Jackie Broon

Agreed. It’s over, move on. It is absolutely not over, the O&D test is still ongoing, Staveley has said that the takeover would still go ahead if it were approved. Every little bit of pressure that can be applied to the PL to make s decision one way or the other could help, it's better than the alternative! The test isn’t ongoing they pulled out of the deal. https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/newcastle-united-takeover-not-yet-mike-ashley-or-premier-league-table-amanda-staveley-plots-next-move-2929192

Agreed. It’s over, move on. It is absolutely not over, the O&D test is still ongoing, Staveley has said that the takeover would still go ahead if it were approved. Every little bit of pressure that can be applied to the PL to make s decision one way or the other could help, it's better than the alternative!

This takeover isn't finished, it might be in a knife edge end game but it is absolutely not over yet.

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m. How's that? Ashley gets the 17m deposit, not them The PL's actions, or lack of them, have caused the consortium to lose the £17m deposit. They would've got it back if they'd refused the test. So they will have a case to take the PL to court to recover that money as an absolute minimum. problem is I can't see a legal case having any legs on the basis of they weren't prompt enough when the PL made clear there is no time limit The test has a timescale of 5 working days and it seems like they've actively refused to make a decision.

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m. How's that? Ashley gets the 17m deposit, not them The PL's actions, or lack of them, have caused the consortium to lose the £17m deposit. They would've got it back if they'd refused the test. So they will have a case to take the PL to court to recover that money as an absolute minimum.

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m.

That problem is the reason the deal is dead. I don't think it is. The problem isn't passing the test. There is no legitimate reason for it not to be passed, particularly now that the WTO report has been appealed. The problem is that the PL have been refusing to make any decision. They’ve probably been doing that because they didn't want to approve it but couldn't find a legitimate way to refuse. Hence why the problem is passing the test. Because the people who need to stamp "PASS" refuse to do so. And this really could be a final play to force their hand.

That problem is the reason the deal is dead. I don't think it is. The problem isn't passing the test. There is no legitimate reason for it not to be passed, particularly now that the WTO report has been appealed. The problem is that the PL have been refusing to make any decision. They’ve probably been doing that because they didn't want to approve it but couldn't find a legitimate way to refuse.

That’s not actually the case though. If the takeover of the bid had been rejected by the PL, then the deposit was due to be refunded. Having withdrawn their bid, they forfeited that deposit. They would have to argue that the PLs actions amounted to an “in effect” rejection of the takeover, as opposed to an explicit rejection. I’d hate to have to make that argument. But they are clearly sowing the seeds of that argument saying that the deal is no longer financially viable due to the delay in the process and putting the blame entirely on the PL. Staveley has clearly shown herself to be litigious. I expect there will be a pre-action letter with the PL very soon, if not already.

Technically that has been the case since the contract of sale expired but the test has still been going on. Staveley has clearly indicated that the O&D test process is still open.

I was thinking down a similar thought process but surely this would have been discussed privately with the parties involved? With the information that’s come out and the consortium seemingly putting the entire blame on the Premier League it doesn’t really add up for me. They seem to be claiming the issue isn’t with Ashley or a second bidder. Fine. They’re claiming they’ve answered every question posed and the withdrawal is directly related to the Premier League not making a decision or putting a date on the decision. So why pull out then in this big toys out of the pram style of demonstration. I’m absolutely no business expert here but if they’ve been involved this long and we’re truly winding down to the last stages here what’s another couple of weeks? All parties agreed to pull out, why? I think I agree with most here it’s a formal withdrawal, there’s nothing for the Premier League to do anymore. They’ve made the process so obtuse and beyond the realms of the O&D test that the buyers have backed off without putting them into a situation where they’ve had to make a decision upsetting a sponsor. I don’t think enough of the focus is on why they’ve pulled out though. The dangling of the unlikely carrot is frustrating by them and another party involved in this with a complete disregard for the fan base. No one has lost more than us during this whole process and when this takeover disappears out of the news by the new season we’ll be expected to lap up the shit football and know our place. Staveley has said the O&D test is still open, the PL have not been formally informed of their withdrawal. Putting out press statements isn't formally withdrawing from the process. There will be a reason why this is being played out so publicly, and directed so squarely at the PL. To enable the UK Government to step in? I don't think they can in any formal way. I think ministers probably already have behind the scenes and it hasn't had any influence.

I was thinking down a similar thought process but surely this would have been discussed privately with the parties involved? With the information that’s come out and the consortium seemingly putting the entire blame on the Premier League it doesn’t really add up for me. They seem to be claiming the issue isn’t with Ashley or a second bidder. Fine. They’re claiming they’ve answered every question posed and the withdrawal is directly related to the Premier League not making a decision or putting a date on the decision. So why pull out then in this big toys out of the pram style of demonstration. I’m absolutely no business expert here but if they’ve been involved this long and we’re truly winding down to the last stages here what’s another couple of weeks? All parties agreed to pull out, why? I think I agree with most here it’s a formal withdrawal, there’s nothing for the Premier League to do anymore. They’ve made the process so obtuse and beyond the realms of the O&D test that the buyers have backed off without putting them into a situation where they’ve had to make a decision upsetting a sponsor. I don’t think enough of the focus is on why they’ve pulled out though. The dangling of the unlikely carrot is frustrating by them and another party involved in this with a complete disregard for the fan base. No one has lost more than us during this whole process and when this takeover disappears out of the news by the new season we’ll be expected to lap up the shit football and know our place. Staveley has said the O&D test is still open, the PL have not been formally informed of their withdrawal. Putting out press statements isn't formally withdrawing from the process. There will be a reason why this is being played out so publicly, and directed so squarely at the PL.

