Teasy

Apparently the rules change from next season so that goal would then be allowed next season.. but they'll disallow it now already knowing they think its wrong..

Why? Video tech doesn't make decisions, people who are watching the video make those decisions, fuck those people and ludicrous rules that make no sense.

The government don't have to pay anything. They're British companies so a act of parliament can force them to hand over 51% control to a fan group if that's what's decided. I don't think it will be, it's far to much of a far left labour style idea to fly with conservatives. But it's certainly possible to do if the will was there.

I didn't read any reasons at all there why this would be negative to the potential takeover. Only a conclusion at the end, but again without any reason. In your opinion what reason is there for this to negatively effect our potential takeover?

No, I want them to be taken over by someone with the clubs best interests at heart. Someone who will run the club with ambition as a sporting institution not a as company. That's is, I don't care if they spend hundreds or millions extra. As long as they use all of the clubs money, try to grow revenue and speculate a little to try to build the club. That doesn't require oil money, in fact in all honestly I'd rather that then doing a Man City. Because I just think that without the possibility of risk and failure, true competition, then success will feel a bit shite. Of course if given a choice between Ashley's utter death of the club vs the Man City approach I'd choose the later. But my preferred option is honest competition and ambition.

MBS is the head of state, he doesn't need to be personally linked to something in Saudi Arabia to be able to speak about it or try to influence it positively. Whether you believe he's linked to it or not, his legal connection isn't effected by lobbying for it because he'll lobby for anything that's positive for his nation. If Boris Johnson lobbied for a certain industry or added tariffs to protect it is that proof he's directly connected to that industry financially? , obviously not.

OK so we're supposed to believe that currently Sports Direct run the club shops and receive £6.5m to sells Puma gear, as well as sports direct gear which is pure profit. But Mike has decided to bring in Castore to entirely own the shops with nothing at all in sales going to sports direct for £1.5m less.

Same Caulkin who was saying time and time again no red flags. Yeah because that's what the PL were saying.. He's not a mind reader, he can only present the info he gets. Is the fact he isn't a mind reader and so is able to be lied to supposed to make everything he says now more doubtful than before? I don't get it, I mean I knew he wasn't psychic all along personally. So why believe he isn't being lied to now either, and by the way it was the buyers reporting to him no red flags not the PL. You want to believe it go ahead, personally I think he's being fed total s*** and has been all the way through. Why believe he is being lied too? Like I said being lied to has no barring at all on the likelihood of someone else lying to that same person in the future. Especially when it seems obvious it was the PL lying to the buyers that caused this. I've little doubt that the PL were claiming there were no issues. At least right until the end. It fits perfectly with the way the PL were trying to deal with this. Which was to try to make the takeover go away without having to reject it. Just keep saying its all fine, ask more questions, repeat indefinitely until the takeover dies of old age.

Same Caulkin who was saying time and time again no red flags. Yeah because that's what the PL were saying.. He's not a mind reader, he can only present the info he gets. Is the fact hes able to be lied to supposed to make everything he says now more doubtful than before? I don't get it, I mean I knew he wasn't psychic all along personally. I'm sure he's been told by someone involved directly that relegation won't necessarily end the takeover. No reason to belive he's made it up. So the question is do you believe there's a good motive for someone involved to lie about that? If so what?

From the admittedly quick read I gave it the case was about Barclays misleading practices taking a investment opportunity away from her. The judge agreed they had done that, so they were in the wrong. But he also thought that even if she had that opportunity there was no way she could have funded it. So no damages were awarded. Not sure any of that necessarily has any baring on ability outside of a certain level of finance. Might be wrong, that's just from memory.

Not gonna read a dm article, but wasnt the ruling the equivalent of a draw? Barclays were shady but she didnt warrant compensation was how I read it. Aye the judge decided that she was correct in her claim of Barclays wrong doing. But then concluded that in his opinion she wouldn't have been able to leverage that into a major profit if Barclays had acted properly.

Worst insult ever "You're a failed Newcastle takeover head!"

He's had an extra years worth of TV money. Aye and of course the club has run on fairy dust in that time so that money is all his.

If course it isn't. He hasn't lost cases, but he'll have lost judgments as part of cases he ended up winning. What do you think he is like Mr Perfect? Could also be argued this is simply a manoeuvre, which is backed up by the fact its been made public. The chairman now has the question of bias hanging over him, not just in proceedings but publically.

People taking Edwards seriously ffs. The same idiot who's claimed there basically is no takeover is now claiming there is no longer a takeover as news? Which is it?, was it already off months ago like he said or is it just off now?, can't be right both times. I'd guess he's wrong both times. Seriously, people taking that mong seriously just confirms this is the negative takeover thread.

That reads like he doesnt have a lot of confidence in it going through if it does go to arbitration. That's the way it reads to me as well. As I wrote a few pages back, I don't think the deal is really in Nick De Marco's nice safe whole grain hands. Arbitration hasn't started yet because we might lose - probably because it's bloody obvious, and has always been obvious, that PIF and KSA are the same thing. Fortunately, I don't believe the PL could give a mackem's gooch about separation, Kashoggi or anything related to morality. They care about money. The takeover is riding on Saudi-Qatar relations and solving the piracy issue. He's talking generally about the way he sees sports cases not about the NUFC case. So no I don't see it saying anything other than his priority on negotiating to try to sort things out before trial if possible.

Yep looney toons

Burnley owners did not pirate premier league games. So why have the Premier League claimed that what they've done with the NUFC takeover is to protect the club? Because they certainly haven't protected Burnley. Probably because the test is supposed to be about protecting the club in question, but in reality it's used to serve the wims of top clubs and the board.

You are a mad man there isn’t a chance Staveley & Ruebens will buy the club without PIF if they wanted to they’d have done so by now Why would they have done so by now?

No wonder there's a positive takeover thread, this fucker is full of wrist cutters.

It's even worth when there's nothing to distract from NUFC itself though.

If the deal with BeIN is really based on Saudi coverage being allowed then what happens to that deal if coverage doesn't restart? Hopefully some of those conditions being talked about are the PL ending their block on the takeover.

It would have made things a lot "smoother" but it's not dead. It could be that now KSA have the ball well and truly in their court and are saying - get the takeover done, and then we'll allow Bein to broadcast. That's just pure speculation atm but it's a theory that Jacobs has and imo would be a perfect move. If that is the case we can expect Bein to want this moved along quickly. If not then there basically paying the PL to broadcast in KSA, and not actually doing it... Ok, I just got the impression last night that Keith thought it had to happen for the takeover to go ahead. Nothing is going to be concluded until this arbitration is done either way, which hopefully will be by February/March. AFAIR the idea was that BeIN being unblocked could end up making arbitration unnecessary. Wouldn't necessarily be required to make the deal possible as a arbitration panel could decide that PIF are separate legally to the state rendering that a none issue. The panel don't have to take BeIN's opinions/pressure into account after all, they aren't the PL.

Commentator - "Steve Bruce has to work his half time motivational magic"

He's saying that MBS making the public announcement makes absolutely no difference to any question of whether PIF is separate to the government. Because we've always known that MBS is chairman and that the PIF board has some government ministers involved. The seperatation issue has always been a legal one rather than a denial that government has some involvement. Also that the issue with the takeover is believed to be about much more than any government and PIF separation issue. Which is why they refused PL arbitration on the issue and instead went to court. Basically the PIF/Saudi state separation thing is an excuse.