Montey

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2020/jul/30/newcastle-united-narrow-escape-takeover-saudi-arabia The problem with his statement is not that someone is running around the neighbourhood with a grenade launcher, it's that everyone already has grenade launchers. It's only a question of how many and how big each grenade launcher is. Ashley is tainted enough to also be accused of being one of those running around the neighbourhood with a grenade launcher. My counsel to the Guardian writer would be, "you can console yourself that you were pure and did not have a grenade launcher as your life ebbs away having been killed by someone else with a grenade launcher."

"Mike Ashley is 100% committed to this deal (sale)" is a very interesting statement. It appears that this, combined with yesterday's statement, is a clear message to the Premier League that the buying and selling parties still want this deal to happen, as already agreed, if only the Premier League would get out of the way. I don't think this is likely as I think the ego's involved (especially of Richard "Dick" Masters) would not permit it.

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m. How's that? Ashley gets the 17m deposit, not them The PL's actions, or lack of them, have caused the consortium to lose the £17m deposit. They would've got it back if they'd refused the test. So they will have a case to take the PL to court to recover that money as an absolute minimum. problem is I can't see a legal case having any legs on the basis of they weren't prompt enough when the PL made clear there is no time limit I don't know enough about UK law, but I know under Australian law (which is very strongly based on UK law) there would be a case against the Premier League on the basis of them not acting in a reasonable manner. Under Australian "Common Law", the buying or selling party (or both) could argue that the Premier League had set an expectation regarding the requirements and timelines that they failed to adhere to and that this constituted a breach of process that could be ruled on by a court - that either or both party could make claims for loss against the Premier League on the basis of their unreasonable behavior. But, one thing I did look up about UK law, early on in the process, was that it appears that UK contracts law does not have the concept of "unreasonable behavior", that under UK law it is up to the parties to anticipate all potential scenarios and address them in their agreement. I must admit, I think this is a silly way to do things because it is not reasonable to ever expect anyone to anticipate every possible scenario - for example, what if aliens invaded - do UK contracts all have a clause dealing with the Earth being invaded by aliens?

You obviously have no idea why their relationship with Qatar is so bad, so let's go with some education and see whether you change your mind or are just a Qatari stooge... In 1996 Qatar launches Al Jazeera, which "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler." and "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler." Qatar has often "exiled its most powerful critics to Saudi Arabia." In 1995 Qatar's new ruler established ties with Iran, transferring their affiliation from Saudi Arabia (a Sunni nation) to Iran (a Shia nation). In 1996 there was an attempted coup d'etat against the ruler of Qatar, who blamed government officials from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE. In 2014 the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar due to Qatar backing Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries). In 2002 Al Jazeera published a secret peace treaty between Saudi Arabia and Isarael. More generally, it is important to know about Qatar: Jamal Ahmed al-Fadi, a former business agent for Osama bin Laden, said to the 9/11 Commission and US Congress that Bin Laden had told him in 1993 that the Qatar Charitable Society was one of Bin Laden's sources of funding. Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy, a previous employee of the Qatar Central Bank, was a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, and was living freely in Qatar in 2014 (and is on a world wide terrorist blacklist). Abd al-Rahman bin Umayr al-Nuaymi, who was also a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, was the president of the Qatar Football Association and allegedly provided £1.5+million per month to al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Syria (he is also on a world wide terrorist blacklist and living freely in Qatar). ... and many more links to international terrorist groups (like al-Qaeda, ISIL, Hamas) So whilst Saudi Arabia can certainly be painted as a group of bad guys, Qatar is (in at least equal measure) also a country ruled by and supporting some terribly evil people. To suggest that Saudi Arabia should just have "a healthy relationship with Qatar" is incredibly naive. To suggest that the Premier League is justified to reject Saudi involvement in the Premier League whilst also taking Qatari money is just morally and ethically bankrupt! Saudi Arabia and Qatar (in fact Qatar and many countries in the region) are effectively in their own version of the Cold War and to suggest they could just have "a healthy relationship" is like asking the United States of America, England, and other NATO countries to just have "a healthy relationship" with the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis The whole things is just how the worlds plays out now, wank aint it Yep, it's super shit. But, wishful thinking won't change that - so we have a choice: have a club that is pure of heart, pure of mind, and pure of action whilst playing in a lower league; or have a club that is owned and funded by people we don't like but allows us to exist and compete in the Premier League. There is no middle ground, the Premier League is completely corrupted and to be in it requires clubs and fans to tolerate evil people & regimes. Make your choice.

