Raconteur

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." Nah, it’s just another shit analogy in a sea full of them.

Absolutely this. It’s like the PIF lawyers read “control” to mean something other than what is written. I mentioned earlier that Staveley has said some questionable things in the last 24 hours, and the “reasonableness” line is one of them. I also hadn’t realised that Staveley approached PIF as investors (which I probably should have) - it makes their walking away more explicable. Staveley and the Reubens might be emotionally invested, but for PIF it’s just another investment.

That problem is the reason the deal is dead. Aye. But this can be resolved. 1. Use public pressure to force PL to withdraw the ridiculous requirement. This is what they are doing. 2. Cut down PIF involvement so that they are no longer ultimate owner. As said this can be done as long as Reuben is willing to. I can win the lottery, but doesn't mean it's likely. 1. The PL won't care about "public pressure" from a number of NUFC fans. Why would they? 2. There was a reason they looked for investment from other parties. It's not going to happen with just AS and the Ruebens. 1. Well I don’t think it is impossible. No harm to try. And as I said this requirement is unfair, as clear as fuck. If the PL bows down to the public pressure, fine. If not, reconstruct the deal. 2. Yea but what I get from ASs interview is PL is asking to put SA as director because “the involvement of SA on PIF and in-turn PIF on the club is too significant”. Which is the composition of the 300m. If report is correct PIF is funding 80% of the amount (I.e. 240m) and thus they will be the majority shareholder. That also means as long as Reuben is willing to increase his shares, up to the point where he is the majority shareholder, the requirement might be lifted. In fact I wonder what would happen if the club changes their composition of shareholders in the future, say Reuben sold 20% of his shares back to PIF. Does this constitute as a takeover and subject to O&D test again? I’m not sure that logic is sound. Whether PIF holds 80% or 1%, there are still going to be questions regarding separation between government investment vehicle and government.

It used to be awesome. Will be a desert with tumbleweeds by the time the league restarts

That’s not actually the case though. If the takeover of the bid had been rejected by the PL, then the deposit was due to be refunded. Having withdrawn their bid, they forfeited that deposit. They would have to argue that the PLs actions amounted to an “in effect” rejection of the takeover, as opposed to an explicit rejection. I’d hate to have to make that argument.

I have to say that I was a disciple of Staveley who believed wholly in the Gospel according to George. But she’s said a couple of things since the takeover collapsed that have diminished her credibility. Makes it hard to cling to her “hope”...

This is the big regret - even if a new Gates/Bezos/Musk bid comes in tomorrow, there’s every chance he’ll be gone before new owners get the keys

So the issue is that PIF is not independent enough from the Saudi State? While that is true, wouldn't the same apply to Manchester City and UAE? Don't really see how our situation is different from theirs. It really did come down to that, it seems. Staveley pissed that the PL “tried to make the state of Saudi a director”. The PIF statement saying it was autonomous. City is different because their state owners weren’t pissing off the PL’s commercial partner at the time of the bid. The PL looked deeper at the behest of BeIn than they did with City, because no one complained about Abu Dhabi piracy. I’ve always been sceptical of the prospect of legal action if the bid failed because the issue isn’t that the PL is not applying its rules properly. The issue is that it hasn’t applied those rules consistently in the past.

Been posted many times, but it’s prompted some thoughts Surely the source for this post is not the guy he named (Bevan?) when he first offered some insight. There’s no way you can say “Person A told me x”, then a week later say “a confidential source told me y” if it’s the same person. Which is probably why the information is different in nature. There’s also the small fact that he doesn’t actually say a whole lot. So still the gold standard, but difficult to make anything of it.

That Japanese kid looked decent against us - first time I’ve seen him, and he looks quite tidy...

Pretty sure it was established early on that requests by the PL for additional information were sent to the club for clarification (i.e. Ashley). Which seems stupid and counterintuitive, but apparently that’s the process.

Don’t they play Fernandinho there because Laporte is never fit? Seems like he’d play a lot of minutes, and at least half as good as Maguire. How many top drawer centre halves out there?

No Becca, you’re not...

I've said for a while now that the PL could and probably should reject the deal according to their own rules. But there is also a number of other things the PL rules should obligate them to do. Like apply the O&D test to Barnes, something I have no doubt has never happened. Similarly, the rules state that the O&D test is reapplied every season - which would seem to debunk the theory that Chelsea is different because the test didn't exist when Abramovich bought the club. Doesn't seem these tests are reapplied every year either. About the only thing this process has definitively proved is that the PL O&D test is not fit for purpose.

Absolutely - he's got the opportunity to grow a little more before making the big career-defining move.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/paul-dalglish-reveals-how-ruud-18668828 Far be it from me to accuse Ryder of gross revisionism, but this is not how I remember P. Dalglish’s time on Tyneside at all. The fact that he spent his entire subsequent career plumbing the depths of the league pyramid suggests insufficient talent had more to do with it than petty revenge.

