Jackie Broon

Well that's not true, barristers have no choice but to take on a case if instructed, there are only very limited circumstances where they can refuse and feeling they can't win is not one of them.

When has he had an alleged agreed 350 million price on the table? When we had two transfer windows and a full season ahead of us. That bid will not be on the table now, just like he upped the asking price in the summer, their valuation of the club will be lower now. Ashley has shown in the past that he'll gamble on us staying up rather than accept a lower offer. So you’re saying what I’m trying to say that no bid is on the table and is the exact reason why Ashley has not attempted one thing to guarantee safety as he would have if there had been. If this club is relegated there will be no takeover. No, I think there is probably some kind of bid still on the table (otherwise, why hasn't the loan between him and PCP been satisfied on Companies House?). I also think it's probably conditional on survival. I think that Ashley has not done one thing to guarantee safety because wants to pocket the full £350m and is willing to take the gamble that we could be relegated. Which is exactly what he did last season and the first time Staveley bid for the club. But I do agree that there will be no takeover if we go down because Ashley will again chose to gamble on us getting straight back up rather than reducing his valuation of the club.

When has he had an alleged agreed 350 million price on the table? When we had two transfer windows and a full season ahead of us. That bid will not be on the table now, just like he upped the asking price in the summer, their valuation of the club will be lower now. Ashley has shown in the past that he'll gamble on us staying up rather than accept a lower offer.

When has anything Ashley has ever done in relation to Newcastle United made economic or common sense?

Are they not going through the motions arbitration wise? Ben Jacobs seems to think it's underway. Ben, I believe, was referring to the overall process, including the preparation phase. As far as I know, there has been no mention of the actual hearing commencing. My blindly optimistic theory is that all parties involved are now confident that a deal will be reached without the need for arbitration and we’re going to hear the big announcement suddenly in the next fortnight. And Amanda’s name on her zoom screen at the online press conference will be “Cabbage oot”. "I'm here live. I'm not keeping Bagpuss. Howay the lads."

This seems to have gone completely under the radar, can't find any report of it anywhere. This section was added to PL's owners and directors test on the 20th of January, none of it was in there before then: F.24. If any Person proposed to acquire Control of a Club: F.24.1. the Club and/or the Person shall, as far in advance of the proposed acquisition of Control as reasonably possibly and in any event no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such acquisition of Control will take place: F.24.1.1. submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of each Person who will become a Director upon the proposed acquisition of Control; and F.24.1.2. submit to the Board up-to-date Future Financial Information prepared to take into account the consequences of the change of Control on the Club’s future financial position; and F.24.2. the Board shall have power to require the Club and/or the Person who proposed to acquire Control to appear before it and to provide evidence of the source and sufficiency of any funds which that Person proposes to invest in or otherwise make available to the Club. F.25. In relation to any proposed acquisition of Control of a Club by a Person, the Board shall have the powers set out in Rule E.15 and/or the ability to impose such other conditions as in each case it may determine in order to monitor and/or ensure compliance with Sections E, F, G and/or I of these Rules (and their successor or replacement provisions). F.26. No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as: F.26.1. the Board provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule F.24.1.1 and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1; F.26.2. the Board provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule F.24.1.2; and F.26.3. the Club and Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule F.25. F.27. Any Director or Official of a Club who (whether intentionally, negligently or recklessly) causes, allows or permits any Person to acquire Control of the Club in breach of Rule F.26 shall be in breach of these Rules and will be liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section W of these Rules (Disciplinary). Without limitation to the foregoing, where any act of the Club, any Group Undertaking or any Director or Official thereof recognises: F.27.1. any Person as meeting the definition of Director; or F.27.2. any form of transfer (legal or beneficial) or any trust or joint ownership arrangements in relation to any share and the rights which may be exercised by a shareholder, without having first complied with Rule F.26 in full, it will constitute a breach of these Rules by that Club.

Not really their thing, but to be fair to the FCB I've heard he does make a 'kin good cheesecake, he has people queuing round the block for them.

That's just round the corner from where my in-laws live.

