You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course.
Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla?
Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on.
Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations.
Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy.
Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please?
I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up.
Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts?
Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time.
Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/
Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters.
Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer.
So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool.
And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time?
Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it.
Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment.
Who else is left?...
Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy?
Already been answered countless times - because the PL have concerns he will have control of (or major influence in) the club, which is against their rules as a state cannot own a club.
Right, so they want it so they can reject it? So basically they have every right to be asking for this if it's going to be the case (you say it's easily solved)
It is easily solved - assurances have been given that MBS will have no control. PL weren’t willing to accept that, but with the pressure now being applied, it is hoped that the PL will reconsider this stance and accept the assurances they have been given.
He's the chairman of the public investment fund for fuck sake, stop deluding yourself.
Sean?
Penn?
Sean Penn? Hmmm
Do you think there's perhaps a risk that you're interpreting the complete lack of information in a way that suits what you would like to happen, rather than what is likely to happen? I think the public withdrawal from the deal, and then complete lack of further public comment, suggests that the Public Investment Fund is no longer in the running to buy NUFC. You seem to think it suggests the absolute opposite? Hello mate what have you had for your tea? :lol: