bealios

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.

Knowing a little but about how this process works (but not ITK on this deal), what has probably happened is that the PL have asked further questions on the evidence that has been submitted, and then buyers need to respond. At some point, they confirm that they need no further information. That is a fairly crucial point. It means that based upon what they have seen, they have no more questions to ask. Now that is not guaranteed to be a "yes" - for example, if they say "how much cash have you got to finance the club after you have bought it", and the answer is "50p", they clearly have no more questions to ask. That's an extreme example, and in this case, highly unlikely given the detail involved - but strictly speaking it is not a yes. The likely position now is that buyers have responded in a detailed document dealing with whatever allegations where contained in this new evidence, and the PL have now confirmed they have nothing further to ask. At that point, you have to be pretty confident (although not guaranteed) this is a yes. I think this is where the confidence from the last 24 hours has come from. The time period for issuing a formal decision on the test is probably a few days from final confirmation that no other information is required, and then you have the lag of actually completing the purchase. On the deals I worked on, it was 5 working days from the test being satisfied, so if for arguments sake formal confirmation was given today, you would be looking at Monday 1 June. But I wouldn't panic is it isn't - if the formal confirmation is received on Tuesday due to bank holiday, it will obviously be a week after that. Experience of ME investors suggests you will hear nothing official at all until formal completion from the club - there's almost certainly a clause in the sale agreement which provides for confidentiality until completion, and then they almost certainly have either pre-agreed press releases, or press release subject to approval of the other side (and it is probably the former given the timing lag involved). Just thought this might help a few people wondering why nothing is announced.

Although technically they can't take their money away, they have already paid a deposit, so they are committed until a decision is made.

If you accept that there is definitely a "sportwashing" angle to all of this, then buying an Italian team has nowhere near the same affect as buying a Premier League club. Then again, I would have thought that about PSG, but at least they are the best team in France. Roma are nowhere near.

It's probably the most plausible of all the theories circling at the moment.

I've acted on the purchase of a football club before, and trust me, it is perfectly possible for false or misleading documents or statements to be submitted without the knowledge of the lawyers involved. A lot of the information which is requested is factual in nature, so as a lawyer you're relying on your client giving you the answer. A firm in the City will have absolutely no idea of the historic relationship between PIF/MBS and BeinOut, and they will be relying entirely on what the client told them. So if (just an example, no inside knowledge) someone on the buy side withheld an email which showed some kind of link, and denied any link, but then that email comes to light further down the line, nothing any lawyer could do about that. That's how a lot of these sorts of things come out.

There's a few pre-prepared slots going on now, Greg, MP, fans forum etc. - Jameela Khan and Steve Wraith to come. Fan questions due to start at 7.30, probably going to be a bit later than that.

Incorrect. Exclusivity enables the buyer to proceed for a given period, agreed between the parties, which forbids the seller from entering into discussions with any other parties (or progressing with previous talks from third parties who were interested). After exclusivity expires there is no restriction for Ashley to go back to the wider market/previously interested parties who PCP pipped to the post. It isn't incorrect. Your first para just repeats mine. The point you're missing is that they have already exchanged contracts, conditional on PL approval. If the original exclusivity expired tomorrow, it would make no difference. Buyer has a contract. As soon as PL approval comes through, they buy it. If PL approval was refused, then all bets are off of course - they can proceed with whoever they like, because the contract they have signed can be terminated. Again incorrect. If the PL tests take longer than the period of exclusivity then MA is free to agree a deal elsewhere. For someone who is definitely wrong, you seem to have a very certain way of phrasing things! Exclusivity is exactly what you set out in your previous post. It gives you a period of time to exchange a contract, where the seller cannot sign (or indeed seek offers or negotiate from someone else). Once a buyer has signed that contract, the exclusivity period is largely irrelevant. Ashley cannot sell the club to someone else whilst he has a contract in place to sell to to the current buyers. A conditional contract will have what we call a "longstop date" - a date that if the conditions (PL approval) have not been satisfied by that date, either party can walk away and terminate. Only at that point can Ashley sell to someone else (or decide to keep). I don't know your background Minhosa, so this may just be a terminology think, and if it , sorry for being overly technical, but otherwise you're definitely wrong. The exclusivity is a complete red herring.

That is true, but if you have worked on a purchase of a football club before, you can at least have an educated guess based upon the evidence we have got what the position is at the moment. The only real risk of this deal not happening is PL approval. Ashley cannot pull out. It is more of a risk that the Saudis pull out due to the adverse reaction and possible adverse PR and scrutiny going forward - because losing whatever deposit they have put in this deal already is less of an issue if you're worth $300bn. Can't see that happening though - if only because it was pretty obvious this was going to be the case before they signed.