You obviously have no idea why their relationship with Qatar is so bad, so let's go with some education and see whether you change your mind or are just a Qatari stooge... In 1996 Qatar launches Al Jazeera, which "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler." and "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler." Qatar has often "exiled its most powerful critics to Saudi Arabia." In 1995 Qatar's new ruler established ties with Iran, transferring their affiliation from Saudi Arabia (a Sunni nation) to Iran (a Shia nation). In 1996 there was an attempted coup d'etat against the ruler of Qatar, who blamed government officials from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE. In 2014 the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar due to Qatar backing Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries). In 2002 Al Jazeera published a secret peace treaty between Saudi Arabia and Isarael. More generally, it is important to know about Qatar: Jamal Ahmed al-Fadi, a former business agent for Osama bin Laden, said to the 9/11 Commission and US Congress that Bin Laden had told him in 1993 that the Qatar Charitable Society was one of Bin Laden's sources of funding. Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy, a previous employee of the Qatar Central Bank, was a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, and was living freely in Qatar in 2014 (and is on a world wide terrorist blacklist). Abd al-Rahman bin Umayr al-Nuaymi, who was also a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, was the president of the Qatar Football Association and allegedly provided £1.5+million per month to al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Syria (he is also on a world wide terrorist blacklist and living freely in Qatar). ... and many more links to international terrorist groups (like al-Qaeda, ISIL, Hamas) So whilst Saudi Arabia can certainly be painted as a group of bad guys, Qatar is (in at least equal measure) also a country ruled by and supporting some terribly evil people. To suggest that Saudi Arabia should just have "a healthy relationship with Qatar" is incredibly naive. To suggest that the Premier League is justified to reject Saudi involvement in the Premier League whilst also taking Qatari money is just morally and ethically bankrupt! Saudi Arabia and Qatar (in fact Qatar and many countries in the region) are effectively in their own version of the Cold War and to suggest they could just have "a healthy relationship" is like asking the United States of America, England, and other NATO countries to just have "a healthy relationship" with the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis

We don't demand a team that wins, we demand a team that tries! We don't demand a Supporters Trust that wins, we demand a Supporters Trust that tries! If NUST doesn't put in a reasonable amount of effort to represent the anger of fans to all who may be able to impact things (the club, the buyers, the Premier League, the Government, the Parliament, etc) then what is the point of the NUST? Just as there is little enthusiasm for supporting a team full of players who don't try, why would there be any support for a Supporters Trust that doesn't try? This is the point at which the NUST needs to stand up and show their members why they exist - this is an existential test for NUST!

