Jackie Broon

If there was no challenge we'll hear on Monday. Otherwise we'll hear by the end of the month. Would fit in with HTT’s claim.... Or someone else has worked out the sames timeline and HTT is gong off that rather than proper intel. But in HTT we trust (in the absence/never existence of Mimms) I’m not on Twitter and don’t follow any other s****, I know I’m a gob s**** and have p*ssed a few off with the 3.00pm Friday stuff but I do genuinely have a source which I genuinely believe is credible and as much as I’m a gobshite, all joking aside I would never mislead people on here other than the 3.00pm s**** which I’d like to believe most in here know is, well, me being a bit of a p*ss taker. I have been told we could see some very positive news by Monday on the legal side. My source works with PCP and another source is high up in government although not my own source, it’s a 3rd party one, but has delivered before and again when this is all done and dusted I’d like to think some on here will vouch for that who I’ve shared info with. Interestingly the 3rd party source is saying nothing at all which leads me to believe we are in the sensitive stage of the takeover where it’s not if, but when, and this could be very soon. Not 3.00pm Friday next week soon, but the end of this month or sometime February? I’m 100% confident anyway... He's done this for years, through previous takeover sagas, he has a 100% record of bullshit. Aww bless him tomorrow when nothing happens and he realises he’s fell for HTT’s pish Followed by Biden's inauguration on Wednesday... poor gullible lad.

If there was no challenge we'll hear on Monday. Otherwise we'll hear by the end of the month. Would fit in with HTT’s claim.... Or someone else has worked out the sames timeline and HTT is gong off that rather than proper intel. But in HTT we trust (in the absence/never existence of Mimms) I’m not on Twitter and don’t follow any other s****, I know I’m a gob s**** and have p*ssed a few off with the 3.00pm Friday stuff but I do genuinely have a source which I genuinely believe is credible and as much as I’m a gobshite, all joking aside I would never mislead people on here other than the 3.00pm s**** which I’d like to believe most in here know is, well, me being a bit of a p*ss taker. I have been told we could see some very positive news by Monday on the legal side. My source works with PCP and another source is high up in government although not my own source, it’s a 3rd party one, but has delivered before and again when this is all done and dusted I’d like to think some on here will vouch for that who I’ve shared info with. Interestingly the 3rd party source is saying nothing at all which leads me to believe we are in the sensitive stage of the takeover where it’s not if, but when, and this could be very soon. Not 3.00pm Friday next week soon, but the end of this month or sometime February? I’m 100% confident anyway... He's done this for years, through previous takeover sagas, he has a 100% record of bullshit.

More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Probably could have but its still got nothing to do with PIF. Separate legal entity which is what do marco is trying to prove. I suppose its a bit like having a limited company over here. I am the sole director and shareholder of my company, i earn its money, i spend it, i have complete control over the business, its direction and its finances. But legally, its separate to me. That's where a problem arises though surely. As the owners and directors test has to find the parties who are have control over said company. With PIF describing themselves as the sovereign wealth fund of the state then the state surely has control over PIF. So it doesn't really matter if it's a separate legal entity in itself in that respect. And there he is! Laugh a minute this lad. Why is he wrong here though? Because, as far as I understand it, the legal position can only be a matter of the law of the country where they are based. It has been reported that the highest legal authority in Saudi Arabia has determined that PIF are legally autonomous and therefore they are legally autonomous from the state. Whilst it may seem like common sense that the state has control over its sovereign wealth fund, it's the law that matters. If the PL are so sure of their position, why have they refused to make a formal decision on that basis? Ultimately though, I think the PL have probably won with their tactic of delaying until it goes away. Even when we win the arbitration case, I doubt it will go ahead unless and until our survival is secured, and that seems very distant and precarious.

They changed the rules after that Doesn't matter, the test is ongoing, directors have to undergo it before the start of every season and can be disqualified at any time if the PL becomes aware of any disqualifying circumstances. The immunity from disqualification from the old rules only applies to one very limited circumstance which is: "the Disqualifying Event is a Conviction imposed between 19th August 2004 and 5 June 2009 for an offence which would not have led to disqualification as a Director under the Rules of the League as they applied during that period".

Even if the issues with the PL are sorted doubt the takeover will go ahead until safety is confirmed now, why would they take that risk with no ability to influence our fate in the transfer window?

How can she be his fake wife? They were never married, he went to get documentation that he needed to marry her when he was killed. Will there be a letter from her? Possibly if Qatar still want to block the takeover. Let’s not start name calling and abusing her. Ok then ffs, fake girlfriend. Didn't Khashoggi's own family say they had never heard of her or seen her before. Ever. Like I said, fake! She was actually filmed waiting outside the the embassy for him, for hours, while Saudi agents killed him and chopped him up. Stop embarrassing yourself and the rest of us with this shite.

