Sean

Thanks! I'll pop this here: I'm really jealous of Rangers now...with any luck it'll be us soon. Where's the evidence? Wow, why the fuck does it upset so many of you so badly when someone dares to state the fact that we haven't been sold yet and we haven't seen any evidence that we are guaranteed to be sold? I haven't even said that I don't think we'll be sold ffs, just that theres no guarantee. Just for you though: https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/commercial-update/ See, not hard to produce evidence if we have it

So there is not even a 0.001% chance that it could fall through? OK then.

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it. This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying. Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football. The only way he is staying is if the Premier League knock the takeover back or if the remaining amount is not paid into his account. He would be facing a massive lawsuit if he 'announced' he is staying when a legal agreement is in place. OK I'll entertain you..show me actual evidence that a legal agreement for the sale is in place that he can't back out of. The document uploaded to companies house does not prove a sale is agreed with no way for him to back out. We are led to believe he can't back out by the same press that has led us to believe he has been about to sell for 12 years. But I haven't seen irrefutable proof of this, and neither have you. What proof can we possibly provide? The actual SPA documentation showing Mike Ashley cannot pull out? Russel's teapot here - the burden of proof is on you. After failed takeover after failed takeover, it would be reasonable to wait for irrefutable proof before declaring that we are sold. I also haven't stated that there Ashley can back out, just that it would be sensible to wait and see how this all plays out. It's Godzilla who is convinced of something he can't prove...reminds me of BZG last year now come to think of it. The fact is none of us know whether it's legally binding for Ashley to be forced to sell or not. But oh no... You are an absolute clown Well if you weren't a clown we would already be owned by BZG...remember falling for that one? Show me where it is legally binding...oh you can't, so you had to attack the poster. Show me where it's not then and the Premier League don't waste 3 weeks going through something when there has been no legal agreement made. As for BZG the bid wasn't accepted nothing more and that's why the Premier League didn't go through the test. You're going to look such a mug in a week or so. Fucking hell man, I have said that we do not know for sure. Which we don't. I'm not claiming either way with certainty like you. It's really not about "looking a mug" as you put it. You've done that repeatedly through failed takeovers already. I am simply saying that we are relying on Staveley's word. Could be right, could be wrong. it could go through next week, it also could fall through. Or have I missed the bit that guarantees a sale goes through and passes the PL tests?

Thanks! I'll pop this here: I'm really jealous of Rangers now...with any luck it'll be us soon.

He's gone: This was the Mike Ashley thread right?

Yes, they replied to Amnesty informing them about the bid. Is the word putative not the thing to take from that? Or by the very fact they replied a good thing? I'm not sure if that's confirmation or not? I'm lost! What is the matter with you all? “Putative” is just a posh twat word for prospective / potential / forthcoming. They cannot say “the Newcastle United takeover” because the takeover hasn’t happened. That, like every letter any big company sends for PR purposes, is drafted by a lawyer. The lawyer’s brief is to ensure that the FA won’t get bitten in the arse / sued. Therefore, the letter exercises caution, because this is a very expensive and complicated thing and there are very strict confidentiality etc rules all parties to it must follow. In all seriousness there must be something better for you available to do. Putative is a posh word for "generally considered or reputed to be" - ie rumours. Lets not just start making things up eh.

We have reasonable evidence to suggest the takeover is happing and is in the final stages. This is from press reports by people like Caulkin who has some sort of line of contact with Staveley, Companies House documents, and of course the Premier League inadvertently confirming they are carrying out D&O tests. As for when it will be finalised, all of this is guess work. The assumption is that it will be announced when the money is transferred over. This isn’t taking into account the possibility that they might try and postpone an announcement to try and prevent people from gathering at SJP or having house parties during lockdown. It is also going by a timeline which is the best case scenario. So last week was when people thought it would have been completed, doing last week would have meant that it was only 2-3 weeks worth of checks, which is optimistic. It also doesn’t take into account that 2 of the days were bank holidays, and of course the process could be slowed by the lack of staff working for both the Premier League and agencies that they may use. This upcoming week represents the final week of how long a test can take during normal times. The tests could be done now, they could be done next week. If they are done next week, then we could still be looking into the week after for the transfer of funds to be completed. You also have to factor in that it is likely that they new owners will want to tell as much staff and players they can before releasing a public statement. We do. The slight concern is we are solely relying on Staveley's confidence. She was very confident 2 and a half years ago and look what happened there. I'm not trying to cause a huge argument here, but until it's done, it's not done. Everyones just assuming it'll go through, but there is a chance we can fuck it up from here. It's NUFC after all.