It is time for NUST to stop pussy-footing around and to (metaphorically, literally if you can) drive an angry mob to the doors of the Premier League! If NUST is to retain any credibility as the voice of the NUFC fan, being the reason I signed on as a life member, it must react with anger and energy at the way the Premier League has handled the takeover process. There is a time for diplomacy and niceties, and their is a time for anger and action. NUFC fans have sat, relatively, passively aside to allow the Premier League's processes to unfold but it is fairly clear that the Premier League likely had no interest in allowing this takeover to proceed and that their reasoning had little to do with issues from the buying consortium, beyond their ability to threaten the interests of the Premier Leagues controlling cartel of clubs (the top 6) or to threaten the interests of their Qatari friends. The league have, likely, demonstrated that they have no care for the interests of lower/smaller clubs (those outside of their preferred 6 clubs) and that they see those lesser clubs as just a source of revenues for their preferred clubs and for their preferred clubs to play. The Premier League's behavior has also sent a dangerous message to other (non top-6) club owners - that should any buyer approach them who may present a threat to the leagues real purpose then their takeover will be prevented. This places a ceiling on the value of all other clubs, setting a maximum level beyond which they will not be permitted to sell or invest. It sends a message to all top players, managers, and football personnel - that if you are not being employed by one of the top-6 clubs then your existence in the Premier League is to be the Christians to the Premier Leagues lions - do not expect to be there on an equal basis. The NUST should also aggressively approach members of the Government and Parliament to assert that the Premier League have not acted on a fair and equal basis, and that a parliamentary investigation should be conducted into the conduct of the Premier League's handling of the takeover. That Richard Masters should be compelled, by the Parliament, to explain the process and to justify the decisions, action, and inaction of the league on this matter, and to provide a clear statement to all Premier League member clubs as to what the league will or wont permit in the way of buying groups (e.g. to demonstrate to smaller clubs that they will not be permitted to threaten the interests of the leagues preferred clubs). It is time for NUST to get angry and to start kicking up the biggest stink the Premier League has seen in its 28 year history. If the NUST does not act with tangible consequence then it undermines the very purpose for the existence of the Trust!

So if Pol Pot purchased Leeds, and Leeds was promoted to the Premier League then the PL O&D Test would not be applied?

An interesting question just got asked on the #NUFCTakeover Twitter hashtag, which prompted me to ask further questions. The original question was: Which prompted my followup questions: Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Especially the question, "do sides being promoted to the Premier League (from the Championship) undergo an O&D Test process before their promotion is approved by the PL?" Is this a massive flaw (and potentially the basis for any future appeal by PIF) given the EFL equivalent of an O&D Test is much less strict? That PIF would argue that if they had purchased NUFC when in the Championship and then won promotion to the Premier League they would not have undergone the same level of scrutiny and that, therefore, the PL's O&D Test is unreasonable?

Given the latest "leak" about the Premier League wanting clarity on who will be in charge, I think what they are wanting to see if that whilst PIF will own the majority of the club they will have no real influence over the running of the club. In other words, that NUFC will just be an investment for PIF and not an actively run project. I think this could easily be achieved in that PIF and the buyers just need to demonstrate to the PL that the entirety of the club's executive & management team will be appointments of people in good UK standing and that their position descriptions will provide them the independence to run the club as they see fit - that PIF's only ability to interfere in the club is if the club is not performing as a financial investment (and then only on the basis of commercial operation). Such an arrangement would still permit PIF to invest heavily in the club (putting capital into their investment) and for other arrangements to be made on an equitable commercial basis (e.g. sponsorships, player purchases, etc), it would just be so the Premier League can't be accused of letting a "tyrant" directly run a club (e.g. behead a player because they don't track back sufficiently).

The Premier League does look, increasingly, like a closed-shop designed to protect the "big five" (Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, Everton and Arsenal) - it may well be that this is a legacy of the formation of the Premier League which started with a meeting of those same "big five" clubs to break away from the English Football League. Crazy idea time.... Perhaps it's time to start asking the question whether the Premier League has outlived its purpose - that perhaps PIF should push on without the approval of the Premier League and approach the EFL about re-establishing itself as the operator of the top-tier of English football. If the majority of PL clubs agreed then any dissenters would likely quickly come on board (as it's hard to sustain a league with only 5 clubs).

There's also a 3rd private jet warming up at Newcastle airport - so I think what we're seeing is players heading off on holidays.

Probably just players heading off on holidays.

