pressure to the Premier League. It's about getting a large collection of people and organisations working in unison to contact the Premier League at the same time to make the Premier League believe they may be making the wrong choice. Take a look at how interest groups work in politics. They don't get governments to enact or change legislation by sending a well worded letter. They do that, but they also get their members to call MPs and demand change, they get their members to get friends to write letters, they draft pro-forma letters and get volunteers to send in their own signed copy of those pro-forma letters, they stand on street corners and collect signatures on petitions they can give to MPs, they call radio stations and rant, they get their friends to call radio stations to rant, they go on SkyNews and rant, etc. In short, the interest group shows the parliament that there is huge support for what they want - and only then does the parliament take action. The Premier League needs to be treated the same. If NUFC supporters, through the NUST, is not willing to do this (and think it's enough to just send a well worded letter) then they may as well do nothing and not exist - they are not supporters, they are just watchers and the Premier League may as well just be a well produced version of Big Brother televised for their weekly entertainment. To achieve any of this requires an organisation, like the NUST, to be a leader and an organiser. NUFC needs the NUST to be its interest group and to aggressively advocate for the desires of NUFC supporters. NUFC supporters do not need a passive, or semi-passive pussy-cat; NUFC supporters need a pissed off lion who is protecting its cubs! (Sorry for the length of this post, I suspect it is challenging some previous record holders for length. But I think it needs to be said).

I agree, the fans need to stick together - but this does not mean that the fans should be shouted down for criticising their representatives. Organisations get better for listening too, taking on board, and evolving based on the criticism they receive. In reference to your question, "what more could they do beyond what they tried?" I refer you to my previous post, about 2 up from your post, where I listed 7 other things they could have done.

Simple - I didn't think of it. I was under the (now obviously incorrect) assumption that there was a strong probability of the takeover being completed (hence I didn't expend any effort thinking about it), and that NUST had people much closer to the club (metaphorically and literally, given I am in Australia) who would have thought of and actioned such obvious options. I only gave it some more thought when Greg responded with (using my own words/interperation here), "we sent a letter, what more could we do?" So, I decided to suggest some more things that could be done with little effort and little thought. I am not assuming, at this point, that the NUST hasn't done more; the NUST may very well have done more and are just very bad at communicating (a bit like the club, in that respect). But, if it turns out that NUST has only sent a letter to the Premier League that was only ever going to get a boilerplate response then I'll be fairly disappointed in the NUST and it will cause me to question its suitability as representation of the NUFC supporter community (in my own mind - others may disagree). I'd hate to think that the NUST only did the equivalent of the players running around on the pitch for 90 minutes and then when criticised responded with, "well, we had one shot on goal, you think that isn't trying?"

Well for a start it’s quite heartening to see such a fractured support group eventually pulling together, instead of people constantly in the background sniping away and belittling every little thing that is tried. Just let people have their vent and if it in some way pulls fans in the same direction then all the better. Absolutely pointless just sniping at things. All too often those who complain the loudest are the ones who do the least. They're like people who complain about the government but then never vote.

