Jackie Broon

Extremely flimsy, especially if what Staveley said about them asking the PL to just make a formal decision and them refusing to is true.

I think it's more likely that: a) they couldn't think of anyone else that would take the job, Bruce was their 9th choice or something, when the club were in a much stronger position. b) his past experience is that changing an unpopular manager = relegation, sticking with an unpopular manager = survival.

It seems like it would be hard for the PL to argue that they couldn't have disqualified the proposed directors, rule F.1.1.1 gives them the power to do that on the basis that they have "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)."

As I've speculated before, the PL board probably won't be the ones who decide whether to fight or settle this, their insurers will. This move might essentially take the decision out of PL board's hands.

Yes

Whatever the reality behind the announcement of their withdrawal in July, whether it was an actual formal withdrawal or just a tactic, PIF were back in for the club by August. They provided additional information and Lord Lister was brought in to help. Boris Johnson was reportedly told by Lord Lister on 7th September that the Newcastle deal would hopefully be signed that week, but the PL again came back saying they weren’t satisfied. After which Ashley put out his statement and instructed De Marco. So, after their press release in July PIF have been back trying to get the deal through, there's nothing to indicate that isn't still the case, quite the opposite. It might not end up with the takeover happening, but to say that it is finished is as daft as the stuff from the ultra positives.

Keith Patterson indicated in the NUFC Matters linked a few pages back that it hasn't started yet.

Well, that £13m seems to still be sitting in a controlled account (albeit not 100% certain), when Ashley could have just walked away with it nine months ago, indicates to me that there may be some kind of deal still in place.

But what about the £13m deposit?

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.