Montey

I don't think there will be a comment in any scenario from the Premier League. They will advise the buyer and seller as to the success/failure of the O&D Test. It will then be up to the buyer/seller to then announce anything and/or launch legal proceedings (it may be that the first anyone would find out about a failure of the O&D Test is someone noticing civil proceedings being filed in one of the courts).

F.C. Nürnberg - yeah, I'm a sucker for punishment.

Exactly, never mind the PL having project restart and the legal ramifications around to sort it out.

Time to watch Companies House again for a Director appointment?

I presume you've already smashed the bottle with the picture of Ashley on it.

Does anyone seriously think concerns weren't raised by other league clubs when Chelsea or ManCity were taken over by billionaires? Heck, those same clubs probably complained when NUFC was taken over by Ashley.

Ashley is going to do all he can for this deal to go through. It's not just about the money he gets from this transaction, it's also about establishing a trusted business relationship with one of the largest investment funds in the world. If Ashley completes the transaction and is considered trustworthy by PIF then he potentially has access to a massive source of funds for future business opportunities. He will not want to be seen as the cause of this deal collapsing (especially not because of some man-child temper-tantrum).

<Can we please take the whinging about the forum and each other to another thread?>

I suspect an increased police presence around St. James' Park will be an indicator of an impending announcement.

Aye but if they havent seen the current training ground that makes a decision quite difficult. They are right to wait. I suspect they would have had advisers that have seen all of the club's facilities (opened every gate, every room, every cupboard). Nobody buys an organisation without inspecting the assets (to over simplify, you don't buy a house without inspecting it first and getting an engineering professional to give you a report). During the due-diligence phase of the negotiation they would have been given access to all NUFC facilities and would have a very good idea of what needs to be done - anyone who's been involved in a proper due-diligence process (not what Ashley did when he bought NUFC) can tell you how thorough they can be. Due-diligence processes can be some of the most invasive experiences of any organisation.

Exactly - that's what's asinine about headlines proclaiming that MBS might order Sheffield United to lose. If that could really happen why wouldn't MBS just order the Sheffield United owner to sell their club and avoid the whole alleged conflict of interest issue alltogether?

I wouldn't be surprised if the government is lobbying on behalf of the deal succeeding. Johnson made promises to the North of England (to invest and re-energize) before and after the last election; having the Saudi's invest heavily in Newcastle is an easy and cheap way for Johnson to be able to say, "see, I kept my promise".

- Horse Punching

It'll be an electronic bank transfer, likely via an escrow service.

In my non-lawyer but well read opinion, any commercial liability (e.g. fines) would likely remain with the club, but any criminal liability would likely remain with the individual.

If Ashley was smart he should have asked to be paid in barrels of oil, given how low the crude oil is priced at the moment. The Saudi's probably would have seen that as a bargain too and paid over the odds for the club.

On the assumption that the Amnesty International and BeIN Sports complaints are actually about what they have presented themselves about (i.e. human rights and piracy) then both organisations are missing a massive opportunity by protesting the sale of NUFC to PIF, hence they are massively misplaying the situation. To my knowledge, there are no large-scale, populist calls within Saudi Arabia to improve their human rights situation or to reduce media piracy. Indeed I suspect, without doing any real research on Saudi Arabia specifically but having observed related matters in other authoritarian regimes, that within Saudi Arabia any criticism of their human rights practices or media piracy is spun to be about external agencies attempting to interfere in the lives of Saudis and consequently it becomes a matter of populist, nationalist pride to tell Amnesty International and BeIN Sports to eff-off (in arabic). As long as Amnesty International and BeIN Sports maintains their current objections it will only increase the inclination of Saudis to ignore their message. The opportunity being missed here by Amnesty International and BeIN Sports is to endorse the sale of NUFC to PIF and to then run human rights and anti-piracy messaging, about Saudi Arabia, in a form that gets it seen within Saudi Arabia. Whilst the Saudi leadership can prevent some forms of advertising reaching their people, they can not stop it entirely. Using the Premier League as a conveyor of anti-piracy and human rights messages, e.g. via pitch-side advertisements at NUFC away games, would yield far better results. Leaders change their attitudes to reflect the desires of their people, if they don't they become despotic and risk a populist uprising - if Amnesty International and BeIN Sports used the Premier League to get messages into the Saudi people, this is more likely to cause the Saudi leadership to change attitudes than direct attacks on those leaders and their investments.

They probably need to get the announcement done as soon as they can so that the virtue-signalers lose any real traction. As long as the impression exists that the takeover could, in any potential way, be impacted then the vested interests will continue their attacks. Once it has been confirmed and the Companies House records changed to reflect the takeover, the virtue-noise will settle down (it won't go away completely, but the news-media will move on).

https://www.arabsat.com/english/media-center/news-press-and-events/corporate/press-release-arabsat In Summary: beIN SPORTS attempted to prosecute a case against the Arab Satellite Communications Organization (Arabsat) in the French legal system and the French courts ruled the lawsuit as invalid. In short, Arabsat was found to have no case to answer - this is a non-issue.

My suspicion (pure guess work) is that they will keep Bruce until the end of the season but they may immediately appoint a Director of Football. The DoF would be someone already approved by whomever they are planning to hire as the new manager and the DoF can spend the remainder of the season laying the groundwork for the new manager.

I'm very concerned at the related article saying Steve bruce to be handed 200m war chest.....as if As I see things, there is no way that Bruce get's handed a substantial amount of money. If they can't get rid of Bruce immediately, for whatever reason, they are likely to appoint a DoF immediately who will control the money. They could then inject the required funds knowing the DoF will oversee recruitment based on what the new manager wants and not based on what Bruce wants.

Should probably lock the "New Member" functionality of the forum until a few months after the takeover is completed. Once the hype (positive & negative) cools down a little bit then open it back up.

Watch this video (10m37s) by a couple of lawyers who support NUFC discussing the Fit & Proper Test and the ability/likelihood of Ashley pulling out. It's very good and easy to understand.

Whilst the UK does not have the concept of "good faith" within English contract law, there are likely clauses in any agreement that the parties have signed that mean if Ashley were to withdraw from the agreement, without cause (that is to say, without a specific and justifiable reason) he could be sued for damages (i.e. sued for the costs incurred by Staveley, Ruben Brothers, and possibly PIF - e.g. the cost of very expensive lawyers & accountants could be millions.) It is very significant that SJHL (St James Holding Limited) has a contractually binding agreement with Staveley because that agreement exists for a reason, and if Ashley caused SJHL to breach the agreement (without a justifiable cause) then SJHL would be subject to a lawsuit by Staveley. He was able to walk away from other acquisition scenarios, without cause or cost, because he didn't have any signed agreements in place.

Knew fuck all until twitter pointed out the CH changes, then it’s now direct sources. This was submitted 6 days ago, sure his direct sources would have said something then. To be fair, Companies House docs are usually reported as submitted on one date, but don't become available for public viewing until a week or so later. I think I saw on one document that whilst the Companies House listing date was 9th April (Last Thursday) the certificate issuing date was 14th April (today). If Friday and Monday were Easter public holidays in the UK (as it was here in Australia) then those two days are only 1 work day apart.