Thumbheed

I thought it was common knowledge that this was dead and buried? This is Ashley saying hurry up. This leak makes absolutely no sense if all parties have already moved on after the Saudi withdrawal. Think it's also interesting that it's come from the PA and not one of the National rags that Ashley usually leaks to. I sometimes wonder how people here feel Ashley is evil and the Saudis angel. This people pull out cause they disrespect them by not automatically approved them. They dont give a s*** if Ashely say hurry up or whatever. Learn about the MBS before commenting idiotic Ashley said hurry up. No one can tell anyone to MBS. The point being, why leak/release something like that if it was dead as is the wide held belief? Doesn't make sense. The rest of what you put is probably accurate but not the point I'm making, I'm not even sure why you're making that point tbh. Depends if he has released/leaked it or it's just made up paper talk. From the PA? But more pertinently, what's the point if it's dead? If it's to sell papers then the rags would be running with all sorts, they know they have a blank cheque with this as it is.

I thought it was common knowledge that this was dead and buried? This is Ashley saying hurry up. This leak makes absolutely no sense if all parties have already moved on after the Saudi withdrawal. Think it's also interesting that it's come from the PA and not one of the National rags that Ashley usually leaks to. I sometimes wonder how people here feel Ashley is evil and the Saudis angel. This people pull out cause they disrespect them by not automatically approved them. They dont give a s*** if Ashely say hurry up or whatever. Learn about the MBS before commenting idiotic Ashley said hurry up. No one can tell anyone to MBS. The point being, why leak/release something like that if it was dead as is the wide held belief? Doesn't make sense. The rest of what you put is probably accurate but not the point I'm making, I'm not even sure why you're making that point tbh.

I thought it was common knowledge that this was dead and buried? This is Ashley saying hurry up. This leak makes absolutely no sense if all parties have already moved on after the Saudi withdrawal. Think it's also interesting that it's come from the PA and not one of the National rags that Ashley usually leaks to.

Problem is, wether it’s dead or alive there’s f*** all staveley or Ashley can do about it. It’s down to the PL who won’t budge and PIF who want supply the PL with what they want. It’s dead Agree with that except for the part about PIF. Even if PIF give the them what they want, i.e., MBS named as the owner, the PL will then use that to reject the bid outright. I suppose it's naive of me to assume anything in regards to this takeover, but humiliating one of the most powerful men in the world doesn't seem like the way this would go.

Totally agree with the 'Ashley want out' line. That is some small thread of hope to hang on to. However, the 'all's quiet' being a good thing is just wishful thinking. There's always one who wants to be the person that lets everyone else know they are ITK. There's no way a deal to buy to NUFC goes through without someone somewhere, blabbing. The gossip would be just too juicy for someone to resist. I disagree with this. No party has come out of this looking good with it being played out in public and so I can totally envisage a scenario where all parties agree to a total blackout of information. More telling though is the notable silence from Stavely who has never been shy about engaging the media and clarifying her version of events but for me the most telling silence is from BeIN/Keys, who have not only said nothing, but have also been actively deleted things that were said in the past which hint at leaks. If this takeoever were truly dead, Qatar would be shouting about it from the rooftops. Absolutely agree that no one has come out of this looking good. I hope that if Staveley is going to come back again at some point, she learns the lesson not to use Caulkin as an outlet. Ashley never says anything anyway so he's probably good for silence. I think I just don't trust the PL to not leak something. Yep, I think the silence suits Ashley because it's a distraction from the shambles we're in at this moment. Barely a whimper about our business and situation so far. Agree with the second point too, which is why it's very strange we've not heard anything via Qatar...

Totally agree with the 'Ashley want out' line. That is some small thread of hope to hang on to. However, the 'all's quiet' being a good thing is just wishful thinking. There's always one who wants to be the person that lets everyone else know they are ITK. There's no way a deal to buy to NUFC goes through without someone somewhere, blabbing. The gossip would be just too juicy for someone to resist. I disagree with this. No party has come out of this looking good with it being played out in public and so I can totally envisage a scenario where all parties agree to a total blackout of information. More telling though is the notable silence from Stavely who has never been shy about engaging the media and clarifying her version of events but for me the most telling silence is from BeIN/Keys, who have not only said nothing, but have also been actively deleted things that were said in the past which hint at leaks. If this takeoever were truly dead, Qatar would be shouting about it from the rooftops.

