Jackie Broon

The £150m amount is at para 4.14.5 How would anyone outside of the deal know there is any outstanding loan balance? It requires a deposit of £13m to be paid (para 5.11), which it's suggested above is the much talked about deposit that was paid by the consortium to Ashley. If it is unsatisfied doesn't that mean that the deposit will still be sitting in the controlled account? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's clearly something you know more about than me, just asking out of interest

What is it then? Here's a solicitor off of twitter's take: The ‘New Loan’: the position with the new loan is unclear. The Daily Express already reported this. It’s titled a “vendor loan” but the reality may be different. Our view is Ashley is putting the facility in place via St James’ Holdings to represent his existing £150m loan. The wording of the charge suggests that Ashley, via St James Holdings, will retain security over a specific bank account. It would seem that Ashley will finance the purchase initially (as otherwise it becomes complex to redeem his investment) and then Cantervale / JV1 will deposit £150m in the relevant bank account and the facility is immediately at an end. This approach would also explain why the deal was initially reported as being comprised of a £150m deposit and £200 of debt. There is a clause in the ‘new loan’ that the account doesn’t drop below 13m. This likely represents the 5% deposit that has been reported and would support our view that Whatever it is, it's still there and unsatisfied nine months after the sale supposedly collapsed.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/OC311146/charges/NajlYnFJqeQExM8atpduvlV3AwQ

Fair enough, but you asked for evidence that the agreement might still be in place, there is evidence in the form a a £150m loan between PCP and Ashley which is extant on Companies House. Al-Rumayyan personally delivered documents to the PL in the autumn, after PIF had publicly withdrawn. Why would PIF bother doing that unless they were still intending to purchase the club? It has been reported that Ashley has refused to even answer the phone other potential buyers since then. Why would he do that unless he has some sort of commitment from PIF? I'm not saying that is the case, and I'm not in the blindly optimistic camp, but there are things that point towards the possibility that the agreement to buy the club might have been extended after the public withdrawal of PIF in July.

The club was sold subject to the O&D test being successfully completed within a certain timescale, if that had happened the sale would have then completed.

Well PCP do still have a £150m loan agreement in place with Mike Ashley. That was part of a legally binding agreement to complete the purchase of the club if the PL O&D test process was concluded successfully by a certain date, which then went on to expire. For all we know that agreement could have been renewed subject to, say, the outcome of the arbitration and PL status being secured.

That seems vanishingly unlikely since that we know the arbitration is determining whether or not the KSA meets the definition of taking control of the club and therefore should be included as a director. I'm pretty sure that the PL acknowledged in one of their statements that all of the proposed directors pass the test, it's only a matter of whether the KSA should be included as a director and undergo the test.

At this point of the season you can never predict results. Teams with nothing left to play for switch off, teams that are already relegated have a weight lifted off their shoulders and their players a few games in the shop window to sell themselves, teams just above the relegation zone get nervous or complacent and teams fighting to get out of the relegation zone find a bit extra.

Mark Lane of off Gardeners' World, with Persian cat on his lap.

I'm just speculating on the original question of why release it and not use it for the arbitration. If it were information that has come from something like hacking it couldn't be admitted as evidence in the arbitration. As to why Keith / Shields Gazette? There aren't many/any other media sources that are pro the takeover.

You joke but corporate espionage is a huge part of what modern security services do. Like I said, all just pure speculation, we don't know what the story is yet, but if you think that it's in the realms of fantasy to think it possible that something deemed important enough for their de facto head of state to ask our prime minister to intervene in could involve their security services, you're being naive.

Well, its all just speculation right now because we don't actually know what the story is, never mind what it is based on, but the Saudis had Jeff Bezos's phone hacked for months without him knowing, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the Saudi security service have been surveilling Masters and Hoffman and the results have fallen into Keith's hands.

I think if the messages have been have been acquired by nefarious means they would be inadmissible.

WheyAyeLeaks

Whist that's technically true, IIRC the PL have already said that all of the disclosed directors pass the test so it would just be a formality if the arbitration concludes that the KSA do not need to be disclosed as a director, which will be the fundamental question they are considering.

Interesting updates on Companies House, a new director appointed to both JV1 Ltd and RB Sports and Media Ltd https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12419163/filing-history https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417560/filing-history Edit: the change was made on 18th December so probably nothing.

Seems like it's possibly going to be evidence showing that they knew about the plans for the SL and/or Project Big Picture.

And he's got loads demonstrably and comically wrong.

I think what he is actually saying is 'I've not said anything about KSA money being behind the Super League, killing the NUFC deal, but KSA money was behind Infantino's 2019 CWC plan'. It was just confusingly written. Although, he then goes on to completely contradict himself by saying the SL would have been KSA backed.

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

There's only a hitch because they wanted one and they wanted one partly because the big 6 don't want the competition and partly because of the beIN piracy issue. In the other similar case of being faced with a legal loophole obscuring the real owner of Crystal Palace they've just said 'fair enough', when they could and should by their rules have disqualified the directors for failing to provide that information. Although issues still remain to be fully resolved beIN have clearly mellowed in their stance because we're not getting the negativity from people connected to them that we were before, so if the big 6's influence has been affected by this it could potentially pave the way to the PL saying 'fair enough' and settling our case.

It'll be more than that and IIRC Usmanov has been wanting to take full control for ages but has been resisted by Kroenke.

I'd love to see them go but it's not going to happen. Even if it were to it would be completely unviable for them they would leave this SL before they would leave the PL. If the SL does go ahead with them they will still be in the PL. (Btw, I didn't see the context of the original post because the new forum's quote system, I don't agree that them leaving would kill the PL, but I do think them being in the SL would)

There's not a chance that those six will be kicked out of the PL though. They will have an even more huge financial advantage, there will be nothing really for ever other club to play for and the PL will be devalued overall so incomes will drop even further for every other club.