Chris_R

hadn't realised Ashley had killed a man or ran an illegal streaming service. Neither have the PIF directors, the Reubens, or Staveley. Although Amanada is up in court so count vouch 100% for her, but I don't think she has. PIF directors have absolutely killed thousands of people So have our government. Willfully, in just the last 4 months. Difference is, our government have killed tens of thousands of completely innocent people just to save their mates in the city done money. The Saudis probably didn't deserve to die, but unlike those killed by Boris, at least the people killed in Saudi had probably done something they shouldn't have done. And there were way fewer of them over a much longer period.

That's more of an issue, true. Always reliable for the negative. I'm not actually a negative person, this is just a self-defense mechanism - Though I do think the points I'm making are strong, I just prefer to look on the bad side because history tells me it will be a bad outcome supporting Newcastle. If I expect the worst, I cannot be gutted when it happens. Plus the highs are higher, if this does go through I'll be elated, but those saying they expect it to go through will just be relieved. It's a win-win, emotionally. Also expecting it to fail stops me getting too OTT with other fans. I've seen some Newcastle fans baiting others about what the our future could hold - they could end up with egg on their faces and having to eat humble pie. My stance, to everyone, since the very start has been the same so I'm also insulated from ridicule if it collapses.

If money talked that loudly, they wouldn't be so determined to no-deal BREXIT the country. In fact they wouldn't have got behind BREXIT at all. Given that this'll cost the country tens of billions, whilst I'm sure they'd prefer the Saudi investment I doubt our rich, London-centric Tory government will lose *that* much sleep over a provincial northern town losing a few million in investment.

Well we'll see. I'm not going to go round in circles, I expect this to fall through for the reasons I've given. Time will tell. I'll be over the moon to be wrong.

Why does this even matter? The law doesn't need to get involved at all. The directors' test just says that the PL need to believe that anyone who will have influence over the future of the club (Not even as a named director, ie Bin Salman) may have done something dodgy like piracy. Nothing in the directors' test requires anything to have been proven in a court of law, in fact it explicitly states that it does NOT have to be proven in a court of law - Just in the PL's reasonable opinion, iirc. There's no requirement for there to be a legal link between the companies either, as they can just do all of this on Bin Salman as an individual. If they "reasonably think" that A) he's behind the piracy, and that B) he'll have significant influence over the club then they can squash this. A) we all suspect strongly if we're honest, which is - by the wording of the PL test itself - enough. B) is 100% going to be the case, I don't think anyone at all would be able to dispute this with any credibility.

I don't doubt that it's a separate company. It's just abundantly obvious that there's incredibly close links between the 2. And that because of that it may be legally independent, but it's not, in the other meaning of the word, actually independent. Bin Salman's the chairman, ffs. Clearly PIF didn't create BeOUTQ, but I don't think that's being even suggested. But they're owned by a man who might have, which is the issue. And it is an issue, because if it wasn't then this deal would have been done by now. All the "They can't block this" brigade have got their heads in the sand, shooting off such certainties when clearly the PL and their lawyers are somewhat less certain, as they are still trying to decide which way to go on it.

So if they’re independent the PL can’t use the report to block the deal. Yeah, I'm sure the PL will just take their word for it. If it can be shown legally that the are independent then they’ll have little choice, that’s why I fear this will head to the UK courts. You think it can be shown legally that the sovereign wealth fund of the country, whose chairman is the de facto ruler of the country, is independent from the ruler of the country? Good luck with that.

So if they’re independent the PL can’t use the report to block the deal. Yeah, I'm sure the PL will just take their word for it.

So I guess now we know the timeframe for getting an answer on this test?

Broadcasting partners want action on the piracy stuff, they have to take it serious otherwise it could cause broadcasters in the future to not bid or offer less. Yeah it's this. But "action" could take many forms. Blocking the takeover is one form of action, but getting the piracy actually stopped is another which means you've got to approve the takeover, as otherwise there's no incentive for SA to do what you ask. So I guess it depends what Qatar REALLY want. Do they want the piracy stopped, or do they want the takeover stopped? If it's the former, they may need to accept the takeover going through. If it's the latter, well fuck them.

Yeah, if she wins this she might be able to afford us herself when the Saudis fail the director's test.

If it can be watched then someone somewhere is wanking to it. Sorry, I wasn't even aware my camera was on.

I can't wish them anything but bad things, because of how they've acted towards us when we've had bad times. What goes around comes around. Enjoy Burton, again.

Shit player but cost nowt. Don't really know anything about him as a person but seems to like the area and has embraced living here - Though us having paid him more than every other club he's been at combined about 10x over probably helps him like it here. Off you go, I've no bad feelings towards him but don't let the door bang you on the arse on the way out.

And have a beer. This saga has almost turned me into an alcoholic. I've replaced my cans about 20 times now. The other thing which annoys me is the people who post in such absolutes about their own opinion: "There's no way this can be rejected based on the WTO report", that kind of thing, it's just such utter bilge, talking like this when they've got no idea at all what the PL can and cannot do. Same with people who say it'll not pass. This is absolutely up in the air right now. Both outcomes are quite definitely possible and have been since day 1, that's the whole point of having a test. I really hope these same overconfident people haven't been going round lording it over all their mates and work colleagues who support other teams, because they could look incredibly stupid soon. My personal expectation is the collapse of the deal, but that's just because we're not allowed anything nice. That's our lot in life. I certainly would never profess to say I know that with utter certainty based on the PL's approval process or the WTO report though.

- Someone supports your opinion: "Great post mate, really well put, it's 100% exactly like that" - Someone says something against your opinion: "Dunno why anyone listens to you, just a WUM, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about" Given that there's probably less than 10 people in the whole world who know what's actually going on, and none of them post here, the number of people who treat others' opinions with such certainty is staggering. Literally anything anyone posts on here is just an opinion. Nobody has a fucking clue. It's frustrating, but we all need to chill out.

I'm maintaining my stance of "Not a fucking hope in hell this goes through". We don't get nice things. This'll collapse and be replaced by someone with no money like Henry Mauriss. That'll get waved through in about 2 weeks and everyone in the press will fall over themselves to tell us how lucky we are, that it's for the best we didn't get the Saudis and how we should be delighted to have got rid of Ashley for this guy. Then he'll saddle the club with crippling debt, replace the SD adverts with ones for his 2p streaming companies and we'll tank it down the leagues like Blackburn under Venkys. Then everyone will tell us that we should have kept Ashley and "we told you to be careful what you wished for - See, Ashley wasn't that bad after all and you hounded him out!". The script's written. We've just got to watch it all play out now.

Yeah, so unjust to not get into the playoffs when you finish outside the playoff positions. I mean I guess they've had a small outside chance taken away from them due to a global catastrophe, but that's about the most you can say. It's certainly not "unjust".

All these are invalid until the Ashley era is actually over. There could be worse yet to come.

On what basis are we all concluding this guy has no money? Because there's literally nothing anywhere to suggest he has any money at all. If you can find anything to the contrary, please share it. The companies he owns now are 2-bit nothings with no revenue streams as such. He'd be Ashley Mk2, probably renaming the stadium after his shitty nothing brands and plastering us with more free adverts but with the finances of the club actually leveraged against the purchase to boot. Honestly, I'd rather keep Ashley.

The Grauniad and Telegraph are determined that this takeover shouldn’t happen...I don’t suppose the PL would look into American racism or police beatings as part of their Directors test? They won't care about this one because he hasn't got 2 pennies to rub together, it'd get waved straight through. A lot of the protests against this one are as much about people who support another team not wanting us to have unlimited money as they are about actually caring about human rights abuses. This guy is about as able to buy Newcastle as I am, so nobody would give a shit. He'd have to take out a loan against the club value, like the Glazers did. At least Ashley can afford us.

It must be such a relief to them to find the club is finally available after all this time patiently waiting.

Henry Mauriss doesn't have any money ffs. Only way he can possibly buy us is by doing what the Glazers did.

Really don't want American owners. Not seen one lot yet who are doing anything other than trying to fill their pockets. Just be less cunty versions of Ashley.

This simply isn't true though. The French court case ruled that Arabsat was indeed carrying the signal, and they're headquartered in Riyadh. The bit you're citing is that they said that because Arabsat doesn't really have much impact in France, they couldn't award damages because in France there wasn't "clear and illegal disruption" to French revenues and broadcasts. It's not like Arabsat were found innocent, quite the reverse. They just couldn't be sued in Saudi because they were blocked from doing so by the Saudi government, so they tried to sue in France. And although the French court was happy that Arabsat were carrying a pirate signal, the reach of the satellite signal wasn't strong enough for it to impact French revenues. People need to stop painting this like the French court looked into Arabsat and found it was absolutely fine. Yes but everyone seems to be overlooking that Arabsat is owned by about 25 middle east countries including Egypt, SA and Qatar to name just a few. SA has something like a 38% share of the business and is the major shareholder, but Qatar are also a shareholder of Arabsat with something like an 18% shareholding. I would have thought that as a shareholder surely they would also be judged culpable if Arabsat was providing a platform for a pirate signal? Qatar own 9.8%, to the best of my knowledge. But it's moot. The Saudi's plus Kuwait have a controlling majority. If they're exercising that majority, they have some culpability. But you're not automatically responsible for a company's actions just because you're a shareholder, that's crazy talk. I've got shares in several companies but I have no responsibility for any of their actions.