Sean

What the fucks been going on in here :lol:

Thanks for the replies lads

NUFC will not be owned by any one individual like now, it will be held in a holding company much like MASH Holdings or whatever its called, but money paid for the ownership of NUFC will come from various sources and not one man like Ashley that do not have to become public knowledge and may never. I imagine Stavely will be the Director of the holding company and NUFC will get a board with the real owners never fully becoming known. Basically the club will become an investment vehicle held by a company being fed by investors. Its all a bit shady, but not illegal. The higher up the business chain the more myriad it can be for tax reasons, to protect individuals and how they invest, why and whom to or what. Mike Ashley owns us now, but after the takeover no-one will own us. There will be no shareholders, just investors getting rid of money... Thanks, so the answer as to what needs to be made public and when is? When money gets paid to the holding company? (Guessing not), when they pay money to Ashley to purchase the club? (guessing this bit may need to be public as its a PLC?) or what stage things would need to be out there. Holding company is fed money from PCP's partners who in turn gives Mike Ashley his money with the holding company, well holding NUFC and all its assets on behalf of PCP's partners or rather investors. Can this all be done without any sort of business announcement being made? I know if we were on the stock exchange etc then an announcement would be needed, just not sure under our current ownership structure if legally something has to be said? A record at companies house will have to be made that MASH no longer has any controlling interest in NUFC with the name of the new holding company named in the records. That is all that is needed pretty much. You wont see the head of the Saudi family down as a director or anything for example It will be AS the director of the holding company along with her bloke and then its anyone's guess as to who owns us really...

NUFC will not be owned by any one individual like now, it will be held in a holding company much like MASH Holdings or whatever its called, but money paid for the ownership of NUFC will come from various sources and not one man like Ashley that do not have to become public knowledge and may never. I imagine Stavely will be the Director of the holding company and NUFC will get a board with the real owners never fully becoming known. Basically the club will become an investment vehicle held by a company being fed by investors. Its all a bit shady, but not illegal. The higher up the business chain the more myriad it can be for tax reasons, to protect individuals and how they invest, why and whom to or what. Mike Ashley owns us now, but after the takeover no-one will own us. There will be no shareholders, just investors getting rid of money... Thanks, so the answer as to what needs to be made public and when is? When money gets paid to the holding company? (Guessing not), when they pay money to Ashley to purchase the club? (guessing this bit may need to be public as its a PLC?) or what stage things would need to be out there. Holding company is fed money from PCP's partners who in turn gives Mike Ashley his money with the holding company, well holding NUFC and all its assets on behalf of PCP's partners or rather investors. Can this all be done without any sort of business announcement being made? I know if we were on the stock exchange etc then an announcement would be needed, just not sure under our current ownership structure if legally something has to be said?

NUFC will not be owned by any one individual like now, it will be held in a holding company much like MASH Holdings or whatever its called, but money paid for the ownership of NUFC will come from various sources and not one man like Ashley that do not have to become public knowledge and may never. I imagine Stavely will be the Director of the holding company and NUFC will get a board with the real owners never fully becoming known. Basically the club will become an investment vehicle held by a company being fed by investors. Its all a bit shady, but not illegal. The higher up the business chain the more myriad it can be for tax reasons, to protect individuals and how they invest, why and whom to or what. Mike Ashley owns us now, but after the takeover no-one will own us. There will be no shareholders, just investors getting rid of money... Thanks, so the answer as to what needs to be made public and when is? When money gets paid to the holding company? (Guessing not), when they pay money to Ashley to purchase the club? (guessing this bit may need to be public as its a PLC?) or what stage things would need to be out there.

Kind of There would be no need for a public announcement, but the change in ownership will be on public record. I doubt a deal of this size or in football in general would escape the news cycles even if the parties tried to keep it quiet Cheers. My gut feeling is that the journalists only know what people close to the deal want them to know - hence them all running the "close to a breakthrough" story a month ago. Just gonna hope for the best.

Question for anyone who knows what they're talking about in terms of business acquisitions etc... Say the company is for us, if lets say a Saudi prince transferred £300 million to it, and then it paid that to Ashley, would any of this have to be in the public domain? Or not?

Has he not lost the plot there? As its not really owned outright by Ashley but through St James Holdings?

