Whitley mag

I absolutely choose to believe this take.

Confident as anyone can be at this point, but annoyed that we’ve been dragged over a year through this shit due to outside influences which should have had no bearing.

Yeah, you can just imagine the shite that will flow from Edwards and co. We’ll be told it was never going to happen and move on. Totally ignoring the bigger picture that we’ve been effectively stopped from competing due to a tv deal and a cartel at the top of English football. The separation argument is just a smoke screen, even Slater and Jacobs intimate that if Bein was restored and cases dropped things would be different. The whole thing is a charade and our club has been used as a pawn. This article shows you exactly why a higher Saudi bid for Champions League rights would have been vetoed in favour of Bein. https://theathletic.com/news/european-club-association-nasser-paris-saint-germain/thIM9A6OJiQb

It’s great to see us getting some positive PR out and we’re confident. Let’s hope the CAT case now gets the go ahead to ramp up the pressure on the fuckers. A source from inside the club revealed: “Mike Ashley is certain he’ll win his case. “He has told the consortium to have their money ready to complete in a month.” Reports from the Middle East have indicated for weeks the legal battle will go Ashley’s way and PIF will be in control before next season. Ashley bought Newcastle for £135m in 2007 and virtually from day one the Geordie faithful have been at war with him over his running of the club. Saudi majority ownership will also make some of them uncomfortable over what critics declare would be another example of “sportswashing” by a nation to improve its image. Ashley has maintained a close contact with Staveley as he counts down to his day in court. He expects to emerge not only having won his appeal but also with a £300m cheque to end his time in charge on Tyneside.

Talking of Trolls and up pops Shaunetta.

That’s just plain disturbing Fanny, don’t ever speak about me in this context again.

How is it factually incorrect because Jacobs said so ? Show me the reg where it is factually incorrect instead of just referring to Jacobs. I based my opinion on reading the PL rule book long before ‘Xander’ highlighted it.

Absolutely nowt to worry about Joey. It’s been a scorcher a few to many gin and tonics maybe.

Just had it confirmed it was Gordon Stein covering the twitter account this afternoon. Where still in safe hands lads.

Bang........or maybe not after all then, I hope Jacobs was referring to something else.

I’d like you to show us why section f shouldn’t have been applied rather than rely on Jacobs ? Jacobs is towing the PL line that you seem quick to accept. If you can point me to the para in PL rule book that would be greatly appreciated Fanny.

Yeah Jacobs was proved to be talking bollocks. Section F of the rule book should have been applied, you might be easily fooled by the PL spouting gobshite but others aren’t.

The fact it would take weeks as opposed to months, would certainly have suited the PL at the time. They we’re deliberately kicking the can down the road and dragging their feet. They we’re also well aware that the agreed deal with Ashley was due to expire and hoping the whole thing would just go away. Some good stuff from this account, certainly shut Jacobs up yesterday on the matter of arbitration and disqualification.

If the PL had disqualified the takeover instead of offering arbitration instead, we would have ended up before the PL judiciary panel instead. This panel are allegedly independent but are selected by the PL it seems. As it happens a certain Lord Dyson is also on this panel. As Staveley was keen for them to actually make a decision, she must have felt this option was a better route. I’ve seen it mentioned today that this route is quicker than arbitration and also if bid had been rejected the consortium would have got their deposit back. Perhaps the latter answers my own question why Staveley would want a decision made as opposed to arbitration. https://brandsmiths.co.uk/blog/view/?permalink=brandsmiths-instructed-in-first-case-before-the-new-premier-league-judicial-panel

Jacobs must have impeccable sources at the PL that’s for sure.

The key being arbitration must be offered. The consortium didn’t want arbitration they knew what PL was up to. They wanted a decision even if it was disqualification which the PL refused to make. As if the PL are bothered about being unfair.

Disagree entirely he claims it was unfair to disqualify and therefore arbitration offer was made. The rule book allows for disqualification and consortium made clear KSA would not be put forward as director.

This Xander is spot on.

Still waffling does he really think the PL we’re doing us a favour by offering arbitration. The reason we had to start arbitration is because they wouldn’t make a fucking decision.

What a load of fucking rubbish. The consortium as Caulkin confirmed wanted them to reject it, then we could have gone down the route of the appeal court. They wanted to kick the can down the road and not make a decision, they also know arbitration is very difficult to appeal.

Far be it from me to question the balanced, informative and eloquent views of Benjamin Jacobs again, but I hope he isn’t providing misleading information again ? hmmmm F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if: F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has: F.1.1.1. F.1.1.2. 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); or

Cheers ?

I’ll certainly bow to Jackie Broon and B-More Mag and their legal expertise in relation to PIF governance and how ‘control’ can be defined according to PL rule book. The following from PIF website certainly suggests PIF board have to defer to CEDA on some key areas as referred to under article 7. However, in terms of what is deemed control in terms of the day to day running of a football club, I’m not sure if the below requirements of PIF board suggest they wouldn’t have full control of club matters by which is deemed reasonable. Reg 6.6 would suggest PIF board have full autonomy in appointing members to NUFC board for example without referring to CEDA. Article 6 The Board shall supervise the Fund, including its management and affairs, and shall ensure its objectives are achieved and its powers—as stipulated in this Law—are exercised. To this end, the Board shall have all necessary authorities and powers. It shall also approve and issue the Fund's Bylaws and Policies, including the following: 1. Setting investment strategies, policies, and procedures, including targeted returns; and the mechanism for deciding on an investment, monitoring its performance, and exiting therefrom. 2. Setting a policy for distribution of Fund profits. 3. Setting risk management procedures and systems. 4. Determining the accounting standards and policies for drafting and auditing the Fund’s financial statements, and determining the beginning and end of the fiscal year. 5. ApprovingtheFund'sloansandotherformsofdebt,includingissuingsukukand bonds, in accordance with relevant rules. 6. SettingrulesfornominatingandappointingtheFund’srepresentativestotheboards of directors of companies and other entities that the Fund owns or holds shares therein, and determining their remuneration, as well as their rights and duties. 7. Setting policies and procedures for tax liability. 8. Designating the persons authorized to sign on behalf of the Fund. 9. Approving the procedures regulating the Fund's communication with the media. 10. Approving the Fund’s financial and administrative regulations. 3 11. Approving the Fund's organizational structure and the manner of regulating and distributing its functions and duties. 12. Approving the Fund’s annual budget and annual report. The Board may, when necessary, form committees to carry out any of its duties and responsibilities. It may also delegate certain powers to the Governor or any of the Fund’s officers, in accordance with the Fund's Bylaws and Policies. Article 7 The Board shall submit to the Council of Economic and Development Affairs the Bylaws and Policies that regulate matters referred to in Article 6 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this Law, as well as the rules and procedures regulating its activities referred to in Article (8) of this Law, or any amendments thereto, within a period not less than 15 days or more than 30 days from the date set for their entry into force. The Council of Economic and Development Affairs may, within such period, direct the Board to make any amendments to the Bylaws and Policies, as it deems appropriate. My own conclusion is that there is enough complexity in all of this, for an expert like Shaheed Fatima to fully exploit and we have every chance in arbitration.

The only difference with the Man City model is that they appear to have been a lot more street wise in getting around the rules. The fact that they are sponsored by Etihad and have Abhu Dhabi plastered everywhere suggests more than purely sponsorship. Though the Abhu Dhabi United Group denied links to the state, it is a stretch to believe they are separate. It was initially thought that Abu Dhabi United Group was a part of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund owned by Abu Dhabi. But Abu Dhabi United Group had denied connection to the government of Abu Dhabi. Masdar and Mubadala Developments, sister investment vehicles of Abu Dhabi managed by Manchester City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak also holds numerous investments which are linked to ADUG. Mubadala Investment Company PJSC(Arabic: شركة مبادلة للاستثمار‎) (Mubadala) is an Emirati state-owned holding company that can be characterized as a sovereign wealth fund. It was established in January 2017 as a Public Joint Stock Company, merging the then-named Mubadala Development Company (now Mamoura Diversified Global Holding) and the International Petroleum Investment Company(IPIC), and is a wholly owned investment vehicle of the government of Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates.