Thumbheed

23 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

I really don’t believe that is the case. People just don’t believe it’s going to happen. Surely you can see there are gonna be people on the forum from both opinions shouting “told you so” whichever way it goes? It just happens that you’re on the positive side, but that doesn’t mean people who oppose your view are just doing it to prove you wrong?

I mean, for people to beleive that it won't happen means they think the PL acted appropriately and are correct. [That is literally their legal opinion]. It means they're aligning themselves with the likes of Luke Edwards ffs. 

Where's the evidence to support the PL's standpoint? 

"Realists" though. 

7 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Again with "last night's evidence", there was no evidence.  If you think this statement is incorrect can you let us all know what this evidence was actually evidence of? 

Do you know what evidence is? 

15 minutes ago, Robster said:

As much as it pains me to do so i have to be fair to Masters in that it's a bloody stupid question.
What's he meant to say about how he feels about NUFC staying in the PL. What kind of answer was Swanson expecting.

I think him checking himself is quite a tell. 

Imagine wishing someone well after recovering from an illness by sayin "well, they have survived.

17 hours ago, Wandy said:

 

He doesn't look pleased that we stayed up. 

Anyone a body language expert? Looks like he is licking his lips in a distasteful kind of fashion at the very mention of the takeover. Hopefully cos he knows he's up shit creek without a paddle, the cunt.

"well....they have surv..." are the words of a man who's disappointed we survived. 

Seems his tone has shifted from smugness in his earlier sit down interviews to resentment in this one. 

12 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I think the strategy is to delay the arbitration and force the PL to pass the takeover without the need for the tribunal to go ahead.

But surely the same argument could and would arise in this case? 

What impact would losing the arbritarion case have on this case?

Its negative speculation based on nothing more than misplaced cynicism. 

Caulkin knows nothing

Kennedy knows nothing

Keith knows nothing 

PIF withdrew

It hasn't happened yet therefore it must not be happening etc etc.

The same views repeated ad nauseum against a backdrop of an owner who himself thinks the takeover is still on.

7 minutes ago, STM said:

Not believing a takeover will go through = not wanting a takeover to go through, is just pure bollocks.

I want a takeover to happen, I'm just not anywhere near convinced it will happen.

I'm certainly not holding my hopes on that Keith fella or some local journalists who are milking every tit bit for their own gain.

Fwiw, I also don't subscribe to the Luke Edwards view that the takeover definitely won't happen and the Bruce is a good manager. 

It's perfectly acceptable to draw the line somewhere in between. A foreign concept to this thread, I know.

Here we go again. 

14 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

But we can never be certain that there is any actual evidence that would make them squirm the way we all want. That’s the main issue with being positive, we don’t really know anything other than what the selling side has been saying. For all we know, the PL has followed the rules to the letter and they are not worried.

I still believe the takeover can happen because I just find it farcical that it has been stopped based on a technicality of shadow influence / control.

There's reports that Hoffman was aware of Project Big 6 and communicated his approval of those plans. If Project Big 6, isn't defined as anti-competitive, then I don't know what it. 

20 minutes ago, manorpark said:

Exact timescales are unknown, but it is likely to be very short now.

The inevitable Premier League cave-in cannot be far off now. 

 

The thing is, the PL have proved they're more than willing to drag things out, and caving in would essentially be an admission of guilt. 

It's totally unprecedented so whilst I am and have always been confident of a takeover, I'm not so certain that they'll roll over like is being assumed and yet I can't think of a single logical and feasible reason why they wouldn't as on the surface it seems so clear cut. 

This is excruciating. 

Feels like we're either a week away from a takeover or 2 fucking years. 

13 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

But if that's the case, why didn't they reject it? They actually delayed it for as long as possible so the buyers would withdraw. 

I think we've said loads of times, it would be fair enough if they'd just failed the test. Then we could move on, or go to whatever the next legal step is.

The problem is they've tried to avoid applying the proper process.

*Sorry, as in how the PL could argue against that very rule.

I think they'd parrot what they've said in public which is PIF withdrew blah blah blah, but even then I think it'd be a flimsy argument if it can be shown that PIF had provided sufficient information up to the point of withdrawal. 

11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

It seems like it would be hard for the PL to argue that they couldn't have disqualified the proposed directors, rule F.1.1.1 gives them the power to do that on the basis that they have failed to "provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person)."

Yep, this is what I was referring to although I couldn't remember the actual rule. 

I'm not sure how they'd argue against that very policy in court, it seems clear cut to me, although my legal knowledge only stretches to Bird Law.

11 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

They were clearly trying to make the link between PIF and the Saudi state so they could stop the takeover over state sponsored piracy. The issue I have is still with this idea of ‘control’ and that the PL can suggest who they think will have control. I just don’t see how this is a fair way of going through an ownership test

Yeh, agree with this. Its even more farcical when you consider that they haven't deemed Sheik Mansour at Man City as a person of control when that structure is even more blatant. 