I think your feeding yourself more false hope honesty. The premier league didn’t force them to pull out. Ultimately it was a decision made by the consortium. Probably, but I prefer the feeling of false hope to no hope. The consortium are very deliberately making the point that they could not wait any longer. Also the ball is in the PL's court, it seems from what has been said the process has been left open, if they still don't make a decision they can't claim that the consortium didn't wait long enough.

Torturing myself with false hope maybe, but the more I think about this the more I think it could be a final play to force the PL to make a decision. As it stands, by not making any decision the PL have demonstrably cost the buyers £17m. If the PL had refused the test they would've got the deposit back and if they had approved it it would've been their choice whether to go ahead or not. The PL are now in a position where not making a decision leaves them potentially liable to legal action likely to cost them at least £17m plus legal costs, because they have directly caused the loss of the deposit by not making a decision. Also, if they do make a decision now only an approval could potentially head off that risk, because then the buyers would still have the ability to decide to go ahead. This puts the PL in the position that their best chance of avoiding very costly legal action is to issue an approval as soon as possible.

As I said earlier in the week this could be very significant! O&D test grounds for appeal: F.15.5. the Disqualifying Event is a Conviction which is the subject of an appeal which has not yet been determined and in all the circumstances it would be unreasonable for the individual to be disqualified as a Director pending the determination of that appeal.

Wednesday's WTO meeting could be very significant. There's a caveat in there O&D test for a circumstance where the conviction of an offence is appealed and it would not be reasonable to wait for the outcome of the appeal. The WTO appeal process is currently in limbo so I would clearly be unreasonable to await the outcome. If the PL's issue is that they are taking the WTO report to be conviction of an offence and it is appealed at Wednesday's meeting they will have no legitimate reason not to pass the O&D test.

? I was replying to the The Brittle Waster asking who is on the PL board.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02719699/officers

Pretty serious allegation. Any evidence behind it or just a random thought? Random thought . These are states we are dealing with now not just dodgy businessmen . They will stoop as low as possible and then some - especially given the circumstances of the proxy war between Qatar and Saudi . It be pedantic I believe the proxy war is actually between Iran and Saudi Arabia / Shia and Sunni Islam. Qatar are caught up in it due to their ties to Iran (despite Qatar being majority Sunni). Saudi Arabia probably have far more capacity for espionage than Qatar, hacking Jeff Bezos's phone and email account for example. Yes but the Qataris got into football first the saudis are latecomers But in terms of your random thought, Richard Masters doesn't make the decision the PL board do, he's just one member of that board. I think it's more likely that the PL are just unhappy with Saudi Arabia for allowing their product to be stolen, rather than there being any significant Qatari influence on the process.

Pretty serious allegation. Any evidence behind it or just a random thought? Random thought . These are states we are dealing with now not just dodgy businessmen . They will stoop as low as possible and then some - especially given the circumstances of the proxy war between Qatar and Saudi . It be pedantic I believe the proxy war is actually between Iran and Saudi Arabia / Shia and Sunni Islam. Qatar are caught up in it due to their ties to Iran (despite Qatar being majority Sunni). Saudi Arabia probably have far more capacity for espionage than Qatar, hacking Jeff Bezos's phone and email account for example.

Because they have no legally sound grounds to reject it on / rejection of it would be too politically sensitive. Their only option, if they don't want to approve it, is to delay until it goes away.

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too. You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial. You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial. Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity. I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them). F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction; That is the important part, none of the issues raised in the WTO report would result in anything equivalent to an actual offence in this country.

In his simple mind he thinks so, let's say the takeover is knocked back; there will be an appeal and then a court case to follow before any bid can be even agreed. Not very bright is Mr Edwards, unless he actually thinks the Saudi bid will win (somehow I don't think he does) What evidence is there to suggest that there'd be a court case ? Would there even be grounds for taking it to court? It's the PL's O&D test, it's not British law to the best of my knowledge. If the buyers fail it,and then are unsuccessful with their appeal, then it's basically tough shit isn't it ? I think they could possibly take it to the Court for Arbitration for Sport. Pure speculation but I suspect what may be happening is that the decision has been put before the PL board with a recommendation to approve at least once but the board hasn't agreed, due to their concerns over the piracy issue for which there is most likely no legally sound basis for refusal based on. That could explain the times when it was confidently reported that a positive decision was about to be made. If the board were to actually refuse the O&D test they could appeal. The appeal would be heard by an appeal panel which would be appointed by a legally qualified chairman, rather than the PL board who make the initial decision and, whilst I'm not sure of the make-up of the board, may not be in any way qualified to be making decisions on points of law.

In all fairness the positive articles about with any real substance were written by Caulkin and he’s been slated for it because it hasn’t happened yet. All the other articles were just capitalising on the clickbait. Now it’s far easier for them to generate negative stories. Caulkin has shown himself to know absolutely nothing recently, he's been drip-fed vague updates by Staveley but seems to have no real understanding of or insight into the process and makes out like he's some dumb layman that couldn't be expected to understand anything when called out on it.

Yep. Allowing PIF to work with the gov to handle the piracy and tv rights issues without a takeover going about in the background. There's no guarantee that the Saudis won't fail the O&D test (although it seems very unlikely) and that would involve them upping the amount they're putting in from £60m to £300m. In the case of Staveley she probably doesn't have that kind of money and I don't think the Rubens are interested in being anything other than minority partners, they seem to have been involved only on that basis since the first attempt to by the club. That's not even considering the potential cost of investing in the club to turn back the rot of Ashley's neglect on top of the purchase price.