If this takeover were to fail I think it will cause a significant amount of concern for the owners of the larger clubs. Club's like Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City are worth so much that there are very few people or organisations in the world who could afford to buy them, of those who could afford to buy them only a tiny number of them have morally and/or legally clean hands. This means that to those who currently own a big club and who may wish to sell in the future, the failure of the PIF acquisition of NUFC due to the O&D test would represent a major threat to the value of their club because of how few organisations who could afford them could also pass the O&D test. Imagine, for a moment, that tomorrow the Abu Dhabi United Group wanted to sell their ownership of Manchester City - who in the world could afford the $3billion to $5billion they would want? Of those who might afford a $3billion price tag, how many of them could pass the legal and moral test apparently being applied to PIF (heck, could they themselves pass the test)? This means that the value of MCFC becomes less than what the Abu Dhabi United Group may want/need, because if they were compelled to sell for any reason (e.g. a global financial crisis) they would have to sell to whomever could pass the test and not sell at the actual value of the club (the price of something is not just what that thing is worth but is also what someone is willing/able to pay for it). The outcome of this PIF acquisition is huge and a failure of the sale could have massive ramifications for the league's other club owners.

This announcement of a "long term" "primary partner" deal severely knocks my confidence of the PIF acquisition being completed. I think it is highly probably that PIF would have wanted to brand the club strongly towards Saudi business interests and would have wanted their logos all over the uniform and the grounds. When an organisation is in the process of being sold, major deals, agreements, or structural changes can not be made by the organisation without the permission/consent of the buying party; I can not see PIF agreeing to a long-term arrangement whereby FUN88 is the "primary partner". This is why this announcement severely damages my confidence in the sale being completed. I really do think that assertions like "sponsorship arrangements can be ended early", whilst technically correct, is unlikely because any newly minted agreement likely has huge payout clauses given their awareness of a potential sale for mega-money. I think believing that PIF could just pay off FUN88 to end the sponsorship early is grasping a straws in a desperate attempt to maintain some confidence in the deal being completed.

6.9M Followers

If they had plans to announce the takeover with a big bang (e.g. takeover completed, new manager appointed, prestige signings, training ground redevelopment, etc) they would probably want to wait until the season is over, so they can minimize the impact on the current season and have a definitive date which is the start of the new era (with no links to the old era). Having said that, I think the takeover is still in the hands of the Premier League. I agree with (I think it was Caulkin's observation) that if the PL had approved the takeover it would probably leak in some form.

Yeah, sorry, that was my lunch.

No they’ll just concentrate on matters that affect the football club I would think. Whoa there, don't set our goals so low. NUFC can use it influence to right all the wrongs of the world. Move aside UN, Nato, just direct your problems towards NUFC and we will sort it for you....... Nations United For Calm Nations United For Cans

Masters' response to Elliot's questioning was entirely appropriate and changes nothing. My main takeaway from that exchange was that Elliot at least put the fans on Masters' radar, highlighting that it's the fans that are suffering at the moment.

I think the main potential for the petition is if it gets a large number of signatories very quickly, then it might add some momentum to the decision making. But, if the count is low or slow to accumulate then it will have no impact.

Lascelles and senior members of the squad should be approaching the PFA and insisting the PFA make representations to the PL on their behalf. They should be getting the PFA involved, to have the PFA push the point to the PL that the players are stuck in limbo about their futures because the club is stuck in purgatory and also highlighting that Ashley has effectively abandoned the club.

It could have just been a registration renewal.

All of this stuff will have been disclosed by the buying group when the O&D test first started. If you recall, the buying group submitted an, alleged, 350 page business plan to the PL at the commencement of the O&D test. For the business plan to be 350 pages long it will have disclosed a lot about how the group is to be set up, how the board is to be structured, who are confirmed and likely board members, what roles those board members are going to take. A 350 page business plan will have also described the planned structure of the club, including departments (sporting and non-sporting), executives, management, senior personnel; the plan would have described where short, medium, and long term investment is planned in both the club and any surrounding areas for infrastructure and non-infrastructure items. In short a 350 page planning document will have contained a lot of information and almost certainly would have already contained everything the average person could think of.

If beIN's right to broadcast the PL were "non-exclusive" then the PL could easily agree a separate agreement with Saudi Arabia and beIN would have no legal standing (no ability to dispute the agreement). If beIN don't have exclusive rights to broadcast the PL into the MENA region then it means other the PL can agree broadcast rights with others to also broadcast in the MENA region.