Thumbheed

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.

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 appalling human rights record, not the fact they are potentially using the club to 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.

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.

Probably none. Hard to say as others have mentioned we play a system that suits them. Maybe Schar and Lejeune could get in as backups. That’s not the point though, we will be limited by ffp. If a time comes when cb is our weakest position, we can go out and get one. This is it, with FFP we will be limited as to what we can spend, the logical thing is to focus on your weakest areas and that is not at centre back Think the FFP talk is a bit of a red herring. £150m is the figure being banded around and the doesnt take sales into account. Furthermore, the rules are likely to be relaxed and there will be alot more value in the market due to the current climate. There is a huge amount going in our favour here. Maybe it's the Ashley effect but does the £150m include wages? I don't think we'll generate that much from sales but let's say that becomes £180m to spend, I still think other areas of the squad are a priority that CB should be left until all of those are sorted Whilst I like our set of CB's if we want to kick on there is always better, it's just a matter of focusing on the priority (central midfield, striker, full backs) It probably does aye, but like I say i dont that figure wouldnt be reflective of the real figure which I think would be much higher in light of the current environment. I'm gonna wait until the takeovers confirmed before I start playing fantasy football though.

Probably none. Hard to say as others have mentioned we play a system that suits them. Maybe Schar and Lejeune could get in as backups. That’s not the point though, we will be limited by ffp. If a time comes when cb is our weakest position, we can go out and get one. This is it, with FFP we will be limited as to what we can spend, the logical thing is to focus on your weakest areas and that is not at centre back Think the FFP talk is a bit of a red herring. £150m is the figure being banded around and the doesnt take sales into account. Furthermore, the rules are likely to be relaxed and there will be alot more value in the market due to the current climate. There is a huge amount going in our favour here. I'm with you - it really does seem to be a perfect storm for someone who wanted to bootstrap their club to the next level. Between clubs desperate for cashflow, a league desperate for transfer fees to wash around and players afraid the good times might be coming to an end - I think there's the prospect of player turnover well in excess of what many expect Yep! Football's desperate for investment now more than ever. That shortfall in revenue needs recouping somehow, so capping it with FFP makes no sense at all on any levels. Should this takeover go through, this could be an unprecedented summer transfer window as we'd be one of only a handful of clubs who would have the means and resources to take advantage of it. Having said all that, I'd prefer it if we'd build slowly but I'm not gonna complain either way.

Probably none. Hard to say as others have mentioned we play a system that suits them. Maybe Schar and Lejeune could get in as backups. That’s not the point though, we will be limited by ffp. If a time comes when cb is our weakest position, we can go out and get one. This is it, with FFP we will be limited as to what we can spend, the logical thing is to focus on your weakest areas and that is not at centre back Think the FFP talk is a bit of a red herring. £150m is the figure being banded around and the doesnt take sales into account. Furthermore, the rules are likely to be relaxed and there will be alot more value in the market due to the current climate. There is a huge amount going in our favour here.

He really would, but I've got to say, I'm becoming more open to all the managers we've been linked with so far. I haven't felt that way since Sir Bobby got sacked.

Anyone else notice how we've been linked with players who all seem to have some kind of tie to Rafa, or is that wishful thinking? We've been linked with a fair few players who seemed to be targets during or just after Rafa's time here too.

Steve Wraith totally missing the point in spectacular fashion. Utter embarrassment.

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. Christ