Don't know if this has been reported anywhere but I've just noticed that the PL updated their rules on 20th January and have made some pretty significant changes to the O&D test, adding a whole new section relating to people taking control of a club which includes what seems to be a more stringent assessment process and a requirement to agree to compliance monitoring. https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2021/01/21/707a919b-7915-4364-9a96-ad09c6f0e328/2020-21-PL-Handbook-200121.pdf The section Acquisition of Control on page 134-135 is completely new, it wasn't in the handbook published at the start of the season or in previous season's handbooks.

Back to the point about shadow directors and the O&D test, the test seems to be pretty fundamentally flawed in that regard, because whether or not someone is a shadow director can only be established retrospectively. Caveat: I'm not a lawyer, I do have a working understanding of how the law operates in relation to a completely different area of law, but this might all be completely wrong. So the O&D test requires that all directors are disclosed, including shadow directors. From what has been said by the PL and the consortium the only stumbling point is that the PL believe that the Saudi state is a shadow director of PIF and therefore would be a shadow director of the club, and so should be disclosed and subjected to the O&D test. The concept of a shadow director is defined in the Companies Act 2006 (which is referred to the the definition of directors in the PL handbook) and established in common law. To be a shadow director someone must both have the ability to control a company and act on that. Someone could own all of the shares in a company but if they don't get involved in its running they are not a shadow director. To win their side of the argument the PL would have to first demonstrate that the Saudi state is a shadow director of PIF, that is very problematic as it's a company in a country that has no legal concept of a shadow director. If they do manage to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Saudi state is a shadow director of PIF, they would then need to demonstrate that the Saudi state would be a shadow director of NUFC. How could they possibly do that beforehand? From what I understand being a shadow director actually requires someone to act with control over company, so it could only be proven retrospectively. So all PIF would need is a letter from the Saudi state stating that they have no intention to be involved in the running of NUFC (which is possibly what the letter Al-Rumayyan hand delivered said) and the PL would have no case.

In the UK the Companies Act legally defines the concept of a shadow director and it is established in common law. Shadow directors are basically people who are not named as directors but in fact have control over the running of a company and act on that (just having the ability to control a company does not make someone a shadow director). Unlike most common law countries, in Saudi Arabia apparently they don't even have the concept of shadow directors, either someone is named a director or they are not director. It seems like either the PL will have to argue that UK company law should be applied to a Saudi company under the jurisdiction of the Saudi legal system (which I don't think they would be able to), or they just simply have no case because there is no such thing as shadow director in Saudi law. Even if the PL were to convince a court / arbitration panel that UK company law should be applied to the relationship between PIF and the Saudi state, they would need to demonstrate both that the Saudi State have control over running of PIF and also, crucially, that they act on that. Which would probably be pretty tricky for them to prove. I really doubt that the PL do have a strong case at all but their tactic of delay, delay, delay has been very effective.

We know there are a few on here that are convinced we’d win the case because ‘just look at the people Ashley has hired’ and I’ve tried to say this a few times that it’s not as cut and dried as this. The PL must believe they have a strong case and if Jacobs is right that PIF didn’t fully answer the questions put to them then not sure what they’d expect to happen. He also said something along the lines about the separation that PIF has a government website and has government employs so a bit of paper from the Saudi government stating pif is a separate entity might not mean much in U.K. court Our best hope is an amicable resolution/settlement They would expect the PL to disqualify the proposed directors under rule F.1.1.1 F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if: F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has: F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person); If the PL did think they had a strong case they would have just done that and allowed the club to appeal rather than going through all of this. Their only strength is in their ability to delay. I think the legal relationship between a Saudi company and the Saudi state could probably only be a matter of Saudi law, I don't think a UK court could apply our company law to establish the relationship between the two. If that is the case any legal position from a Saudi jurisdiction would be likely to hold significant weight.

The sooner Bein is reinstated, the better. The time it's taking seems to suggest that we're actually seen as a minor investment by PIF rather than being something MbS would be involved with or that bothered about.