I don't think any of us actually know what happened at all. I think we do know what happened, both sides have said that it was down to the PL deciding that the Saudi state should be included as a director (represented by a natural person, e.g. MbS). PIF refused to do that but the PL then refused to actually make that decision official by disqualifying the other proposed directors on that basis. PIF provided additional information demonstrating that they are legally separate from the state, the PL wouldn't budge and suggested arbitration. PIF requested that a formal decision be made, the PL refused and then PIF publicly withdrew. Link? All set out in Staveley's interview following the withdrawal announcement, the PL's letter to MPs and the PL's responce to the Club's statement that they had refused the takeover. Ahh, I thought you meant it had been stated specifically that it was MBS who they wished to test. I guess it's obvious enough though. Yeah, that has not been explicitly stated. The PL referred to an 'entity' and Staveley said they required the Saudi state to be disclosed as director, but I'm assuming that the state would need to be represented by a natural person, as would be the case with a company directorship.

I don't think any of us actually know what happened at all. I think we do know what happened, both sides have said that it was down to the PL deciding that the Saudi state should be included as a director (represented by a natural person, e.g. MbS). PIF refused to do that but the PL then refused to actually make that decision official by disqualifying the other proposed directors on that basis. PIF provided additional information demonstrating that they are legally separate from the state, the PL wouldn't budge and suggested arbitration. PIF requested that a formal decision be made, the PL refused and then PIF publicly withdrew. Link? All set out in Staveley's interview following the withdrawal announcement, the PL's letter to MPs and the PL's responce to the Club's statement that they had refused the takeover.

I don't think any of us actually know what happened at all. I think we do know what happened, both sides have said that it was down to the PL deciding that the Saudi state should be included as a director (represented by a natural person, e.g. MbS). PIF refused to do that but the PL then refused to actually make that decision official by disqualifying the other proposed directors on that basis. PIF provided additional information demonstrating that they are legally separate from the state, the PL wouldn't budge and suggested arbitration. PIF requested that a formal decision be made, the PL refused and then PIF publicly withdrew.

Not necessarily. I'm only speculating here but the reportings of PIF leaving the table were only ever reportings. The conversations have clearly still be ongoing related to this deal rather than another one in the offing. If the PL were to introduce changes to the test, they could not be enforced within the deal from last year, they could (surely) only be for any future dealings. It was a formal statement of withdrawal. Perhaps if they hadn’t withdrew they couldn’t change the test. Also though if they did meet the terms of the original test and the PL stalled. It would suggest the club is in a decent position to undertake legal proceedings for whatever reason. It was not a formal withdrawal, it was a public statement, there is nothing formal about that. They can say whatever they want in a public statement, it doesn't have to be true and it doesn't formally change anything. The process of formally withdrawing their offer would have been done behind closed doors, if it was. The only elements of withdrawing from the deal that would be public would be discharging charges and dissolving the holding companies on Companies House, and none of that has been done. Also, the O&D test is set out in the PL Handbook, which is published before the start of each season. I doubt they would / could change the test without publishing the changes.

The deposit is within the £150m loan agreement between PCP and Ashley that was part of the structure of the deal. The charge has not been registered as discharged on Companies House so it all still seems to be in place.

I’m back in, Ando says it’s all good, that will do for me . Howay I have tried, I have tried hard, but I cannot even come close to understanding how anyone - faced with the facts - could have been anything but confident that this Takeover would succeed. Based purely on the calibre of the people buying us, it was never going to be in doubt. All we have to do (during the current quiet period) as I have said time-after-time on here, is WAIT !!! The PIF have officially withdrawn their bid to buy NUFC. They have publicly stated that they have withdrawn their bid, that does not necessarily mean that the bid has been officially withdrawn, that information is not in the public domain. The 'official' elements of the deal that were in the public domain (the charges on Companies House, including a £150m loan agreement between PCP and Ashley) all appear to still be in place.

I think the fact that the PL refused to actually make a decision on that indicates that there was more to it than that. They were clearly not confident in disqualifying the directors on that basis but did not want to approve the takeover, most likely due to the Saudi piracy issue. If that is resolved their reason for blocking the takeover by refusing to make a decision might have gone away.

That'll be what the actual QCs are doing, I'd guess. The pressure from the fans/NCSL is about keeping it in the public eye and making the PL realise they can't just squirm out of it because there is evidence available that they've not been entirely open and honest in their actions. That's my take on this anyway. But it seems pointless, the vague call for transparency is just so easy for the PL to squirm out of. The PL's line has been 'we couldn't make a decision because they wouldn't provide the information on other directors and PIF have withdrawn now' and the public, government and supporter groups' response was essentially 'fair enough'. They've never really been publicly challenged on that, the PL have continued with that line and it's been parroted in government and MP responses, without question. But it's blatantly contrary to their O&D test rules, which not only allow them to make a decision on the basis (disqualifying the other directors) but require them to have made a decision well before PIF withdrew. A legal challenge of that process would possibly take years and in the court of public opinion 'you broke your own rules' is a much stronger message than some vague call for transparency of a process that fundamentally can't be transparent.

