Whitley mag

He doesn’t need an ulterior motive he does as he pleases anyway.

Douglas confirms Ashley has still not withdrawn bid from PL, silence from all sources which can only be good. Technically the deal is still alive, vindication for Manorpark, myself and others. Good feeling to know we were right, all apologies will be accepted with good grace.

Rogerio just a smokescreen then. Have to admit don’t watch much PL football these days, but this kid seems highly rated or just hype ?

Conveniently forgetting the fact she facilitated the sale of Man City.

I feel morally so much happier at the moment, since the takeover was called off (not dead though I hesitate to add) all those poor staff at bein sports have had their jobs saved, piracy has been crushed and Human rights abuses have been eradicated. Who’d have know that by shafting the takeover, the world would become such a better place for so many.

The takeover is off but not dead. Why else would you keep returning and posting on this thread. Stop kidding yourself and join the club. It’s an Ashley thread, not a takeover thread. Define “dead”. You mean until the club is sold there’s a chance it’ll be sold? You only comment on the takeover though not Ashley. I mean as GC said yesterday it’s not dead. Still a flicker, a ray of hope until Staveley says she’s done it’s not done. Ashley is a c***. There is no takeover. The club is dead in a sporting sense and has been for more than a decade. The end. Yes the club is dead, but the takeover is not.

The takeover is off but not dead. Why else would you keep returning and posting on this thread. Stop kidding yourself and join the club. It’s an Ashley thread, not a takeover thread. Define “dead”. You mean until the club is sold there’s a chance it’ll be sold? You only comment on the takeover though not Ashley. I mean as GC said yesterday it’s not dead. Still a flicker, a ray of hope until Staveley says she’s done it’s not done.

The takeover is off but not dead. Why else would you keep returning and posting on this thread. Stop kidding yourself and join the club.

Not really said that though have they. No they said: Takeover off, silence from the top: Newcastle fans struggle to see the point of it anymore “...deal collapsed in acrimony. Even the consortium didn't blame Ashley (this time, they said pointedly)” https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/takeover-off-silence-top-newcastle-18869385 It’s not dead though, it may be off presently but not dead. George Caulkin clearly stated it wasn’t dead yesterday.

Not really said that though have they.

Boris has been speaking to MBS tonight, I wonder if the deal came up in conversation.

The WSJ stumbled across this story when doing a piece on the Kardashians mate, it all seemed far fetched at the time but around November Carla Di Bello, Staveley and Mehdrad Ghodoussi sealed the deal on MBS’s yacht in the Red Sea. I believe Caulkin knew about the deal for a while, he’d frequently said in the previous months he knew of interest, however if it was leaked it would be off. The interesting next leak came from Jason Burt who said the deal was with PL, now was it the PL who leaked the deal at this point. After that Caulkin revealed all and the rest is history.

I think he’s playing his cards close and won’t want to be burned again. He’s previously stated that he’s spoke to consortium nearly every day for 2 years, he’ll know what’s happening but won’t want to be accused of raising hopes.

The truth is the PL made the test all about their own self interest and our well being didn’t come into it. They stretched the remit of the test to it’s limit and still didn’t have the courage of their own convictions to fail the bid. The nerve of Masters to suggest our interest was foremost in the process, if anyone has any doubts about what has gone on, that one line alone should tell you what lying bastards they are. What have the PL achieved with this whole corrupt episode absolutely fuck all. Bein sports are still barred from Saudi Arabia with the prospect of a much reduced MENA contract in a years time. There in dispute with the Chinese broadcaster another of their biggest tv incomes. Has the piracy situation improved I would suggest probably not in the scheme of things, after all this is world wide and hardly a Saudi only issue. The PL is currently dull and starting to lose its appeal to many, this was a chance to refresh one of the giants of English football, and provide a whole new dimension to the competition. The decision or lack of one is short sighted and smacks of incompetence and protectionism. Above all they’ve switched off thousands of fans in arguably the most passionate area of the country, who now consider them corrupt and beyond reproach.

Fuck off judas

What exactly did GC say, because the way you've worded your post suggests he's already leaked that there's something going on. Caulkin has said this week, since pulling out all parties reaffirmed their commitment to deal, however the next we should hear is whether deal is off or completed. So whether you believe the deal is likely or not, what is pretty clear is that they are still looking at ways to make this happen. I don’t think we’ll be receiving any running commentary this time, as if Saudis are still involved they won’t want to lose any face if this falls flat again. I would guess PCP are exploring the options open and if there’s a possible route to approval with discreet nods and winks given, the Saudis will come back on board. What has he had to say about his source telling him "no red flags", "done in the next few days", and other things that utterly failed to happen? Quelle suprise.

What exactly did GC say, because the way you've worded your post suggests he's already leaked that there's something going on. Caulkin has said this week, since pulling out all parties reaffirmed their commitment to deal, however the next we should hear is whether deal is off or completed. So whether you believe the deal is likely or not, what is pretty clear is that they are still looking at ways to make this happen. I don’t think we’ll be receiving any running commentary this time, as if Saudis are still involved they won’t want to lose any face if this falls flat again. I would guess PCP are exploring the options open and if there’s a possible route to approval with discreet nods and winks given, the Saudis will come back on board.

I agree and I would have loved the PL to have been put in this position, it might have had some political consequences if they did find him not fit and proper. Who’s to say the reason it’s now gone quiet though is that all members of PIF including the chairman are now undergoing the o & d. If it is all hush hush who would ever know if he has failed or not, after all it is meant to be a confidential process. In this scenario yes MBS would be p*ssed off he failed, but there would be no public embarrassment now. After all who knows whether Sheik Mansour was ever subjected to test.

Being involved in day-to-day running is not the object of the test. It's all about control which is defined as: “Control” means the power of a Person to exercise, or to be able to exercise or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Control shall be deemed to include: (a) the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or (b) the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to exercise the voting rights applicable to, Shares in the Club (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the older(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club. For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of an Associate of any Person or of a Connected Person to any Person shall be attributed to that Person PIF would have to prove objectively that their governance is entirely separate and outside the influence of MBS/KSA (which is in effect the same thing). I think that is a very hard argument to prove. Why would no Saudi law firm take up the PL in their attempts to combat BeOutQ? How can any Saudi body of wealth (let alone one legally benefiting the state) be independent in the light of MBS' previous actions? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017-19_Saudi_Arabian_purge) So when PIF present a verdict from the Saudi court saying PIF is independent, it really carries zero weight. I'm guessing here, but in my view it is likely the PL made the PIF-MBS connections very quickly (it should take less than a minute if you go on their website- www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/Boradmembers.aspx) and the consortium then spent time trying to find various alternate ways around the inevitable, ultimately unsuccessfully. And FWIW, in the example you gave yes Charles would be considered a Director for the purposes of the test unless his ownership was through a sufficiently independent trust structure to convince the PL he would not be able to place influence over the club. It's not uncommon for monarchs to be considered beneficial owners of assets and be subject to financial crime monitoring as anyone else could be- in fact they are usually required to be subject to enhanced measures vs the man in the street. "Control" is absolutely what it came down to. The bolded comment is something that a lot of people say "yeah, but" in response, but can't actually deny. So maybe it "should" have been rejected, but it was never getting approved. The one reason I don't agree with this is because (in my opinion) it's easily resolved. The Premier League could have made the approval conditional on there being no evidence of MBS (or anyone else the PL doesn't like) influencing the operation of the club. The O&D Test is, allegedly, run every year for each club in the PL, so it would be easy for the PL to decide at a latter date that MBS had influenced the running of the club and to then eject NUFC out of the League. Having said this, it is possible that the PL attempted exactly this and it may have been what caused PIF to withdraw their involvement (viewing the naming of MBS in such a manner as being insulting). I might be wrong but didn’t Staveley mention something similar to this in her interview with Caulkin. I seem to recall her mentioning a scenario where directors could be removed or similar and it was completely unacceptable ?

Liam Kennedy and Miles Starforth’s latest take, most journalists seem to agree on one thing Ashley wants out. All quiet on the takeover front, is that a good or a bad thing? LK: “Quiet makes a real change, doesn’t it? If it was dead, we’d know. People must take comfort from that. But things are going on in the background, and on the ‘hush, hush’, which really is no bad thing. This is how it should have been from the start. Will these behind-closed-doors talks be enough? I can’t say. Good things come to the those who wait. Ashley wants out and he will be gone whether it is in weeks or months – we’re in the Ashley endgame, I’m sure of that.” MS: “Everything has gone very quiet, and if there was no chance of the takeover being resurrected, I think we’d know by now. So the complete silence from the buying side – and owner Mike Ashley – can be taken as a sign that there’s still a chance of a positive resolution to this long-running saga. United’s fans have done their bit by voicing their support for the would-be buyers – and pressuring the Premier League – and now they must wait.”

Being involved in day-to-day running is not the object of the test. It's all about control which is defined as: “Control” means the power of a Person to exercise, or to be able to exercise or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Control shall be deemed to include: (a) the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or (b) the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to exercise the voting rights applicable to, Shares in the Club (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the older(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club. For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of an Associate of any Person or of a Connected Person to any Person shall be attributed to that Person PIF would have to prove objectively that their governance is entirely separate and outside the influence of MBS/KSA (which is in effect the same thing). I think that is a very hard argument to prove. Why would no Saudi law firm take up the PL in their attempts to combat BeOutQ? How can any Saudi body of wealth (let alone one legally benefiting the state) be independent in the light of MBS' previous actions? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017-19_Saudi_Arabian_purge) So when PIF present a verdict from the Saudi court saying PIF is independent, it really carries zero weight. I'm guessing here, but in my view it is likely the PL made the PIF-MBS connections very quickly (it should take less than a minute if you go on their website- www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/Boradmembers.aspx) and the consortium then spent time trying to find various alternate ways around the inevitable, ultimately unsuccessfully. And FWIW, in the example you gave yes Charles would be considered a Director for the purposes of the test unless his ownership was through a sufficiently independent trust structure to convince the PL he would not be able to place influence over the club. It's not uncommon for monarchs to be considered beneficial owners of assets and be subject to financial crime monitoring as anyone else could be- in fact they are usually required to be subject to enhanced measures vs the man in the street. That’s all great if the PL applied these rules consistently every season which I believe is in their power to do. I don’t disagree that MBS would have the power to exert influence, but as you correctly state that would apply to any person of wealth in Saudi Arabia, which in this instance would surely include the owner of Sheffield United. Also Sheik Mansour could fall into this category, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to state that Khalifa Bin Zayed as the ruler of Abhu Dhabi would be able to exert influence over Man City or that the Chinese National Party would be able exert influence over Fosun at Wolves. Yes none of the above are accused of piracy, however the PL insist that at this stage that hasn’t even been considered. I ultimately believe if it wasn’t for the piracy, the PL would have been more than happy to accept PIF as a separate entity.

The extra information they wanted was for the state to be subjected to test, whether that was just MBS or the whole govt is open to debate. The consortium argue PIF is a separate entity and should be treated as so. A stand off then ensues for around a month. The consortium maintain they have provided all info as required, however instead of rejecting the takeover the PL find a way of not making any decision by offering arbitration on this one single point of ownership. Now if you believe the PL this was a previously unheralded move and they gave the consortium an olive branch. All very reasonable at face value, however the sting in the tale is this arbitration may have taken 12 months who knows, and they would still have had to take test after this. This is where accusations of them being disingenuous come into play, the consortium at this point had every right to expect PL to make decision based on info they provided. However, the PL allegedly just said where not going to either approve or reject, and where happy to sit here month after month. If the last sentence is true they basically left them with no alternative but to walk away, and as far as I’m concerned this is still the key unanswered question by the PL and why many believe they manipulated this outcome from the start. If the PL have requested somebody be named and the consortium haven't done that, then they haven't complied with the PL's requests, at all. So reject the takeover on insufficient information received ? I'm sure I saw a list of rules [in relation to timeframes, the only timeframes] in which it stated that any request for information should be responded to in 5 days, and if no response is received, a new 5 day period commences. If that is correct, I'm not sure they could do that. If the consortium has provided all the information they believe can physically be provided, I would suggest that rule is simply being used as an out then if it is correct. Which again in my view would play into the PL being disingenuous. In relation to this rule I’m sure there’s a couple of resident experts on PL rule book on here who could give their take. But my analogy is if the Duchy wanted to buy us, would the PL be happy with the CEO / Governor and board of directors to be subjected to test, or would they insist on Prince Charles also being subjected to it ? In my view no they wouldn’t, as quite rightly he would have no involvement in the day to day running of the club. And furthermore their is absolutely no way they would insult a member of our own royal family.