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it. This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying. Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football. The only way he is staying is if the Premier League knock the takeover back or if the remaining amount is not paid into his account. He would be facing a massive lawsuit if he 'announced' he is staying when a legal agreement is in place. OK I'll entertain you..show me actual evidence that a legal agreement for the sale is in place that he can't back out of. The document uploaded to companies house does not prove a sale is agreed with no way for him to back out. We are led to believe he can't back out by the same press that has led us to believe he has been about to sell for 12 years. But I haven't seen irrefutable proof of this, and neither have you. What proof can we possibly provide? The actual SPA documentation showing Mike Ashley cannot pull out? Russel's teapot here - the burden of proof is on you. After failed takeover after failed takeover, it would be reasonable to wait for irrefutable proof before declaring that we are sold. I also haven't stated that there Ashley can back out, just that it would be sensible to wait and see how this all plays out. It's Godzilla who is convinced of something he can't prove...reminds me of BZG last year now come to think of it. The fact is none of us know whether it's legally binding for Ashley to be forced to sell or not. But oh no... You are an absolute clown Well if you weren't a clown we would already be owned by BZG...remember falling for that one? Show me where it is legally binding...oh you can't, so you had to attack the poster.

Yes, they replied to Amnesty informing them about the bid. "Putative" ffs...that isn't confirmation of anything.

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it. This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying. Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football. The only way he is staying is if the Premier League knock the takeover back or if the remaining amount is not paid into his account. He would be facing a massive lawsuit if he 'announced' he is staying when a legal agreement is in place. OK I'll entertain you..show me actual evidence that a legal agreement for the sale is in place that he can't back out of. The document uploaded to companies house does not prove a sale is agreed with no way for him to back out. We are led to believe he can't back out by the same press that has led us to believe he has been about to sell for 12 years. But I haven't seen irrefutable proof of this, and neither have you. What proof can we possibly provide? The actual SPA documentation showing Mike Ashley cannot pull out? Russel's teapot here - the burden of proof is on you. After failed takeover after failed takeover, it would be reasonable to wait for irrefutable proof before declaring that we are sold. I also haven't stated that there Ashley can back out, just that it would be sensible to wait and see how this all plays out. It's Godzilla who is convinced of something he can't prove...reminds me of BZG last year now come to think of it. The fact is none of us know whether it's legally binding for Ashley to be forced to sell or not. But oh no... Yes, and I'm asking what proof do you want? The PL have already confirmed that this is being reviewed by them, so we now know an SPA has been agreed - it would not get to the PL had this not been in place. That is a fact. What are you implying with that in bold then? BZG didnt get to the PL stage. The PL openly denied it. The PL used the word "putative", so no they didn't confirm anything. Show me where the PL stated BZG didn't get to owners and directors tests? They didn't get that far, but the pl never "openly denied it". FWIW I'M not saying this isn't going to happen, just waiting for proof rather than getting carried away (as has happened repeatedly in the past). And I'm implying with the bit in bold, that we have no guarantee Ashley is locked into a sale. We are trusting Staveley's word for this (via Caulkin). I accept you don't want to hear all this, but we are not sold yet, and we don't know if Ashley can back out of the sale.

We could be. We could also be talking another 2 years though, however unlikely.

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it. This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying. Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football. The only way he is staying is if the Premier League knock the takeover back or if the remaining amount is not paid into his account. He would be facing a massive lawsuit if he 'announced' he is staying when a legal agreement is in place. OK I'll entertain you..show me actual evidence that a legal agreement for the sale is in place that he can't back out of. The document uploaded to companies house does not prove a sale is agreed with no way for him to back out. We are led to believe he can't back out by the same press that has led us to believe he has been about to sell for 12 years. But I haven't seen irrefutable proof of this, and neither have you. What proof can we possibly provide? The actual SPA documentation showing Mike Ashley cannot pull out? Russel's teapot here - the burden of proof is on you. After failed takeover after failed takeover, it would be reasonable to wait for irrefutable proof before declaring that we are sold. I also haven't stated that there Ashley can back out, just that it would be sensible to wait and see how this all plays out. It's Godzilla who is convinced of something he can't prove...reminds me of BZG last year now come to think of it. The fact is none of us know whether it's legally binding for Ashley to be forced to sell or not. But oh no...