What about shirt sales? Increases in attendance? Messi will clean up on shirt sales with his name on it as he does now. Attendances aren’t going to increase at the big clubs as they are already packed, that’s if people can go see him due to COVID. It’s a complete myth the extra attention will pay for him, that extra money, 80% if not more goes to him. He could clear £100m a year off the back of a move imo. Dunno if i agree with this. Not exactly an expert in football finance but looking at direct sales is a bit if a false economy when it comes to financial impact of signing Messi. Man City themselves would become even more marketable with Messi in their line up.

Think the PL's objections are definitely plausible, but the issue for me is not the merits of their objections but how they dealt with it. 17 weeks to get to that point is ridiculous and the proposed solution to the matter is even worse. If PIF weren't giving accurate information, then there's grounds to reject the deal, so reject it.

Barcelona. Now and in the future. Definitely not now. Mahrez and Silva basically play the same position as Messi just far worse and Jesus is good but isn't a top striker Mahrez and Silva could play anywhere behind the striker. Barcelona are in desperate need of players now. That would be 3 absolute quality players in return for one. It is better for Barcelona. and even with their combined wages would still probably cost them less than Messi does now Easily. Probably cost them half of Messi's wage. Aye but Messi pays for himself commercially so the finance argument is moot. This is a no brianer for any team. He is literally creator, finisher and playmaker all in one. He's irreplaceable.

Why wouldn't someone like AS just come out and say it was off if it was off? She's been pretty open with it in the past. Won't read much into Ahsley saying fuck all cos I think the confusion distracts from the utter shitshow at the club at the mo but Stavely, can't think of a single logical reason for why she's kept quiet. Also think its telling that there was pretty much blanket coverage of "things going silent" which has proved to be the case, that feels like a deliberate message from the parties as if to say we will no longer be playing this out in public and rightly so. I think this is still ongoing but I'm not confident at all of it going through at all.

I’ve read most of what’s been released and it looks to be like the consortium have given them the opportunity to play it like this by pulling out. They mentioned again offering arbitration on that singular issue and reading between the lines that says to me it would have been rejected on that basis unless they could offer a different solution. I can’t understand why the consortium didn’t stay and force them to make a decision. Hopefully we hear from them on the back of this. I’m not getting the impression any side of it is that interested in re-entering and finding a common ground though. But that doesn't explain why they didnt give a decision, which was what I was hoping to see as an outcome from this. They offered PIF arbritation, PIF rejected. My reading is that PL were willing to wait it out at the expense of the club they claim to be protecting. 17 weeks to get to that point. I'm still none the wiser on anything.

I havent had chance to read through it all, but did they go into detail as to why they didn't reject the takeover on the basis that they clearly feel the consortium were providing inaccurate information? I still don't understand how there couldnt be a decision. I also don't understand the difference between this structure and Man City's.

-Mike Ashley and Consortium agree deal -PL question company structure -PIF provide assurances from the highest level of government that there would be no state interference - PL dismiss this and want it to go through a lengthy arbritation process and offer this option after the SPA agreement has expired. - PIF reject that option and withdraw from deal I can't understand how there wouldnt be a legal challenge. The expectations from the PL was that the PIF be forced to go through a lengthy arbritation process for essentially the right to buy an asset they've already agreed to buy. An asset which may be a totally different proposition to the one they'd agreed to buy in the first place. Selling party is forced to financially support the club (or not) during this phase to protect the value of the asset he's already agreed to sell or find another buyer and risk going through this all over again and further risking the value of the very asset he's already agreed to sell. Meanwhile the fans and the community are kept in total darkness about whether they'll get to be beneficiaries of the mooted investment, an investment which has the potential to changes 100s of thousands of lives. Surely the PL haven't got a leg to stand on?

What information is Ashley's side proposing the consortium provide to the PL then?

My feeling haven't changed on this after reading that letter. If anything, I think the PL have opened themselves up for a kicking here.

Feel like the PL have overstretched here. They have every right to pull on the piracy thread, but their legal remit would have been to make it stop and that's what they had achieved, KSA terminating the licencing agreement certainly complicates that matter but had PlF/KSA not tried to buy NUFC, then the PL achieving what they had done upto that point would have been seen as being a very healthy victory for them. Instead, the PL have tried to capitilise and have pushed way past their legal reach if there's any truth in them asking the KSA to be named as director, then if there's been assurances from the "very highest levels" that the PIF are a separate legal entity, then I imagine those assurances are from a sound legal basis and should make that requirement from the PL null and void. The interference from other clubs also treads them very close, if not past the point of violation of the Competitions Act and the fact that the allegations have not been vehemently denied by them or the clubs involved within the first few hours of them being made shows there's truth in all these matters as well, again, that will come out in the wash, they won't be able to cover that up, even though its clear to see from Twitter that Keys et al may be trying to... I think this is on, but inspite of what I've said, I think this is well in the balance, the Broadcasting termination may prove to be the biggest stumbling block here.