Marketability shirly Juventus was definitely a cost-cutting exercise - they came out and said as much. Truth be told, looks like the same design agency has been employed to do the Roma one. Flat, bland and boring

I would probably still pick Saudis ahead of most others tbh. If they're good enough partners for our govt, Amanda and the Reuben bros, they are good enough for me. Exactly these journalists now preaching we should be wary of their motives can f*** off. I’d happily see them purchase the club without passing the test, and then just fold the club to f*** off the PL. These journalists would be better off investigating which clubs are actively pulling Masters strings to prevent this and also what extent Bein are medalling behind the scenes. I would actually like this to be investigated - for exactly the same reason I want Hunter Biden to be investigated. This conspiracy theory is as bad as any of Trump’s ridiculous notions... Conspiracy theory or naivety on your part ? I think you’ll find certain clubs hold more sway than others. https://offthepitch.com/a/manchester-united-and-liverpool-given-special-access-vet-chief-executive-candidates Conspiracy theory, and a stupid one.

I would probably still pick Saudis ahead of most others tbh. If they're good enough partners for our govt, Amanda and the Reuben bros, they are good enough for me. Exactly these journalists now preaching we should be wary of their motives can fuck off. I’d happily see them purchase the club without passing the test, and then just fold the club to fuck off the PL. These journalists would be better off investigating which clubs are actively pulling Masters strings to prevent this and also what extent Bein are medalling behind the scenes. I would actually like this to be investigated - for exactly the same reason I want Hunter Biden to be investigated. This conspiracy theory is as bad as any of Trump’s ridiculous notions...

The only way to ever improve the world we live in is to (how can I put it) 'embrace' and 'deal and communicate' with rulers and countries that are currently like Saudi Arabia, there are plenty of them. A huge way to achieve our objectives with these countries is to trade with them (ideally not weapons!) and something like 'world sport' is a very good way to get/keep this process going. If we as a country reject these people, then they (and the fate of their people) will never improve. Forgive me, but that’s a mite paternalistic, not to mention entirely false. The only way to improve the world is to eat all the capitalists.

Don’t think he’s the sort of player we should be after if the takeover goes through. He’s all set up to be Nicky Butt Mk II

With the window open, I wonder if there’s any prospect of someone coming in and swooping for one of our players in the very short term? In fact, if he wanted to try and force the PL’s hand, he could have one of his chairman buddies “bid” for one of our players. That would give Ashley a lot of leverage to demand a quicker resolution. There’s actually quite a bit of shithousery that Ashley could still do to the club - that he hasn’t means he thinks it might still resolve positively. Right?

I think AB is correct to say “Well, what about Man City?” I guess the difference is that our would-be owners are antagonising the rights holder around the time of the takeover, so Qatar is flexing its muscles. Did they have such a motivation to stop the City takeover at the time?

Didn't they say Al Rummayan would be chairman from the off? Not sure why that should be an issue or why the PL wouldn't allow someone from PIF to be involved? 'You can pay the money but can't get involved' doesn't seem right. A while back someone in here mentioned that in the tests they look into/need details of anyone who could potentially have an influence on the things going forward, I'm assuming this is just an extension of that part of the test as PIF are huge and I Imagine it's massively complicated (not to mention fuckin stupid considering it could include shit loads of people). I'm probably over-simplifying it. That would (probably) be me - because I'm sick to the back teeth of people making silly or overly-simplistic arguments. I've posted the following at least three times, because a lot of people just don't get it:

Seems to be entirely consistent with his account of events. The PL keep asking questions that the Bidders can’t provide (according to the EPL) sufficient answers to in order for them to make a decision. Given that they were (we’re led to understand) provided with details of the structure of the consortium when the bid was sent for approval months ago, It seems questionable whether they’ll ever achieve enough clarity to make a decision either way or more cynically, are simply trying to engineer a situation that will enable them to “legitimately” reject it. Surely it’s inconceivable to imagine the Quataries to have unduly influenced proceedings cos it’s not like they’ve got form for that sort of thing. It seems to me that the issue is that the O&D test applies to everyone that has “control” over the club’s affairs (“control” as defined very specifically in the O&D test) Perhaps the initial bid and paperwork included the owners and directors, but didn’t apply a broad definition to who might have control at the club? The PL then goes back to the consortium and says “What about the King’s son, and the Undersecretary for Piracy and the Minister for Baby Killing? Prove they won’t have influence over the club or, if not, they have to submit to the O&D test.” Consortium “Er...” *100 days later* “Er...” If that’s the case, how do you prove that? In realty, you can only prove (and demonstrate) if you have influence and make decisions you can’t prove that you don’t, can you? Exactly the problem - Saudi Arabia can’t prove a negative, and don’t seem willing to submit government officials to the O&D test.