bealios

It will never happen, but I cannot think of a better signing for us than Declan Rice.

Definitely this. I know it is new to us, but if we are ever going to win a league, there likely won't be a season where it is nailed on in April. We (to be fair, fan base rather than the team) have to get used to working for it and not hoping that other teams mess up. Imagine if we're in a head to head with Man City in a couple of years, where every single game is absolutely massive. It takes a massive mentality shift I agree, consider this training. If we don't make it, we go again and improve, as Liverpool did when they finally won it. Or we just stay consistent, and do it with the points total when Leicester did it. Both are fine to me. This isn't a one off season.

Still some life in the old dog yet.

I think home atmospheres at most PL grounds are lacking, and also think we have a tendency to look back through rose tinted specs, and just remember the good parts from the old days. I’ve been going since 88/89, and I can remember some cracking atmosphere games, but couldn’t definitely say they were better than some games last year (Arsenal etc.). Also remember being some pretty low key atmospheres, even in the Keegan years. Personally think the most realistic way to improve this is with small steps, and you don’t need to be as drastic as forcing people to move. Safe standing areas would be self selective - anyone wanting to move to a standing area is probably more likely to sing. Just start by converting small parts of ground on lower tier to safe standing. If anyone wants to move away, just have them register interest to move away from the standing areas, priority given to OAP/medical need. Have a separate register for those who want to move to safe standing. And then just swap tickets over time. If it works for first few blocks, convert more. Not sure if there is a legal limit, but if you could eventually manage 10k safe standing areas spread around the ground, you’d improve atmosphere - and it would spread.

At the risk of getting carried away post-match, surely he has to be in our top 3 managers of most fans match-going memories? I need to start from the 80's due to age, but I've only got Keegan, Robson, Benitez, Hughton and (sorry, only have statistics and genuine pleasure in watching NUFC for a very short period to go by) Pardew to compete with. He's already surpassed the last two, and unless there is a horrible turn of events, he's looking shoe in for the top 3 this season. Personally I would put him above Benitez already given the way he has conducted himself and just adds a bit of class to the club in what could have been a media shit-storm given our new found wealth.

Would be absolutely amazing if they got Keegan and Shearer involved in some way for the Spurs game. Like a huge cleansing of everything that has happened over the last 14 years. Like others, I was in my late 20's when Ashley took over the club, and now in my 40's feel like that era is forgotten for our younger fans.

Worst thing about living in London. Walking around the office with a massive grin on my face wondering why everyone else wasn't sat at their desk F5'ing. Almost like they weren't bothered. Probably hasn't sank in yet. Even the little things like my 9 year old daughter having the piss ripped out of her turning up on "Heritage Day" at school in a Newcastle shirt in RIchmond being mocked for supporting a shit team by the Chelsea/Manu U/Man City crowd, my uncle giving up his 30 year season ticket because of Ashley, probably the greatest football related day in all of our lives. Genuinely don't give a shit now about winning anything, although it would be nice, but the fact that I might during my lifetime be able to say to my daughter that I wasn't bullshitting when I said this is the best team you could ever support if fantastic. Having played a very very small part in getting rid of Ashley, I'm absolutely delighted. Cans all round.

You're right - that is interesting, on the face of it it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction strike out defence. Although what you/we need to bear in mind, is that whilst we are all thinking that the CAT proceedings were started because it means that the PL have to disclose a lot of damaging evidence to MA, it also works both ways, and MA has to disclose all of the relevant evidence to the PL. What we call a "fishing expedition" in the trade!

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the value of NUFC - it will be to support the argument that the seller (which I think is still MASH Holdings) has suffered losses as a result of the sale not going through. Although what will be relevant is (for example) they have an alternative proceedable bid at £200m. If that were the case, then you would argue that this is the market value of NUFC now, and if the PL hadn't breached their obligations, Ashley would have had £310m. If you exchanged contracts to sell your house in a hot market, and managed to exchange at £100,000, and the buyer pulled out after you signed contracts, but before you completed, and then the market completely crashed and it was worth £50,000, you would have a potential claim for £50,000. Same logic here.