This is what I saw too. I actually think there's a lot to be optimistic about. KSA cant just ignore this report and its findings and will need to seek a resolution with Qatar. Qatar too will want reparations and so surely it stands to reason that once that has been resolved the takeover will be free to be pushed through. It would explain why the PL.havent rejected it yet, it seems to me that they're waiting for the report to be released so that that can be resolved which would leave them free to ok the takeover without repercussions from both sides.

"No nonces"

What? So he can’t complain that weirdo fans have stalked his Facebook, and contacted his employers? He’s entitled to write whatever he likes on the matter that doesn’t give fans carte Blanche to go through his Facebook He’s deliberately went to win up the Newcastle fans after making his initial articles. He’s tried to do it to catch out some fans who bite back a bit much, I’m pretty sure a few have been banned from Twitter or at least temporarily. People have pointed out how the world isn’t black and white and he’s been saying it is. They have pointed out how he’s worked for and uses companies with Saudi connections. Plenty and most of the people have been respectable and he’s still came back with his WUM antics and still claimed the world is black and white and right is right and wrong is wrong. He’s called people out and now he’s been called out himself. I don’t see what the big problem is. He made those comments, he admitted he has, are they are joke, yes, but people only pointed them out to make a point that the world isn’t straight forward. You can’t say it is then get a bit huffy when people point out it isn’t and use yourself as a reference point. He’s said people are either right or wrong, he’s tried to protray Newcastle fans as being wrong, and now he’s been caught out that by that same logic, he is also wrong and should be called out. I don’t see what is wrong with that. Because you think he is a wum doesn’t mean he is. Just because he writes stuff you disagree with doesn’t make him a wum. Also going through his personal Facebook, taking stuff said between friends, as “fair enough” to grass to someone’s employer. Grassing full stop is pathetic but have you actually seen the posts? It’s him going to amsterdam and saying “here for the drugs and the sad tourism”. Tell me how that’s worthy of contacting his employer, or even anything at all, and has anything to do with what he written in the press? Not that I wanna get involved in this bucket of s*** debate, but isnt it pretty standard for employers to trawl through potential employers social media accounts for exactly this reason? I imagine its doubly important for a Newspaper outlets who stakes their reputation on the credibility of their employers. Not that I'm condoning doi g what that little div has done but still...

Here’s 52 pages-worth of answers to your question: https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=104068.0 :thup: I'll read through that, I didnt realise this was a taboo topic to talk about in this thread after still reading so many objections, but yeh, I'll leave it at that. I wouldn’t say it’s “taboo,” but it’s a question that’s been asked and answered ad nauseam over the past month. Yeh, that's fair enough, but then I assume most of what's been said and is being said has already been said. Every point and counter point has been made so what is there left to discuss? I don't post that often so I only replied to a point that seemed relevant at the time because the person making that objection was annoyingly dismissive of a perfectly valid point.

Here’s 52 pages-worth of answers to your question: https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=104068.0 :thup: I'll read through that, I didnt realise this was a taboo topic to talk about in this thread after still reading so many objections, but yeh, I'll leave it at that. Not sure what's left to discuss until we get a decison then.

It's been answered a few times and I can't speak for anyone else, but I won't be giving them any money, for the nothing that it'll change, yeah. Presumably the people who didn't boycott the club while hating Ashley are hypocrites as well then? Ahhh I've not read every reply but that's fair enough Hypocrites in what sense? That they now choose to boycott the club? If so, then no I dont think they are, I totally respect peoples objections to the takeover and I'm not taking the stance that they're wrong or "stupid" for those objections. I object to the notion that "whataboutery" is a redundant argument because I just dont believe it is, because for me, funding that regime is just as bad as supporting a club owned by it. Either own your hypocrisies or take a more thorough stance against it rather than objecting loudly pre takeover and getting in line for a season ticket post takeover. I cant get my head round protesting loudly but then putting money into their bank account anyway.

Run along now. Ffs. Sometimes this forum is impossible to engage because people want to interpret things in the worst possible way. I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with "moral outrage" but for the sake of keeping things on track let's replace ot with "objections" if it makes you happier.

Will those who are against the takeover be boycotting the club? This is not an inflammatory question, I'm just trying to understand to what extent does your moral outrage extends to? The petrol argument was just an example (albeit not the greatest one) because there's very little scope to make a stand against that and I accept that as a reality, but surely boycotting the club is an easy decision and stance to take.