The position seems to be more like that the issue of beIN broadcasting could have potentially been a way of getting it through before arbitration, it shouldn't actually impact on the arbitration case. Ultimately that is not the PL's official issue, it's whether the Saudi state should be named as a director. It seems from what's been reported that the arbitration process could conclude mid Feburay / March, in which case the issues with beIN would be irrelevant (assuming that the club win).

He causes me proper pericombobulation like.

I can't stand the way he speaks. Like he's read through a dictionary picking out long words and then just randomly inserts them into sentences with clearly no understanding of what they mean, so other people with no understanding of what they mean will think he sounds intelligent.

He already knows this, it's literally happened to him twice already. He just falsely believes that we'll somehow scrape 17th with a loan signing or two and that what we've seen so far is just bad luck rather than a result of rancid team management. What we all need to do is get behind Bruce 100%, be really clear as a fanbase that he's one of us, we fully support him and believe he can take us forward. He'd be gone in an instant!

Not officially, the PL's official position is that that the Saudi state should be included as a director in the O&D test, although they have refused to actually make a formal decision on that basis. The piracy issue might then become a reason to disqualify the Saudi state, but it's hard to see how they could actually do that within the scope of the test.

Do we know for an absolute fact that relegation is a show stopper ? They've spent so long on this, it would be a decision made on such short term thinking if they dropped it because of relegation. With the right structure and management in place, quick promotion back to the PL could be achieved. Buying the club will be a long term plan so it would appear a bit silly to dump it all for maybe 1/2 years in the championship. They want the club because of it's potential. Relegation doesn't take that potential away. All of the “ITK’s” have stated that it’s off it we’re relegated. Should we choose to believe that they know the takeover is still on but ignore that part? Oh of course not. It's as likely to be as correct as all the other info that they provide. I think i'm looking for reasons as to why Ashley doesn't appear to be panicking. As much as he likes to gamble, I can't believe he (or the buyers) would gamble on this falling through, given how much has been spent on it. Ashley has shown time and time again that he is willing to take that sort of gamble. Should the issues with the O&D test be sorted any time soon I can't see the takeover going through until the outcome of that gamble is known. If he's prepared to gamble on relegation and subsequently the sale, then it tells me that he isn't truly committed to getting rid of the club. That and that he is an utter fuckwit. He's spent the past 13 years doing everything he could to prove exactly that.

Do we know for an absolute fact that relegation is a show stopper ? They've spent so long on this, it would be a decision made on such short term thinking if they dropped it because of relegation. With the right structure and management in place, quick promotion back to the PL could be achieved. Buying the club will be a long term plan so it would appear a bit silly to dump it all for maybe 1/2 years in the championship. They want the club because of it's potential. Relegation doesn't take that potential away. All of the “ITK’s” have stated that it’s off it we’re relegated. Should we choose to believe that they know the takeover is still on but ignore that part? Oh of course not. It's as likely to be as correct as all the other info that they provide. I think i'm looking for reasons as to why Ashley doesn't appear to be panicking. As much as he likes to gamble, I can't believe he (or the buyers) would gamble on this falling through, given how much has been spent on it. Ashley has shown time and time again that he is willing to take that sort of gamble. Should the issues with the O&D test be sorted any time soon I can't see the takeover going through until the outcome of that gamble is known.

Palacio del Conde Gran Reserva 2013 "terrific value Gran Reserva gem from Valencia"

And Miles taking his glasses off too

That may be the biggest problem for you but the Council had absolutely no ability to refuse the planning application on that basis. There is only one person to blame, that's Mike Ashley. Although, the Strawberry Place development doesn't necessarily prevent future expansion of the Gallowgate.

And why is there a £150m loan agreement between PCP and St James Holdings Ltd still in place and not satisfied? Surely if the deal had died that would have been cleared up by now and PCP would have walked away without their £13m deposit that is part of the agreement. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/OC311146/charges

The O&D test doesn't actually preclude someone who has been convicted of murder in a foreign country (or in the opinion of the PL board would have been in this country) from becoming a director. Other than UK convictions with a sentence of a year or more, the test only relates to acts of criminal dishonesty and other specific stuff such as ticket touting.