Jackie Broon

I have followed this argument closely, and you've come very close to convincing me. However, I would suggest that the PL have a strong argument has kept to the rules - because you didn't include the whole of rule F.4: So, what the PL appears to have done is bounce between F4.1 and F4.2 - telling the club we can't satisfactorily resolve F4.2 until the would-be directors complete F4.1 to our satisfaction. A case could even be made that the consortium, if they failed to accept the PL's request to include Saudi government officials to the O&D test, that they never successfully completed F4.1 and therefore all those mad Geordies should pipe down. (Not saying that's my opinion. Just the case could be made) That circumstance is covered by Rule F.1.1.1. 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); By the letter of their rules they still should have issued a decision within five working days. I'm not saying that holds much weight, other than them acting unreasonably by ignoring it (there's no rule that says it will be automatically approved after five days for example) but the rule does give a specific timescale and Richard Masters told the Select Committee that there is no timetable in the rules. That potentially brings this within the government's remit.

No one else seems to be picking up that this could be useful point to raise but Richard Masters may have mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee, and in doing so avoided scrutiny of the Premier League's indecision. When asked about how long the process has taken by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee he said "there is no timetable set as part of the rules". The video of this can be seen here, the specific question is at 1:28 https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184 In relation to the Owner's and Director's test rule F.4.2 in the Premier League Handbook states that “within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6”. https://www.premierleague.com/publications The rule is explicit that a decision will be confirmed within five working days of receipt of the declaration of intention to appoint a new director / a new owner taking control. The Premier League appear to have breached the letter of their own rules by not issuing a decision within that timescale. The stock answer coming from government is that it is not for them to intervene in the O&D process, but the misleading of a Parliamentary Select Committee is a matter for government. It's easy for government and the PL to bat away unsubstantiated claims of corruption or concerns about lack of transparency in what is a confidential process, but this is an actual demonstrable case of the PL not acting in accordance with their own rules and possibly misleading a Parliamentary Select Committee about that.

They can and will just say its a confidential process and they are unable to be transparent. What we really should be demanding is that they make a decision, whether approval or refusal, just a decision.

Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant. That is the test itself, there is no separate rule for those two circumstances. F4 applies to all new directors, including new owners. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but please could you point me to the separate section of the rules you are say relates to new owners? I see what you mean, however I feel the problem is that the league are disagreeing as to who the owners are and who they should be testing. Yes, but then there is a provision for the PL to disqualify the proposed directors/owners on that basis (F.1.1.1). My point is that it is unreasonable for the PL to refuse to make a decision when an impasse has been reached and they've been requested to, more so when their rules explicitly state that a decision will be made within five working days.

Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant. That is the test itself, there is no separate rule for those two circumstances. F4 applies to all new directors, including new owners. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but please could you point me to the separate section of the rules you are say relates to new owners?

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process. So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/07/24/70ec483e-7207-42cd-89d9-576e53befedd/2019-20-PL-Handbook-240720.pdf F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club): F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules; F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6; That’s for a newly elected director, nothing to do with this. Different things. Then point me to the provision that relates to this? F4. relates to any person proposing to become a director of a club, including a new owner, there is no other provisions that would apply as far as I can see.

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process. So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/07/24/70ec483e-7207-42cd-89d9-576e53befedd/2019-20-PL-Handbook-240720.pdf F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club): F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules; F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6;

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process.

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director. I will bow down to a more knowledgable person who can show me in company law where a country can be a director. You are hanging on to this as if it’s gospel when it is so clearly not right it’s laughable. Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

More precisely it’s the whole SA that is subject to the test. Now let’s think, how to prove that “a country” can pass all the requirements? A country? Everyone in SA? No, it’s just the owners of the PIF, the whole country doesn’t own the PIF. There will be trustees that PIF are putting forward but in reality the rulers will own the PIF. So who is it? And why are these people not prepared to take the test. I just don’t know why it took so long to get to that single question. Staveley said PL request to put SA as the director, not just the owner of the PIF. That means SA is subject to the test. You got it wrong Staveley is talking bullshit there though. That’s not possible. She means the government not the whole of SA. That would be and easy win if that is indeed what they said, which they wouldn’t. The directors of the PIF are not the controllers, the SA public are not the controllers. Who pulls the strings? They’ve maintained all along that PIF are a separate entity. As soon as others are brought in to the test it goes against that stance. However, the PL are not in a position to decide who is classed a director or not. But they *are* entitled to test everyone they believe exerts control over the club. And if they feel that a controlling agent has greater powers than a director, then they can request that agent be appointed a director. They can also retaliate if that request is not granted. I don't think they can insist that someone is named as a director as such, but they can disqualify the proposed directors on the basis that they have failed to provide relevant information relating to an individual who they believe would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed (rule F.1.1.1.) However, they appear to be refusing to actually make that decision.

It's telling that Staveley specifically mentioned that they would have got the deposit back if the O&D test had been refused, and now this from the Ruben's side. They're setting out the claims that the PL will face if it doesn't approve the O&D test. The PL itself is not a rich organisation, it has assets of less than £0.5m and a turnover of about £3m, the costs of a case alone could bankrupt them.

Aye, purposefully done. Another potentially huge legal claim against the PL. Is it though? Would they even have a case. Putting my armchair barrister's wig on I think they probably would. PL have refused to make a decision, or even give a timescale for one, for a process that their rules indicate will take five working days, that is clearly unreasonable. Those unreasonable actions have caused multi-million pound investments to collapse and a £17m deposit to be lost, there must be a case there. That's notwithstanding the fact that they seem to have been considering things outside of the remit of the O&D test as set out in their rules. The people that have lost out on this are not going to just let it lie, Staveley is suing Barclays for £1.6 billion ffs, there's no way this doesn't end up in court.

Aye, purposefully done. Another potentially huge legal claim against the PL.

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.