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it. This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying. Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football. The only way he is staying is if the Premier League knock the takeover back or if the remaining amount is not paid into his account. He would be facing a massive lawsuit if he 'announced' he is staying when a legal agreement is in place. OK I'll entertain you..show me actual evidence that a legal agreement for the sale is in place that he can't back out of. The document uploaded to companies house does not prove a sale is agreed with no way for him to back out. We are led to believe he can't back out by the same press that has led us to believe he has been about to sell for 12 years. But I haven't seen irrefutable proof of this, and neither have you.

It would be more Newcastle United to announce the sale was off on a weekend when people least expect it. This. The most Newcastle United thing would be for Ashley to announce he is staying. Leaving us all looking like the biggest fools in world football.

Buyers claiming the deal is pretty much done. Ashley leaking that he has doubts. What could possibly go wrong? If only we'd seen this pattern before...

We just have to hope the confidence from Staveley's side is well-placed. She thought it would be done by now so lets hope it is.

<a href="https://imgbb.com/"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/0qbxHsQ/nufc-suits.jpg" alt="nufc-suits" border="0"></a>

I'm pretty sure the lawyers of the buyers knew all of this before advising the buyers to pay a £17 million deposit. I've already pretty much stated that in my post. However, this is a pretty unique situation. FWIW of course MBS can pressure the Sheff Utd owner into doing whatever he likes....I fail to see how this wouldn't be an issue sadly. So he can also influence the management and the players? Doesn't have to, only has to be able to influence an owner. Anyway, like I've said, the papers etc don't seem to think it's an issue. It's just, looking objectively, I fail to see how he doesn't have the ability to influence another (less powerful) prince. I'm just thinking out loud really. Hopefully if it was an issue, he'd just influence the other prince to sell Sheff Utd though Well a few things about the whole theory. He's jailed other royal members he saw as threats to his power, not quite randomly as you stated. Competing against a team 80% owned by the PIF - which he chairs but as far as I can tell doesn't deal with the day to day on anyway, that's Yasir somethingorather - is not a threat to his power. As well, let's accept the PIF is doing this as a sportswashing exercise. Turning around to jail/intimidate a cousin owner of another team in the league wouldn't be very smart. Lastly, as far as I can tell he's chair of the PIF by title but it's that Yasir fella what does most of the heavy lifting. The club consumes our daily waking lives, not his. I'd stake my life MBS is in no way going to obsess as we would if we owned it. Thats all well and good, but I don't think him "obsessing" has anything to do with it. It's an owners ability to influence another owner. Can anybody please give a reply based in fact/law that can prove he does not have the ability to influence another owner. Not stating that he is unlikely to. I have the ability to jump the curb and mow down pedestrians in my car. Should I be banned from driving? It's absolutely useless, beyond pointless, to just dream up scenarios as if just because something is possible it will happen. You have to demonstrate something is likely for it to matter. No, the rules solely relate to the ability to influence another owner. Show me where the PL have to prove it is likely? The answer is they don't. They absolutely have to apply some level of certainty jesus christ Every group rich enough to own a football club has, to some extent, the ability to influence people in other clubs. There might be a pecking order, i.e. watfords owners can't exactly bully liverpool's fenway group, but that doesn't mean it's not there in other directions. Wow Comparing unrelated companies to 2 closely related members of the same royal family ffs. It's really not comparable and even you must realise that. It's not like your royal family, you know, there's thousands of them. I know that, just trying to cover all bases for this going through. He has the power to imprison the other guy though, so I don't see how it could be argued he couldn't influence him. The key being the PL shouldn't (hopefully) be looking into MBS as he's not named anywhere. Unless he is named as head of PIF or something like that, but I'd hope/assume there is enough legal separation for this not to be an issue. lads, we're getting taken over in less than a minute. give ower, man Last minute nerves...I'll stop now