Ha, I'm definitely not - I suspect Chris doesn't spend his evenings catching up on takeover news he has missed!

No problem - I am a lawyer, but admittedly not a litigator or indeed a sports law specialist. I do however work in an international firm, so I have a rudimentary knowledge of how these things work, as when my clients have similar issues I send them to the experts! I also happen to have been involved in a previous purchase of NUFC to a limited degree, completely unrelated to this, so do have some background knowledge - but nothing that really offers any insight into what is happening in this deal.

I read it that the existing deadlines were both 26 May, hence why it was reasonable to give them an extra couple of weeks in the CAT claim.

The CAT proceedings are based on completely different arguments, so in theory it will still go ahead. I'm less convinced personally on the success of that one, competition law and what is unlawful anti-competitive behaviours is very different from what most non-lawyers think is anti-competitive. Most businesses try and harm the competition in the market in some way and seek to advance their own businesses, that's just the nature of business - competition law is geared towards stopping certain businesses getting so dominant that they stifle all competition in the market i.e. Asda and Sainsburys merging, Apple not letting Epic take payments etc. As for whether anything can happen if the arbitration goes the wrong way, I don't know - but I wonder if the CAS route will kick in at that point, which is what Man CIty used to overturn the transfer ban.

Agree with that re Ashley - he clearly wants out, and this is the best possible chance he has of getting £300m +, with a ton of side benefits re opening markets, but if this one doesn't go through, it really is a matter of time. And I've never believed the line that previous takeovers were somehow an attempt to push up season ticket renewals/dampen transfer expectations. He does want out - and I happen to know first hand that he was so willing to get out after the first relegation the price was dropped to £80m!

There's really far too much being read into that judgement - it is just normal procedure, and it is neither good nor bad. The first thing you consider in any claim like this is whether you can knock the claim out with a jurisdiction argument - i.e. that the claim is such that it doesn't cover things that the CAT have authority to decide upon. You would try that even if you thought you only had a 1 in 4 (or less) chance - when you consider the sums at stake, there is no reason not to do that. It means you can try and get rid of a claim before spending time and money arguing against its actual merits. All that this judgement does is recognise that because the PL have arbitration proceedings happening at the same time, which happens to have the same submission deadline as the CAT claim, it is reasonable to think they have a lot on their plate and it would be unfair if they lost the chance to defend it - so the judge was willing to give them an extra couple of weeks. The "win" for NUFC in this is the confidential memo which goes to damages doesn't need to be disclosed at this stage. I know someone mentioned this earlier, but this isn't really relevant to a "win" or "lose" decision, it is something NUFC have submitted to support its claim for damages IF they win. And it probably does contain confidential information for example, Ashley might be saying that if the takeover had gone through, he would have bought Debenhams, and as such lost out on £100m - that's just an example, I don't think that is true! But you can see why any evidence submitted by Ashley as to what he has lost as a result of the takeover not going though is going to be confidential (and also why that isn't relevant to PL's ability to argue why CAT don't have jurisdiction). The other useful information is confirmation that the arbitration hearing itself is likely to happen in July, and it will be on an expedited basis. I know it won't seem like this to the long-suffering members of this forum, but that genuinely is a really short/expedited timeline. That doesn't mean nothing has been happening in the background until now - plenty will be happening in terms of gearing up for the arbitration in terms of disclosure and expert reports/opinions. That tends to be the long part of an arbitration process - the short part is the hearing itself, which in my experience can take a week or two. And then you have a short period of time whilst arguments are considered and awards are made. So essentially on the arbitration both sides are in a final 6/8 week push to put themselves in the best position possible before the hearing, you have the hearing in July, and then you would expect an award in August. The CAT case is completely separate to that - but assuming PL lose the jurisdiction argument and the claim proceeds, you would expect that the PL will use the same argument to extend relevant filing deadlines i.e. they have a parallel case so it would be reasonable to have more time to deal with any filings in the CAT case. It is worth saying that although the proceedings are separate, there is always scope for tactics to effectively link the two. So if (as others have said) the CAT claim was taken on because there is a heavier disclosure obligation on the PL, then it is in the PL interest to push that out so that any disclosure comes much later in the day to be able to assist NUFC with the arbitration claim.

