bealios

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.

The Roma thing could just be a threat from PIF.  Hurry up and make your minds up you bunch of old cranks or I am taking my billions elsewhere. Twats.

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 don’t believe they know anything.

They have never really been ITK, although they have never really claimed to have been.

Also the article is a lot conjuncture of already reported information.

As said, this will have been a case where there are plenty of high profile lawyers putting together the deal. They won’t be including documents that are false or misleading in this, it’s not what they do. They are very expensive and highly rated for a reason, this isn’t Saul Goodman.

 

Is Biffa or Nial one of the lads from The Backpage? If so that guy is negative as fuck, even seeing him makes me want to neck a bottle of Prozac.

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.

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.

 

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.

An important point to note at this point is that nobody here knows what they’re talking about when it comes to anything factual about the deal. Sorry, the PUTATIVE deal.

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.

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.

 

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.

Fuck knows man. 

 

I'm hopeful that Caulkin will hint to the PL checks being completed and I'm also hopeful that both parties might release a statement once the red button has been pressed.

 

When buying a house, doesnt the solicitor hold the funds and transfer to the vendor? So in affect, once the contract is signed and the middle party gets the nod from the buyer. It's no longer in the buyers hands.

 

I'm sure if I was selling, my solicitor would tell me, "its sold, you will receive your money in 2-5 days." Not, "you will receive your money in 2-5 days, then its sold."

 

Basically, what I'm saying is, just because the money hasnt reached his account yet, doesnt mean it hasnt been sold.

 

Does that make sense?

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 can’t see there being no leaks of the prem checks being done though which is why I still don’t think they have passed them.

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.

If Ashley sold the stadium then the Freeman can easily pull the lease.

 

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.

So Mike Ashley who had bought the club 2 years previously was prepared to write off £135m of debt he took on and accumulated and another £45m on what he bought the club for (£125m).  Don't believe that for a second.

He bought an established premier league club for circa £130m. At the time I think we had about £70m Northern Rock debt, which needed to be paid off. At the point the sale was being negotiated, we had just been relegated. Numbers wise, it's spot on. This was back in 2009 in the aftermath of Portsmouth/Leeds etc.

Honestly, that was the deal. As I said above, several parties had the £100m figure, the £80m figure literally came out at the last minute. But it was never £80m plus debt.

It was £80m + new owners taking on the debt.

It wasn't. It was £1 for the shares and £80m for the debt.

By your reckoning, that was £80m for the club, and the debt was about £110m at the time, so £190m.

Sounds bizarre, but £80m was genuinely the price. It was £100m for most of the sale process though, and I'm not convinced that it would have gone for £80m if I'm honest.

It was never £80m really though, was it?

It was. Albeit that was probably (from memory) a one week window. You have to remember back in 2009, none of us had the confidence that if you go down you come straight back up. I remember watching that WBA game first day of the season when they scored, thought we were going to drop again. If we went down next season, I imagine a lot of fans wouldn't be too concerned, given that the two promotion seasons have generally been more enjoyable than anything else.

10 years of this shit:

It was actually £80m for a very short time in August 2009. Bargain.

I was at the same book signing. What a guy. By the time I met him it was already 90 minutes after he was supposed to leave. Delay was all down to the fact he was talking about football and doing photos with every single person in the queue.

If you could sum up everything that Is wrong about this club, and football in general to

be honest, it’s that someone like that is not suited to it.

Someone clarify or correct.

 

Ashley's initial loan was him paying off the club debt because he didn't do due dilligence?

 

So the club value was what he paid plus that loan to make the club debt-free.  What would that figure be, circa 250m?

 

Any other money spent in the interim since then was part and parcel of running a football club and in addition he's had free advertising and, to my knowledge, has had some of the debt serviced, yes?

 

The TV money dosn't come into the clubs value imo as all the clubs get TV money and it is therefore not a special consideration.

 

The reason I am asking these questions is to try and decide if £250m was ridiculously low, or £380m was ridiculously high.

 

The whole lack of due diligence thing didn't mean he didn't know about the loan, it was more that he didn't realise that it became immediately repayable following a change of control. He knew the loan was there, and the price of £135m reflected that loan. If the club didn't owe £100m to the banks, the club would have been worth a lot more.

 

Being very simplistic, you could say that a debt free NUFC in 2007 was worth £235m, but the fact that there was £100m owed to banks meant Ashley was only going to pay £135m.

 

Assuming NUFC in 2018 is being sold free of Ashley's debt, then it would appear that the £250m would be a tad on the low side if you look at it as how much 2007 NUFC should have increased in value to 2018 NUFC, given the huge increase in TV money. Even after the turmoil of the last 10 years, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that a £235m 2007 NUFC has increased to at least a £300m 2018 NUFC. Perhaps more, given that the international TV money isn't going to disappear any time soon.

 

If you look at the increase in value of other Premier League clubs, then that percentage increase isn't a bad example.

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't the huge increase in TV money offset by the huge increase in player fees and wages? Also considering we have sold most of our player assets, that means we will have to spend one hell of a lot just to catch up with the rest of the division as compared to two years ago.

To a degree I think it is, but I think a lot of clubs are a lot healthier now in terms of wages to turnover ratio - we certainly are.