Same here, I want to be positive. If it all falls to pieces then Rafa leaves and the club dies anyway so fuck it.

And IF she was creating a company to finalise the purchase, then all the information coming out in regards this new company fits that narrative tbh.

Caulkin has been told by her people that it's nothing to do with NUFC. Still seems a bit of a strange coincidence to say the least though.

But she doesn’t establish companies on a regular basis do some fucking research Chronicle. Exactly, somethings going on lets be honest.

It's a combination of the players ( always the younger ones) and the fans if you read it right. "under pressure to win" basically translates as the bastard fans were urging us to go forward. Yep, beautiful isn't it

IF this is true i'd imagine the BBC would be her first proper interview, but you'd imagine the announcement of a sale would be beforehand so the BBC could let people know she'll be giving an interview.

Absolutely, putting 2+2 together, it looks as though they're being held back. This was what I was thinking, like they're all waiting for a certain time to release stuff...fuck I've got myself excited about this again

Have any reliable journalists spoken yet? Seems very very quiet from the usual sources.

Same here

Blaming young players again

This is the drum i've been banging for a few days now...Rafa would undoubtedly have deals lined up if there was any chance of him being backed.

We couldn't score in a month of Sundays ffs, half competent attacking and this would be put to bed already.

Nope, but we've had one given against us that wasn't a penalty (West Ham) at least. That was a pen like. Its understandable it was given but if contact starts outside the box then by the laws of the game it's a free kick. Anyway its more about the fact that these marginal calls tend to go against us, whereas some of our rivals are getting iffy calls in their favour. No that's wrong. It's where the foul/contact ends where the foul is committed. Fair enough, I always assumed it was the other way round. Do you know if this is written down anywhere? Cant find much at all. I've just had a quick look at the laws and I am now more confused as the only reference to giving a penalty when a foul continues into the box is specifically in relation to holding: "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick." Yeap, the law doesn't explain it well but from refs I've spoke to say it's about where the challenge ends.

Nope, but we've had one given against us that wasn't a penalty (West Ham) at least. That was a pen like. Its understandable it was given but if contact starts outside the box then by the laws of the game it's a free kick. Anyway its more about the fact that these marginal calls tend to go against us, whereas some of our rivals are getting iffy calls in their favour. No that's wrong. It's where the foul/contact ends where the foul is committed. Fair enough, I always assumed it was the other way round. Do you know if this is written down anywhere? Cant find much at all. I've just had a quick look at the laws and I am now more confused as the only reference to giving a penalty when a foul continues into the box is specifically in relation to holding: "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick." Yeah just found that myself, could swear pundits quite often say thew opposite. Mind you, relying on them to get things right isn't the best idea tbh

Nope, but we've had one given against us that wasn't a penalty (West Ham) at least. That was a pen like. Its understandable it was given but if contact starts outside the box then by the laws of the game it's a free kick. Anyway its more about the fact that these marginal calls tend to go against us, whereas some of our rivals are getting iffy calls in their favour. No that's wrong. It's where the foul/contact ends where the foul is committed. Fair enough, I always assumed it was the other way round. Do you know if this is written down anywhere? Cant find much at all. Also, when it's a holding of the shirt, who do pundits etc always go on about contact starting outside the box in the case?

Nope, but we've had one given against us that wasn't a penalty (West Ham) at least. That was a pen like. Its understandable it was given but if contact starts outside the box then by the laws of the game it's a free kick. Anyway its more about the fact that these marginal calls tend to go against us, whereas some of our rivals are getting iffy calls in their favour. The contact carried on into the box. As far as I was aware that means penalty. May be wrong like, not swallowed the rules for a while. Yeah same here tbh but it does seem like forever since we were given the benefit of doubt in a major call. Absolutely. It's not just this season either if you look at what Brighton got last year compared to us. Last season had some amazing decisions against us tbf

Nope, but we've had one given against us that wasn't a penalty (West Ham) at least. That was a pen like. Its understandable it was given but if contact starts outside the box then by the laws of the game it's a free kick. Anyway its more about the fact that these marginal calls tend to go against us, whereas some of our rivals are getting iffy calls in their favour. The contact carried on into the box. As far as I was aware that means penalty. May be wrong like, not swallowed the rules for a while. Yeah same here tbh but it does seem like forever since we were given the benefit of doubt in a major call.