I'm pretty sure the lawyers of the buyers knew all of this before advising the buyers to pay a £17 million deposit. I've already pretty much stated that in my post. However, this is a pretty unique situation. FWIW of course MBS can pressure the Sheff Utd owner into doing whatever he likes....I fail to see how this wouldn't be an issue sadly. So he can also influence the management and the players? Doesn't have to, only has to be able to influence an owner. Anyway, like I've said, the papers etc don't seem to think it's an issue. It's just, looking objectively, I fail to see how he doesn't have the ability to influence another (less powerful) prince. I'm just thinking out loud really. Hopefully if it was an issue, he'd just influence the other prince to sell Sheff Utd though Well a few things about the whole theory. He's jailed other royal members he saw as threats to his power, not quite randomly as you stated. Competing against a team 80% owned by the PIF - which he chairs but as far as I can tell doesn't deal with the day to day on anyway, that's Yasir somethingorather - is not a threat to his power. As well, let's accept the PIF is doing this as a sportswashing exercise. Turning around to jail/intimidate a cousin owner of another team in the league wouldn't be very smart. Lastly, as far as I can tell he's chair of the PIF by title but it's that Yasir fella what does most of the heavy lifting. The club consumes our daily waking lives, not his. I'd stake my life MBS is in no way going to obsess as we would if we owned it. Thats all well and good, but I don't think him "obsessing" has anything to do with it. It's an owners ability to influence another owner. Can anybody please give a reply based in fact/law that can prove he does not have the ability to influence another owner. Not stating that he is unlikely to. I have the ability to jump the curb and mow down pedestrians in my car. Should I be banned from driving? It's absolutely useless, beyond pointless, to just dream up scenarios as if just because something is possible it will happen. You have to demonstrate something is likely for it to matter. No, the rules solely relate to the ability to influence another owner. Show me where the PL have to prove it is likely? The answer is they don't. They absolutely have to apply some level of certainty jesus christ Every group rich enough to own a football club has, to some extent, the ability to influence people in other clubs. There might be a pecking order, i.e. watfords owners can't exactly bully liverpool's fenway group, but that doesn't mean it's not there in other directions. Wow Comparing unrelated companies to 2 closely related members of the same royal family ffs. It's really not comparable and even you must realise that. It's not like your royal family, you know, there's thousands of them. I know that, just trying to cover all bases for this going through. He has the power to imprison the other guy though, so I don't see how it could be argued he couldn't influence him. The key being the PL shouldn't (hopefully) be looking into MBS as he's not named anywhere. Unless he is named as head of PIF or something like that, but I'd hope/assume there is enough legal separation for this not to be an issue.

Site is down. All that money and can't even invest in a stable server, even Mike can get a website live. #betterthedevilyouknow It's a news article pasted to their site.

I'm pretty sure the lawyers of the buyers knew all of this before advising the buyers to pay a £17 million deposit. I've already pretty much stated that in my post. However, this is a pretty unique situation. FWIW of course MBS can pressure the Sheff Utd owner into doing whatever he likes....I fail to see how this wouldn't be an issue sadly. So he can also influence the management and the players? Doesn't have to, only has to be able to influence an owner. Anyway, like I've said, the papers etc don't seem to think it's an issue. It's just, looking objectively, I fail to see how he doesn't have the ability to influence another (less powerful) prince. I'm just thinking out loud really. Hopefully if it was an issue, he'd just influence the other prince to sell Sheff Utd though Well a few things about the whole theory. He's jailed other royal members he saw as threats to his power, not quite randomly as you stated. Competing against a team 80% owned by the PIF - which he chairs but as far as I can tell doesn't deal with the day to day on anyway, that's Yasir somethingorather - is not a threat to his power. As well, let's accept the PIF is doing this as a sportswashing exercise. Turning around to jail/intimidate a cousin owner of another team in the league wouldn't be very smart. Lastly, as far as I can tell he's chair of the PIF by title but it's that Yasir fella what does most of the heavy lifting. The club consumes our daily waking lives, not his. I'd stake my life MBS is in no way going to obsess as we would if we owned it. Thats all well and good, but I don't think him "obsessing" has anything to do with it. It's an owners ability to influence another owner. Can anybody please give a reply based in fact/law that can prove he does not have the ability to influence another owner. Not stating that he is unlikely to. I have the ability to jump the curb and mow down pedestrians in my car. Should I be banned from driving? It's absolutely useless, beyond pointless, to just dream up scenarios as if just because something is possible it will happen. You have to demonstrate something is likely for it to matter. No, the rules solely relate to the ability to influence another owner. Show me where the PL have to prove it is likely? The answer is they don't. They absolutely have to apply some level of certainty jesus christ Every group rich enough to own a football club has, to some extent, the ability to influence people in other clubs. There might be a pecking order, i.e. watfords owners can't exactly bully liverpool's fenway group, but that doesn't mean it's not there in other directions. Wow Comparing unrelated companies to 2 closely related members of the same royal family ffs. It's really not comparable and even you must realise that. Doesn't matter if they're related or not. PL rules don't say anything about relations. Or even what kind of influence. Just influence. Ashley could threaten to pull some team's tat from his stores in exchange for something, boom, influence. Your theory is bad and you should admit your situation. There would be more dignity in it. Yeah so it would be at their discretion, and it would be a very reasonable opinion that MBS could influence Sheff Utd. There is nothing "bad" about that position. Trying to say everyone can influence everyone else as much as MBS could his cousin is ridiculous though. FWIW the above only comes into consideration if the PL start looking into MBS (which they probably won't, as PIF would be named as a potential owner, not MBS directly).