Incorrect. Exclusivity enables the buyer to proceed for a given period, agreed between the parties, which forbids the seller from entering into discussions with any other parties (or progressing with previous talks from third parties who were interested). After exclusivity expires there is no restriction for Ashley to go back to the wider market/previously interested parties who PCP pipped to the post. It isn't incorrect. Your first para just repeats mine. The point you're missing is that they have already exchanged contracts, conditional on PL approval. If the original exclusivity expired tomorrow, it would make no difference. Buyer has a contract. As soon as PL approval comes through, they buy it. If PL approval was refused, then all bets are off of course - they can proceed with whoever they like, because the contract they have signed can be terminated.

I wouldn't worry about the exclusivity period - an exclusivity period gives you a period of time to sign a deal without the seller dealing with someone else. That has already happened, the deal has already been signed. There's a conditional contract, and the only thing that can stop this happening is PL approval - not Ashley, not expiry of any exclusivity.

It does make sense, but the right answer is the second one, it will only be sold and transferred to the new owner after you get your money. If you were selling your house, you wouldn't transfer ownership until you know you definitely had the cash in your (solicitor's) account. If it has been approved by PL, the delay is probably just draw down arrangements on the buy side, not the banking system (which as said above, can deal with same day transfers). If the majority of the funds are coming from PIF, there is probably a mechanism where to draw down they need to give a certain period of notice. Most funds work this way. I won't pretend to know the Saudi workings, but where you have a condition that might not be satisfied (PL approval) you wouldn't draw down the funds until you know it had been. Also, remember the completion money is probably coming from three separate parties, so will involve a little extra admin.

I did think that, but I wonder if the lockdown affects that? The only people who have been told will potentially be Ashley as seller and Staveley. Leaks tend to happen when people interact, and the more people that know something, the more chance of a leak. For example, the chances of Ashley being pissed up in the West End and telling someone over a pint must be reduced. Also, it has kind of leaked, depending on how you look at the comments from people like Caulkin (who, based upon everything I know, doesn't seem to be the sort of journalist who would pretend to be certain on something to grab attention).

If they have signed a contract where completion is conditional on something happening (PL approval), then it is perfectly normal (in fact almost completely standard) to provide for 5-10 working days after getting notice that the condition has been satisfied to complete. I would guess it would be closer to 5 working days in this case to minimise the risk of leaks. They will no doubt both have a confidentiality clause in the agreement which prevents any formal statement until after completion occurs. Hopeful that the rumours are right that the condition was satisfied in the last few days, almost certain to be announced before next Wednesday if that's the case.

If they've exchanged a contract which is conditional on Premier League approval, there would normally be a lag of a few days from approval coming through and completion happening. If they have brought the scouting staff back from furlough, then that might be a sign they have the approval, so maybe only a few days away.

I can't help but think that anyone in our fanbase who is against this for moral reasons doesn't quite understand capitalism. There is literally nobody who can afford a football club who doesn't have as much of a link to death or general misery than PIF. [Edit] Maybe Bill Gates, anyone checked whether he likes us?

If Ashley wanted to spunk £100m of his sale proceeds on the mackems, he could have them in the premier league in 5 years.

The Strawberry Place development is far from a done deal. Even if it were, developers work on the basis of profit, and it isn't as much as one might think. If we have new owners in the next week or so, they could get that land back for offering about a years worth of Joelinton's wages on top of the price Ashley sold it for. It becomes more difficult when they start building, but before that, you're basically talking about giving the developers more profit than they would make by developing it.

Only if that's a stipulation of the lease, which it may or may not be. For the 2000 redevelopment the club raised around £60m secured on the assets of the club, including the stadium- so there clearly isn't a covenant preventing pledging it as security. Anyway, this is probably beside the point. If Ashley can't see this is a good time to get out and he's getting most of what he asked for, then he's absolutely batshit to turn it down.So he probably will. I had to review the lease back in 2009, and the lease does say that it has to be used for sporting purposes, but from memory there is no automatic right to terminate it if isn't. There was a small revenue share with the council as well by way of "rent", although all of that of may have changed since then. Pretty sure it will be registered at the Land Registry so easy enough to find out. Agree with your point though, there isn't really a better time to get out now - particularly if the current crisis in the long term reduces the amount that broadcasters are willing to pay for coverage. A £340m price will price in significant future revenue from broadcasters.

Got to be Bellamy at Feyenoord. I was at the game for Kelly's goal at Portsmouth but was too young to understand the importance. That Feyenoord game you can enjoy without what thinking what might have been. I genuinely cant watch any of the Keegan era games they're showing on TV at the moment. Bobby era we we were not quite good enough, Man U and Arsenal were slightly better. But mid 90's we were the best team to not win the title. Heartbreaking.