You think this isn't trying? https://nufctrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/NUST-Letters-with-PL.pdf?mc_cid=a4a1831fbc&mc_eid=fa029130f5 OK, Greg-ol-boy, you asked, and here it is.... Sort of. Congratulations to the NUST, (in relation to the takeover attempt by PIF/PCP/Reubens) they've had a letter, quite a good letter I will agree, sent by a lawyer to the Premier League, knowing full well that the Premier League would give them the same response they've given everybody else. To assume that the Premier League would have given any different response is incredibly naive. Additionally, the NUST has announced (only 7 hours prior to this forum reply, which is being typed as soon as I wake up - in Australia), that they've also requested communication with the Football Supporters Association, and spoken on a few media outlets. As Mrs Brown would say, "that's nice". I put to you the question, has the NUST taken any steps to elicit communication, support, and action from any of the following: Former Newcastle United players with a high profile and likely contacts within the Premier League hierarchy (e.g. Alan Shearer, Peter Beardsley, Les Ferdinand, Steve Harper, Malcolm Macdonald, etc)? A letter, all co-signed by NUFC legends, supporting the takeover, sent to the Premier League and published as an open letter would show strong support from the club's historic figures. Calls directly from them to the Premier League to approve the takeover would apply pressure from within the broader Premier League community. Current Premier League & Championship clubs? Letters, signed by senior figures from within other Premier League and Championship clubs, supporting the takeover, sent to the Premier League and/or published as an open letter would show strong support from other clubs within the Premier League. Prominent business and community figures within the Newcastle area? Letter's, signed by prominent business and community figures would show strong support from the broader Newcastle community. Major sponsors of the Premier League? Letter's requesting support from major sponsors of the Premier League, and referencing support from those mentioned above, may elicit communication from those sponsors to the Premier League expressing concerns about brand damage. One of the things we should all have observed in 2019/2020 is how sensitive sponsors are of criticism towards them from popular causes - we need to make the NUFC Takover a prominent concern of the sponsors. Members of Parliament? Letters to MP's, with reference to support from famous NUFC legends, senior figures of other Premier League and Championship, and support from the Newcastle community (including a physical petition gathered from within Newcastle) would show those MP's just how much support there is, just how much angst there is at its failing, and also provide political cover and pressure for those MP's to start asking questions. MP's are motivated by an active constituency and are pressured by an angry constituency. Members of the Government? Letter's to members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, along the lines of the letter sent to the Premier League, and referencing support obtained from those mentioned above could motivate the Cabinet to start making inquiries. Members of the Royal Family? The UK Royal Family has a a very active role in the country's trade relationships and as such could be implored to intervene, to highlight all of the benefits to the United Kingdom and the North East of passing this takeover. In a situation, such as this, it is necessary to build and apply pressure against the Premier League. It is necessary to convince the Premier League that to take the decision or actions that we don't want flies in the face of what their customers, sponsors, and supporters want, and that to do so will cause them trouble. Organisations, like the Premier League (like most large organisations and government bodies) are not motivated to do what is right, they are motivated by what might result in criticism. The Premier League is acting the way it is because it is scared of the backlash it might receive if it approves the takeover - we need to construct a picture for them that the backlash will be worse if they don't approve the takeover. This is not the time to be sitting back and saying, "well, we wrote a letter and got a reply. We've done our bit." Now is the time for the NUST to be standing up strong; showing leadership, energy, and determination; and attempting to focus the distress and anger within the NUFC community towards an ends that helps move Mike Ashley out of NUFC and new (substantially better) owners in to the club. I would have hoped to hear that the NUST had, in fact, done most of the above already - but it is not too late, the NUST just needs to get cracking and play some catch-up. (And, before anyone asks, I would love to help out with this - my excuse is that I am on the other side of the world; that I am not a citizen of the United Kingdom; and have no claim to communicate with any of the above, except maybe the Queen as my Head of State - but even that would have to be via Australia's Governor General, not directly to Buckingham Palace.)

Interestingly, if Ashley put the club in to administration, resulting in a points deduction - we might be relegated (but we'd need an 11+ point deduction). If we were relegated as a result of that deduction, the NUFC takeover would no longer be subjected to the O&D Test, as the sale would be under the jurisdiction of the EFL and not the Premier League. I'd accept this option in a heartbeat - a season in the Championship to get rid of Ashley and have PIF owning us, how quickly do you need your arm back after I snap it off?

So what happens if they don't formally withdraw?

I view attending NUFC games, as long as the current regime remains, as like an abused spouse returning to the family home despite being beaten each night - the simple fact is they won't stop getting abused until they leave. To my mind, NUFC under Mike Ashley is the same - until fans do something tangible then things are unlikely to change. It is not enough to rage on Twitter, this forum, or to scream profanities at the television - fans have to stop going to games, stop buying club merchandise, and start writing letters to the MP's.