Aye, its the worst argument of all time. Awful. Not really the worst is it though If you think the takeover should not be allowed to go through on moral grounds (which btw is a stance anyone is entitled to and it's understandable) but then you happily view/consume content/products in which they also have investments it's hypocrisy, now some people are comfortable being selective and again that's their prerogative but the hypocrisy can be called out No it is not hypocrisy at all. These things are not comparable. I have to put petrol in my car, and even if i didn't I get the bus, so that consumes petrol. I have to get home from town, so I use an uber. There are things that you use in a society because you have to. The argument that I should quit using uber is ridiculous. If we applied that logic unilaterally, nobody could disagree with anything. Hate capitalism mate, well you've got an iphone! Check mate! It is hypocrisy. Using petrol is a personal choice. If you truly did want to take a stance against the regime you could, you just choose not to because it would be inconvinient for you to do so. You cant rationalise an issue to suit your personal lifestyle choices. Want to take a stance against Saudi - boycott all things that funds them. You wont because it would be inconvinient for you to do so and that unfortunately is not a valid argument at all. The fact that society is already dependant on that product should not cloud the fact that that is the case. I can't understand an argument which suggests that supporting a sports club owned by the Saudis is objectively worse than using a product which directly funds that very same regime. It makes no sense. As for the Capitilism comment, well that falls short in the sense that saying you hate Capitilam is totally different to actually taking a stance agaisnt it. There are people who do take a stance against Capitilism and live self sufficiently. It's a tried and tested method. This is absolutely brain dead. It is not a personal choice at all, so when my mother was in the RVI with Covid, I had to drive her there, and pick her up, I have to put petrol in my car to do that. Under your logic I should have..not? Society has been built around transport predominantly based on using a car, you're seriously comparing the infrastructure of a country to supporting a football club? Also what do you think buses run on? Air? Trains? so that leave me with walking/cycling? Now tell me how either of those things are viable? You're literally asking me to boycott petrol, think about that for a minute. Can you point me to one single person who has done that? And even if you can you are talking about being in a privileged position to even try it.I can't believe I'm even debating this honestly. I get that you think differently to me but the personal insults is just pathetic. Grow up. The fact that we are so dependent on petrol as a society is a symptomatic of the larger issue so yes, it is worse that our entire infrastructure is dependent on a state that is so morally reprehensible. That is the trade off we make off every single day of our lives. Well that's kind of my point, a moral stance agaisnt an issue is just that, you take the stance agaisnt the whole issue and not just cherry pick the parts that are inconvinient to you because its impractical for you to do so. The issue here is SA's applaing human rights record, not the fact they are potentially using the club the sportswash their image. Whether they're viable or not is totally irrelavnt. We're talking about funding a regime that systematically murders and tortures its citizens and repressed the rights of 50% of the population. There is literally no inconvenience that you and I have to suffer that can possibly justify the funding of those actions so that fact that we do fund them makes us hypocrites whether we like ot or not. That is the world we love in. There are plenty of communities that live off the grid. Read up on it. This is a completely different point to the one you originally made, you made the argument I'm picking morality out of convenience I've just showed you that it would be near on impossible to boycott petrol. Even if I did, I'm funding it in other ways via public transport, you're missing the point completely. I have to trade off some morality to function in the society we live in, thats out of my control, that is not analogous to to supporting a football team, I don't see how that's hard to figure out? It's 'inconvenient" as you put it because society has been structured in way that has made it impossible to do so. I make the trade off because I have to. Right so to preserve my absolute moral purity I should live completely off grid? and how do you propose I do that? I'd have to travel there (car, capitalism, petrol) Google them (capitalism). You can see how if you apply this argument it strays into complete ridiculousness? Right? Near impossible but possible, right? How do you justify funding the regime that subjects its citizens to that kind of repression when you yourself admit that there is a moral alternative. The answer is because it's more convenient to make this moral trade off than to bother going through the sacrifices you personally would have to make to a true moral stand against the murder, torture and suppression of the citizens of SA. For the record, I'm not suggesting we boycott petrol, I'm just pointing out we're hypocrites whether we like to or not so dismissing the obvious comparison to Twitter, Facebook and Uber is wrong. "Whataboutery" is the new "Fake News". Its an invalid argument, which is the point of yours that I objected to. Again, I'm not the one suggesting you live morally pure. I'm just pointing out that you're not and therefore cant make the argument that others are immoral because they are ok with the takeover. It doesnt mean they support the regime (in a moral sense) and it doesnt mean they are being sports washed, those 2 things can be mutually exclusive. You admit to making that trade off which is my salient point, thay makes you the hypocrite which is also what you objected to. That's pretty much my only point. For the record, I think we clearly share the same view on SA, the only difference is I accept my hypocrisy whilst you deny it.