I just don't get the benefit these calls for transparency, it's just so vague and easy to bat away because O&D test and arbitration are fundamentally confidential processes. Also, MP's can't be seen to be influencing the judiciary so it's pointless asking for them to intervene in NCSL's case. Surely it would be better to concentrate on concrete things like asking MPs to put pressure on the PL to act in accordance with its own rules and make a formal decision or on stuff the government can actually influence, like an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.

De La Rue. So it's an actual money plane

Ashley's plane seems to be following this one, from Newcastle, to Kuwait?? https://www.flightradar24.com/KAF3201/26485834

It's legit: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/GMATO https://my.pinkfroot.com/photo/g-mato-falcon-7x

The fact that they weren't confident enough in their position to actually follow their rules and make a formal decision says everything about what is going on on the PL side. They clearly aren't actually confident in their position.

Hall and Shepherd seen the pound signs and knew all the objections were going to lead to a lengthy public enquiry. He went for the quickest option and not the best in the long term in my opinion. There's no reason why they couldn't have pressed ahead with both the appeal and an application for the expansion of St James' Park at the same time. Planning Public Inquires aren't generally particularly lengthy or expensive in the grand scheme of things (unless it's something like Heathrow terminal 5). Generally they last a week or two and having thousands of objections is nothing unusual. That's assuming it would've definitively been refused, in my experience you can never know 100% what is going to happen at a council committee meeting. The fact that it was withdrawn suggests to me that either they weren't fully committed to it in the first place or that there was a fundamental issue that they were advised would make it unlikely to have been successful at appeal. That wouldn't be down to public objections. I think the friends of Leazes Park had the likes of English Heritage involved, it would definitely have gone to government for a full public enquiry. I just think it boiled down to economics in the end and they wanted the extra capacity in the quickest time frame possible. Certainly would have been interesting had it been built, though like most new stadia built around that time it might now have looked dated in comparison to Spurs etc now. No, it would have been a planning inquiry undertaken by the planning inspectorate, although that is an executive agency of government. It probably wouldn't have been an incredibly complex inquiry because the primary issue probably would have been heritage impact only, and large scale well organised public objection is not unusual at inquiries, ubiquitous even. It is possible like you say they just wanted the extra capacity in the quickest time, but why not at least let the application run its course and see what happens? Why not twin-track an application for expansion with an appeal? Planning inquires are not that expensive, tens of thousands of pounds rather than hundreds of thousands usually, cost would not be likely to have been a significant obstacle It's likely that English Heritage would have been a statutory consultee anyway, and they would not have been influenced by public objection to the development. Although, their objection is likely to have been a significant issue for its prospects at appeal. But my point is that the influence of public objections probably wasn't as significant as people make out.

Hall and Shepherd seen the pound signs and knew all the objections were going to lead to a lengthy public enquiry. He went for the quickest option and not the best in the long term in my opinion. There's no reason why they couldn't have pressed ahead with both the appeal and an application for the expansion of St James' Park at the same time. Planning Public Inquires aren't generally particularly lengthy or expensive in the grand scheme of things (unless it's something like Heathrow terminal 5). Generally they last a week or two and having thousands of objections is nothing unusual. That's assuming it would've definitively been refused, in my experience you can never know 100% what is going to happen at a council committee meeting. The fact that it was withdrawn suggests to me that either they weren't fully committed to it in the first place or that there was a fundamental issue that they were advised would make it unlikely to have been successful at appeal. That wouldn't be down to public objections.

The petition didn't prevent that development from going ahead, John Hall withdrawing the application before it had run its course did. Whether that was just him throwing his toys out of the pram or because there was a more fundamental issue, I don't know, but public objection alone does not prevent a development by a genuinely committed developer.

The Foreign Office is a department of government and therefore everything it does is delegated from the authority of the Secretary of State (google ‘Carltona doctrine').

Also seems to confirm that Masters lied to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/event/1477/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/ Q466 John Nicolson: I am told that the Premier League has been put under enormous pressure by the Government to look favourably on the Saudi deal. Have you spoken to anybody in the Government about it? Richard Masters: Again, I am talking generally. During my time at the Premier League, I am not aware of the Government placing any pressure on the Premier League one way or another in relation to any takeover. Q467 John Nicolson: But this one is different because the Government are very keen to keep good relations with Saudi Arabia, regardless of how brutal the regime. The Saudi takeover is different from most takeovers. Are you assuring us that there have been no discussions between Government Ministers and you, or indeed anybody in the league, about this? Richard Masters: You are suggesting that we were put under pressure to go one way or another and that has not happened. Q468 John Nicolson: There has been no pressure? Richard Masters: No. Q469 John Nicolson: Have Government Ministers expressed a view to you about whether or not they would like this to go ahead? Richard Masters: You are asking me to talk about it, but, generally speaking, that has never happened. Q470 John Nicolson: No, in this specific case, has any Government Minister expressed a view, either favourable or unfavourable, to you? Richard Masters: No.

I don't think so, those companies are generally tenants rather than owners of their stores. I think it's more about acquiring the brands and the stock at knockdown price and general dominance of what's left of the high street.