nufcnick

You reckon Henry Mauriss has that sort of cash like? :razz:, with Henry Mauriss we will most likely be in the EFL

I think you will see it come out from the higher ups in Saudi on Twitter first

Just think,if it’s true about the league cup next season with none of the top 7 taking part, if this takeover does go through we could be in prime position to actually win something in our first season with new owners.

I was just thinking that, it’s been a very slow propaganda day today

We can only hope, people will go mental if it isn’t though :frantic: :frantic:

No its not. But I will tell you now Ashley is still in charge as the sale is not complete. Yes but as someone else just said, if he hasn’t spent money to drape stuff over the seats it’s an opportunity missed to advertise shit direct which to me is a good indicator

Why would the signs be removed before the takeover? Who would be paying for that? Not the signs, but the stuff draped over the seats like city did, if there is not shit direct draped over the seats that’s as good a sign as any

Just put in the other thread, that Sunday’s game will be the biggest indicator if the fat twat is really going/gone, if his shit direct tat is draped all over the seats then that might be an indication that he’s still here for a while, if there is no shit direct all over the seats that’s as good an Indicator as we’re going to get, as he never misses an opportunity to advertise his tat

This will be the biggest indication if the parasite is really going/gone. s*** direct over the seats and he’s still here for a while, no s*** direct over the seats and that’s as good an Indicator as your going to get, because he never misses and opportunity to advertise his tat

Do you think he’s heard it’s close and is now shitting himself that he might not get any FaceTime with the new directors of our club

As someone pointed out earlier, if there was little the buyers could do if turned down, this would have been rejected months ago

yes because of t***s such as luke edwards who comes across as being as thick as 2 short planks , basicly he,s stealing a living Your not wrong there, isn’t it ethically wrong to post other peoples stories and try to pass them off as your own

Don’t know about you guys, but I get up on a morning full of optimism and confidence that the deals going to go through and today might be that day, and as the day goes on and the propaganda is broadcast, I get a sinking feeling more and more that it’s going to be knocked back.

What I will say the amount of propaganda and reporting of one sided stories from the British press is a disgrace, considering everything they report should be balanced journalism according to the rules and regulations. It would be funny if Edward’s was banned from SJP for his propaganda spouting.

its still not immune to litigation. They have to give their reasons and apply their ODT fairly. Exactly this, they can’t just say “we can’t find any reason not to accept you, but because we don’t like you and one of our partners is objecting, we’re not going to let you in our club”. If the consortium meet the criteria and were rejected anyway, lawyers for them will have a field day.

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable. See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833 And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/ "The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed. The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute. Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3. However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4." I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism. Don't know who is right but if you are Greg, then could the PL just turn round and go - takeover denied because......well we can't be arsed with the hassle? Or we don't like NUFC as we love Sunderland....... and PIF wouldn't be able to legally challenge. Seems ridiculous if true The PL do seem to have it in for us TBH, if they do turn it down the court battle should be quite entertaining Nothing about this sorry saga is entertaining Yeah sorry, what I ment was it would be entertaining watching the PCP/PIF lawyers rip the PL’s case apart

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable. See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833 And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/ "The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed. The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute. Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3. However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4." I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism. Don't know who is right but if you are Greg, then could the PL just turn round and go - takeover denied because......well we can't be arsed with the hassle? Or we don't like NUFC as we love Sunderland....... and PIF wouldn't be able to legally challenge. Seems ridiculous if true The PL do seem to have it in for us TBH, if they do turn it down the court battle should be quite entertaining

Do yourself a favour mate and go back to lurking, there's some mad buggers on here :D :D, I have noticed but it seems good fun and all in good humour, mostly anyway

I said something else, I think it will be an initial no followed by a yes on appeal

Hi guys, long time lurker first time poster, just want to say hi as this seems the most active thread :D :D