Jackie Broon

Could be an explanation, equally it could be that they're waiting around for the outcome of the arbitration / CAT or whatever else there may be that we don't know about, to complete the takeover if they can. With the jurisdiction hearing at the end of this month and an outcome of that probably by the end of October, I still have some hope that the takeover isn't dead yet.

But they're unlikely to want to keep the companies active, which involves filing annual accounts and confirmation statements, if they are just remnants of an embarrassing failure.

https://www.gov.uk/strike-off-your-company-from-companies-register/apply-to-strike-off

Of course it suggests something, if they were dissolved PIF would definitely be out, their still being active does suggest that they could still be interested. They might not be, but it suggests that they still could be. If their interest ended 13 months ago, as you think, they would have been dissolved by now.

But they will be dissolved at some point if PIF's interest is over, I don't think it's likely that PIF would just leave them as active companies if their interest were over.

While PZ Newco Limited and NCUK Investment Limited are still active I think there is a good chance that PIF are still interested. I can't see them wanting those remnants of an embarrassing failure to be hanging around if their interest in NUFC is over.

I should really have known better than to try to have a reasoned discussion with Stan.

Not entirely true, there are elements of the formal structure of the deal that are public, such as the companies set up for the deal. Those all still exist and have actively been kept live since PIF withdrew. NCUK Investment Limited (PIF) - Confirmation statement made 20/01/2021 Cantervale Holdings Limited (PCP) - Confirmation statement made 09/02/2021 RB Sports & Media Limited (Reuben Brothers) - Accounting period extended 12/03/2021 PZ Newco Limited (PIF, PCP & Reuben Brothers) - Confirmation statement made 05/01/2021 Also the £150m loan agreement between PCP and St James Holdings is still shown as outstanding on Companies House. It's been reported that Boris Johnson was told the deal was days away from being completed in September, well after the announcement of PIF's withdrawal. That is backed up by the summary of our CAT claim which states that "The Claim states that the Defendant exercised its power to block the Proposed Takeover when it decided between June and September 2020 that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a director exercising “control” over NUFC". There is plenty to suggest that PIF's interest continued after their statement on 30th July and nothing really to indicate that interest has ended.

Not necessarily, the PL also have a rule that says that clubs can't enter other competitions without the PL's permission but they know that rule would not stand up to legal challenge. Which is why the government had to threaten legislation to stop the ESL. The same may well be true of the owners' and directors' test rules.

I mean it's not a public process, it would be between two parties behind closed doors. Just because something has been reported or publicly announced it doesn't commit them to actually going though the formal process of doing that. For example if you're buy a house and you've exchanged contracts and you then decide to pull out of the sale, you can't just make an announcement on twitter that you've decided not to buy the house, you'd need to get your solicitor to formally stop the purchase. If you were to just make a public announcement on twitter that would not either formally withdraw you from the purchase or commit you to actually withdrawing from the purchase, legally it would mean nothing.

It seems that's the basis of the PL's jurisdiction challenge anyway. The basis that an appeal could be made is extremely limited, only on a point of law, right to appeal would have to be granted by the CAT or Court of Appeal and any appeal would not act as a stay on the rest of the case unless the CAT or court orders otherwise. If they lose their challenge the PL could not just make a spurious appeal to delay the case.

We had Terry Hibbitt delivering our milk when I was a kid... how football has changed!

I think he is just salty because he / Keith have been completely cut out of the loop, if it was ever any more than him being taken in by Keith's lies.

Only if there are grounds to appeal i.e. they can make a case that the judge has made a legal error, and they are granted right to appeal on that basis. They can't just appeal because they don't like the decision. But, yes, that is possible.

There's been no reason for them to, they can still make the CAT case go away with their jurisdiction challenge. If they lose the jurisdiction challenge the situation becomes very different for them, no more hiding behind a confidential arbitration process and they will be legally required to disclose everything that they don't want to.

The hearing is but there won't be a decision then. Going by other jurisdiction challenges on their website the decision is generally published about a month after the hearing.

Have you been asleep for the past month? My money is still on the PL folding if/when they lose their CAT jurisdiction challenge, which we should find out the result of around the end of October.

Together with accusing the 'mainstream media' and anyone who questions his obvious bullshit of being in the pay of Qatar. He's a fucking fantasist.

My point around the public announcement was that public announcements are not formal. The formal process of withdrawing from the deal would be separate and behind the scenes. That public statement in reality holds no weight and there is no requirement on them to have actually formally withdrawn from the deal. On top of that there is evidence in the documents of a court case, leaks from government and documents on Companies House that the deal was still alive until at least September.

Are you referring to their letter to Chi Onwurah in which Masters said that PIF "voluntarily withdrew from the process"? That letter was dated 14th August 2020, we know from the CAT case summary that: "The Claim states that the Defendant exercised its power to block the Proposed Takeover when it decided between June and September 2020 that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a director exercising “control” over NUFC, for the purposes of the Rules" On 7th September Boris Johnson reportedly had this conversation with Lord Lister: Johnson: "Any news from Saudi?" Lister: "A call is being set up. The Newcastle deal will hopefully be signed this week." Johnson: "Brilliant." PIF clearly were still in for us and the O&D test process was still ongoing until at least September.

The CAT case is for either loss of the sale or loss of opportunity of immediate sale, it also seeks an injunction to require the PL to withdraw or reconsider it's decision. Which suggests their is still the opportunity of selling to the consortium, or was when the claim was submitted in May.

The media only had the public statement from PIF to go on. It's clear that it didn't end their formal interest, both court documents and leaks from within our government show that their involvement and the PL's consideration of the O&D test did continue beyond that public announcement, at least until September.

No, but they clearly were formally back in August-September, after their public statement that they were out. My point is that a public statement is not "formal" and the formal position is not known.

They made a public statement that their bid had been withdrawn, that is not formal. The fact is we just don't know what happened then, and what has happened since, formally but all of the formal elements of the deal that information is publicly available about (the holding companies and £150m loan agreement) are still in place and we know from court documents that the Saudi's interest continued until at least September.

You missed part of their response... "We've checked that Mr Masters was sitting at a fully DSE compliant workstation when he wrote his reply. Fair enough. NUST"