The extra information they wanted was for the state to be subjected to test, whether that was just MBS or the whole govt is open to debate. The consortium argue PIF is a separate entity and should be treated as so. A stand off then ensues for around a month. The consortium maintain they have provided all info as required, however instead of rejecting the takeover the PL find a way of not making any decision by offering arbitration on this one single point of ownership. Now if you believe the PL this was a previously unheralded move and they gave the consortium an olive branch. All very reasonable at face value, however the sting in the tale is this arbitration may have taken 12 months who knows, and they would still have had to take test after this. This is where accusations of them being disingenuous come into play, the consortium at this point had every right to expect PL to make decision based on info they provided. However, the PL allegedly just said where not going to either approve or reject, and where happy to sit here month after month. If the last sentence is true they basically left them with no alternative but to walk away, and as far as I’m concerned this is still the key unanswered question by the PL and why many believe they manipulated this outcome from the start. If the PL have requested somebody be named and the consortium haven't done that, then they haven't complied with the PL's requests, at all. So reject the takeover on insufficient information received ?

The extra information they wanted was for the state to be subjected to test, whether that was just MBS or the whole govt is open to debate. The consortium argue PIF is a separate entity and should be treated as so. A stand off then ensues for around a month. The consortium maintain they have provided all info as required, however instead of rejecting the takeover the PL find a way of not making any decision by offering arbitration on this one single point of ownership. Now if you believe the PL this was a previously unheralded move and they gave the consortium an olive branch. All very reasonable at face value, however the sting in the tale is this arbitration may have taken 12 months who knows, and they would still have had to take test after this. This is where accusations of them being disingenuous come into play, the consortium at this point had every right to expect PL to make decision based on info they provided. However, the PL allegedly just said where not going to either approve or reject, and where happy to sit here month after month. If the last sentence is true they basically left them with no alternative but to walk away, and as far as I’m concerned this is still the key unanswered question by the PL and why many believe they manipulated this outcome from the start.

Your first sentence is the whole point though, if the consortium do not believe MBS should be subjected to test then the PL should just reject it. Instead they refused to make a decision and left them with no option but to pull out. The PL then on the day the deal expired allegedly made a belated offer of arbitration. This is before we even get into the realms of leaks and outside influences. Members of the NUST on a podcast basically accused Bill Bush of briefing certain members of the media. There are people on here who believe conspiracy theories make us look stupid and paranoid, that’s their opinion and to be honest I can no longer be arsed to argue the toss. However, I will never believe the s*** Masters and co have come out with in relation to this takeover, and I 100% agree with Staveley where she accuses them of being disingenuous. I do agree with most of this. Premier league should have flat out said not in current form come back later if you want to fix it rather than th eneless wait. I do think Staverley was well intentioned and mostly honest, a little bit of me though wonders if they did play dumb about it to get fans riled up in hope that pressure would change master's mind. Still, it all leaves a sour taste in my mouth. However I do want to go back to my point, that the consipracy everything against us narrative just helps ashley curry undeserved sympathy. Until someone buys us, and frankly we would have probably been bought by now if he wasn't such a famous c*** to deal with, our misery is on him. In no way by blaming the PL should it be seen as condoning how Ashley is running the club. Almost lost in all this is the fact he wanted to renegotiate the deal once it had expired, even though Staveley didn’t blame him, he must have known how precarious the deal was at this point. The fact he was even willing to jeopardise the deal tells us all we need to know, and my current anger at the PL in no way diminishes my hatred for the man.