I'm pretty sure the lawyers of the buyers knew all of this before advising the buyers to pay a £17 million deposit. I've already pretty much stated that in my post. However, this is a pretty unique situation. FWIW of course MBS can pressure the Sheff Utd owner into doing whatever he likes....I fail to see how this wouldn't be an issue sadly. So he can also influence the management and the players? Doesn't have to, only has to be able to influence an owner. Anyway, like I've said, the papers etc don't seem to think it's an issue. It's just, looking objectively, I fail to see how he doesn't have the ability to influence another (less powerful) prince. I'm just thinking out loud really. Hopefully if it was an issue, he'd just influence the other prince to sell Sheff Utd though Well a few things about the whole theory. He's jailed other royal members he saw as threats to his power, not quite randomly as you stated. Competing against a team 80% owned by the PIF - which he chairs but as far as I can tell doesn't deal with the day to day on anyway, that's Yasir somethingorather - is not a threat to his power. As well, let's accept the PIF is doing this as a sportswashing exercise. Turning around to jail/intimidate a cousin owner of another team in the league wouldn't be very smart. Lastly, as far as I can tell he's chair of the PIF by title but it's that Yasir fella what does most of the heavy lifting. The club consumes our daily waking lives, not his. I'd stake my life MBS is in no way going to obsess as we would if we owned it. Thats all well and good, but I don't think him "obsessing" has anything to do with it. It's an owners ability to influence another owner. Can anybody please give a reply based in fact/law that can prove he does not have the ability to influence another owner. Not stating that he is unlikely to. I have the ability to jump the curb and mow down pedestrians in my car. Should I be banned from driving? It's absolutely useless, beyond pointless, to just dream up scenarios as if just because something is possible it will happen. You have to demonstrate something is likely for it to matter. No, the rules solely relate to the ability to influence another owner. Show me where the PL have to prove it is likely? The answer is they don't. They absolutely have to apply some level of certainty jesus christ Every group rich enough to own a football club has, to some extent, the ability to influence people in other clubs. There might be a pecking order, i.e. watfords owners can't exactly bully liverpool's fenway group, but that doesn't mean it's not there in other directions. Wow Comparing unrelated companies to 2 closely related members of the same royal family ffs. It's really not comparable and even you must realise that.

Well yeah it's a strange thing to be angry about I admit. That game was unreal, along with the penalty being disallowed against Burton, that season saw some of the strangest officiating ever (usually against us)

I'm pretty sure the lawyers of the buyers knew all of this before advising the buyers to pay a £17 million deposit. I've already pretty much stated that in my post. However, this is a pretty unique situation. FWIW of course MBS can pressure the Sheff Utd owner into doing whatever he likes....I fail to see how this wouldn't be an issue sadly. So he can also influence the management and the players? Doesn't have to, only has to be able to influence an owner. Anyway, like I've said, the papers etc don't seem to think it's an issue. It's just, looking objectively, I fail to see how he doesn't have the ability to influence another (less powerful) prince. I'm just thinking out loud really. Hopefully if it was an issue, he'd just influence the other prince to sell Sheff Utd though Well a few things about the whole theory. He's jailed other royal members he saw as threats to his power, not quite randomly as you stated. Competing against a team 80% owned by the PIF - which he chairs but as far as I can tell doesn't deal with the day to day on anyway, that's Yasir somethingorather - is not a threat to his power. As well, let's accept the PIF is doing this as a sportswashing exercise. Turning around to jail/intimidate a cousin owner of another team in the league wouldn't be very smart. Lastly, as far as I can tell he's chair of the PIF by title but it's that Yasir fella what does most of the heavy lifting. The club consumes our daily waking lives, not his. I'd stake my life MBS is in no way going to obsess as we would if we owned it. Thats all well and good, but I don't think him "obsessing" has anything to do with it. It's an owners ability to influence another owner. Can anybody please give a reply based in fact/law that can prove he does not have the ability to influence another owner. Not stating that he is unlikely to. I have the ability to jump the curb and mow down pedestrians in my car. Should I be banned from driving? It's absolutely useless, beyond pointless, to just dream up scenarios as if just because something is possible it will happen. You have to demonstrate something is likely for it to matter. No, the rules solely relate to the ability to influence another owner. Show me where the PL have to prove it is likely? The answer is they don't.