Lawyers typically cannot advertise they are acting for a client without specific consent, regulatory duty of confidentiality and all that. The only way that statement was put up was with Mike Ashley's say so, so it had to be a deliberate attempt to put some more pressure on the Premier League, create a bit of press activity, and then remove the statement. Job done.

Reason this is such an issue is that the O&D test involved providing a shed load of information (including but not limited to financial) on those to whom it applies. Politically, proving a body in another country with that information on a world leader is going to be incredibly difficult. If the state pension fund of Russia (just an example) wanted to buy a club, and the PL said that Putin had to fill in a form and provide all of his personal and financial data, you can see why this would be an issue. Essentially the O&D test itself doesn’t really lend itself to state-type acquisitions. But PL are applying it regardless. My issue with the whole thing is that this is not what the O&D test is for. It should be to stop unscrupulous owners with insufficient funds ruining a community asset, a football club. It is actually being applied here to do the reverse. Samuels piece is complete nonsense. How he can compare an unknown Saudi owner of dubious wealth to one of the world’s largest investment funds with a track record of legitimate investments and keep a straight face is beyond me.

I’m not sure the threat of Ashley legal action will have the PL running for the hills. They’re not really a separate commercial entity - they’re the representation of a club of English clubs, to maximise income for those clubs, and let’s face it, what we really mean here are the top 6 or so clubs. If Ashley claims £100m, it isn’t going to bankrupt the premier league, it would just mean that the premier league clubs will get a little bit less out of the next TV deal (including NUFC). £5m each would cover it. What is it worth for most of those clubs to not have a competing club join the Champions League challenging teams? Whatever it is, it is a hell of a lot more than £5m. Hence why I agree that this is a case of vested interests, and pressure from the top clubs. And why I don’t think this would ever end up in a court. It would settle long before that. Accompanied by a statement that the parties have settled for an undisclosed sum, with the PL standing by its application of the test; but recognising procedural issues could have been improved etc. Etc.

Although I wouldn’t pretend this is my area, there are plenty of legal avenues where one could try and base a claim. I’m not sure restraint of trade would be the right one tbh, but if you can get yourself to the position that the PL owe NUFC a duty of care, and they have breached that duty with how they have conducted the process, causing a loss, then that is one angle. Not saying it would succeed, but sometimes that isn’t the point. Just the threat of a £100m + claim might be enough to “settle”. You’ve also got the more obvious claims if you can show that the premier league is carrying out a public function - which can in certain circumstances apply to private bodies.

Written dialogue with the PL is not going to achieve anything except a polite response saying nothing. As we’ve seen with Ashley, the only way this is going to have any impact is of that fan pressure impacts on revenue. If the 50,000 fans who signed the petition had it in them to cancel sky subscriptions, and a mass boycott of any of the PL’s commercial partners. We may not have a huge amount of options available as fans, but we’re still one of the most watched teams, that’s why we’re on so often. A public cancellation of subscriptions, spamming social media etc. would be fantastic if sky lost 50,000 subscriptions over this - even just the sports part of you cannot bear giving up the whole thing.

There is some law which is (in theory) designed to help this sort of situation. Would be interested to know if NUST have considered the judicial review process. It is normally designed to to cover unfair decisions made by government bodies, but it can in certain circumstances be used to challenge decisions made by public bodies. For anyone who knows real estate, it can be a genuine threat. I don't know how good the legal team NUST have involved is, but I would wonder if they have considered that?

Agree with the overriding of powerlessness. It looks like we can't even blame Ashley here. Worst part about if for me is the other clubs lobbying against it to protect their own interests, and dampen any competition. The O&D test was formulated to protect member clubs from having sheisters and charlatans taking control and destroying a club. That is why the only failures to date have ever been financial. And why we have a ton of owners with dubious moral backgrounds, including quasi-state ownership. Our buyer had funds, a detailed business plan, and unquestionably would have improved the club, the region, and the longer term prospects for fans. If Norge (the Norwegian state investment vehicle) has decided to invest in a football club, not a chance that the PL would have asked the country of Norway to be a director - it is completely absurd to anyone who has even the vaguest knowledge of how business works. It is a deliberate case of the PL bending to pressure from clubs who might that little bit less likely to get a CL spot. I'm angry now, and I hope that the PL, and football in general lose out over this. I hope the next ME TV deal is for pennies, because by far the largest market (Saudi) refuse to let anyone else broadcast. I hope BeOut suddenly re-appear, with public circulation of high quality streaming links. And I hope the Saudis significantly reduce investment into the UK. Madness we can sell them all sorts of arms to keep our less than savoury industries afloat, but they cannot own a football club. which would dare to complete with the established order. And what I would really like to see, and this will be largely symbolic, is for NUFC fans to actually do something about it. Boycotts won't work, too may free tickets and people to fill the spaces. But all fans turning their back on play, every game, home and away, at the same point in every game, would be amazing, and very apt given the fact that the PL have turned their back on NUFC. NUFC Flags hammering home the corrupt nature of the PL. Every game, so viewers world-wide can see that we do not view the PL as a sporting competition, it is a cash cow for a small elite bunch of clubs.

I'm not sure that Golfmag is right in this case tbh (about the fact that the PL had formally approved it, not the other parts). If they had, the Saudis wouldn't have been able to walk away. That's how a conditional contract works - you eventually reach a point (called a longstop date), that if the condition hasn't been satisfied (PL issue approval), either party can walk way, but for that to happen, someone needs to serve a notice to terminate. If the condition (PL approval) is satisfied before anyone serves that notice, you have to complete. That is essentially the legal background to the various claims that "exclusivity had expired" recently - not technically correct, but since either party were in a position to walk away until approval was given, seller could feasibly speak to other buyers, and both sides could re-negotiate (i.e. I want to change the price to x, because if you don't agree then we walk). If somehow the contract allows a buyer to walk away even though the condition was satisfied, then Ashley's lawyers have really messed that up (and I would be astonished if they had because it is such a basic legal point), and I suspect he is going to be furious. My best guess, Ashley did try and re-negotiate, before formal PL approval, which he could do because both buyer and seller were in a position whereby they could walk away. Saudis have called his bluff. It fits his profile, he is a gambler. But equally it could be that the Saudis tried to renegotiate - they were in a position to do so because of exactly the same reasons as above. If it were not Mike Ashley we were talking about, I would have thought that this was more likely - outside of football a ton of deals which had "signed" fell away after the Covid crisis, buyer simply gave up the deposit as it was less of a hit than paying over the market price. Where we go now is anybody's guess. The manorpark in me thinks that this might still go through. PL will not want to take any flack on this, so suspect we will see some leaks from their side about the fact that they had indicated they would approve it. That will really ramp up the pressure on Ashley, and then a deal might be done.

If this does get rejected, PIF probably have enough of a direct interest to appeal, Quatar/BeIn do not. So if it goes through, we're fine, if not if PIF want to push the political angle, they can. It's not realistic in an M&A deal though - likelihood is that if they do reject, they set some conditions to make it happen, and if they are too much for PIF, they walk away.

Honestly think if this doesn't go through (and I still think it will), there will be a sale in a fairly short time frame. Once someone in properly in the selling mentality, it will happen. Ashley has form for this as well, dropping the price to £80m back in 2009 to get a deal done when the £100m deal fell through.