7 minutes ago, Robster said:

I suppose he could try to argue that but in my opinion it's a very thin argument as we all know what football is like. There is always someone willing to take the job on, regardless of the circumstances. 

This is true, but to be honest it's the type of shithousery from Ashley that I'd be all for, for once.

13 minutes ago, Robster said:

I'd wish him all the luck in the world if his defence was to say that he couldn't afford anyone else. We'd probably hear the PL and their legal team laughing from here.

Not that I'm advocating James' theory but wouldn't he be able to say uncertainty around the takeover restricted his ability to make a long term decision? Thus impacting the clubs status?

Could the PL actually argue in court that they didn't have grounds to make a decision either way? From what I've seen, they've had ample opportunity to reject the takeover.

4 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I'm not sure why we would agree to go to arbitration, nominate the panel, and appeal the third panel member for a delay of several months, if we thought we could settle without it.

Yeh but do you have proof of this?

Where is this written down in black and white? 

So have we decided where I can go to read things that make me all warm and fuzzy inside or are we all still measuring dicks?

23 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Not so sure, he so pompous that he probably thinks he has a job here as long as he keeps us up and Ashley is here. 

He'll have 1 eye on the takeover. 

Don't think he's got the heart to face into another relgation battle, he's been called out by too many people. 

I don't think he'll have the bottle for another season. 

4 minutes ago, Anderson said:

Reasonable force, unless 2 middle fingers are administered immediately after.

I see, but what if the other person is brandishing the people's elbow? 

Where do we stand on Stone cold stunners? 

Aye or nay?

17 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

I think they would have. Man Utd will always be Man Utd, Old Trafford will always be Old Trafford. 

With a City or a PSG UAE and Qatar have been able to quickly build a global brand in the image that they want. The images of the City owners celebrating when they won the Premier League wouldn't have happened had it been Man Utd as the story isn't there. Of course the club would have had greater global exposure more quickly if they had bought Man Utd or even Liverpool but UAE got exposure more quickly with it being Man City, the club and location of ownership are one, wouldn't be the case in buying one of the established elite clubs

Fair enough, as in the edit above, it's worth noting DIC tried to buy Liverpool but for Hicks and Gillet.

At the end of the day it's mindless speculation on something which is  not even close to having any grounding in reality, but I do stand by my belief that there would be a risk should it be a viable option and I only do so against the backdrop of the type of person MBS is and more specifically what he's trying to achieve with his flagship Vision2030 policy. 

31 minutes ago, Stifler said:

It is though interesting to note that the 2 sovereign states, and both Middle Eastern ones have bought clubs who are not the biggest in their country, in fact the UAE bought Man City who shares a city with and were overshadowed by Man Utd who were arguably the biggest team in the world. Before that they were only a Mike Ashley lads night out away from buying us ahead of Man City.

Qatar bought PSG who were at the time in a league that Monaco were about to buy their way too dominance, with Lyon having recently won 7 straight domestic titles, and Marseille being the biggest team in France in terms of support.

Yeh agree with that, and certainly not disputing what a great investment we would be, in fact I'd go as far as saying we were a better investment than both those clubs (reckon Qatar regret investing in PSG personally), all I'm saying is would wealth funds have invested in PSG and Man City if they knew Man Utd was available? 

Rhetorical question obviously but a relevant one all the same.

Edit: worth nothing that Staveley herself tried to facilitate the purchase of Liverpool by DIC...

41 minutes ago, HTT II said:

There is zero value to SA owning Man Utd over NUFC. You need to understand the culture. My good SA friend would rather spend the same money building his own house then buying a ready made house. He’d rather buy a new car than a second hand one. He’d rather build his own business than buy into a business. This is more than about sport washing, PR, money, it’s about showcasing SA as the go to investment vehicle for any start up, country, region, business that wants to build organically and develop long term in ways money can’t just buy which of so, well, they could by the whole of football if they wanted, the whole the media, make every negative word written about them on archive obsolete. NUFC is a big deal for them. I’d fear them going after Leeds rather than us than Man Utd. They want NUFC to transform us into something bigger, better, more successful and more valuable than Man Utd in sport, in business, in investment and as an asset. But img shares in Tesla to the, is like me investing 1k in Bitcoin, it’s just an investment. Buying NUFC is more than that, it’s a vision, a project, a grandstand show piece to an empire like the Coliseum in Rom and Gladiator games. 

Well this is fundamentally where we disagree. We've established that £4bn would be nothing to them so the financial viability angle doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. 

You have to look at their investments in F1 and major boxing events to see what they're trying to do with sport. It's to showcase KSA on the world stage and as much as I hate saying this, but having Man Utd as the centrepiece of Vision2030 with their ready made global fanbase and their well estabilshed commercial positioning makes them a much more appealing investment imo.

It'd be akin to them purchasing Man City over Man Utd pre Sinawatra. 

Culturally speaking I think they will always want the very best, I think the public talk of seeking value is as misleading as there 'we've pulled out because it's no longer economically viable' statement.