Wilson Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 We still don't even know Ashley can't pull out. Staveley has said he can't, but that's not proof. We're a long way from being sold still. If a deposit has been paid and contracts signed, which they have to have been for the PL to start tests, then he can't. It's not worth it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Any letters or so called "evidence", should be rejected out of hand. It's up to the PL to do their own investigations, not have other parties throw things at them. Where does it end? They could just keep throwing bits and pieces delaying the process for as long as they want. I hope Staveley is kicking up a fuss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishMagpie Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Obviously these delays are all smokescreens while the authorities are coming up with a plan to deal with the 85,000 who will attempt to descend on Gallowgate as soon as this is formally announced From tomorrow when can go out 'exercising' as many times as we want and as far from home as we like so then seems as good a time as any. Just got to keep 2 metres apart whilst we circle the ground. Lol! After lockdown we'll look like that human chain thing (without the hand-holding!) from that movie 'Us'. Not hands across America, more Geordies across Northumberland! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Any letters or so called "evidence", should be rejected out of hand. It's up to the PL to do their own investigations, not have other parties throw things at them. Where does it end? They could just keep throwing bits and pieces delaying the process for as long as they want. I hope Staveley is kicking up a fuss. Probably why both parties were frustrated when things leaked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Another podcast with Caulkin should be our later tonight, probably been asked about this latest evidence. When is this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Probably tonight fella. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I feel sorry for Caulkin like, he must be sick of people constantly asking him for updates every two minutes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Probably tonight fella. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 So, based on the highlighted part of this FA rule, pretty much any excuse could stop a potential takeover if the board of the FA decide their opinion is reasonable: F.1.6: 'In the reasonable opinion of the board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3 if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 So, based on the highlighted part of this FA rule, pretty much any excuse could stop a potential takeover if the board of the FA decide their opinion is reasonable: F.1.6: 'In the reasonable opinion of the board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3 if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction.' think that's what's had a few twitching aye cause it's vague af Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I feel sorry for Caulkin like, he must be sick of people constantly asking him for updates every two minutes. Aye, getting sick of reading oh he's quiet etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I bet if it was Man U they were buying it would have been done and dusted by now. It's like an exclusive club and they want to keep it that way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 So, based on the highlighted part of this FA rule, pretty much any excuse could stop a potential takeover if the board of the FA decide their opinion is reasonable: F.1.6: 'In the reasonable opinion of the board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3 if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction.' think that's what's had a few twitching aye cause it's vague af Not really. It just means if someone done something abroad that would be an offence here they could use it as such, however as we know with offences they are much less likely to be classed as such the richer you are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I bet if it was Man U they were buying it would have been done and dusted by now. It's like an exclusive club and they want to keep it that way Thats my paranoid feeling as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 I guess the point is, who decides what's reasonable? I'm not entirely sure the Saudi lawyers would be able to argue against it if there's even the slimmest chance that an accusation could hold even a small amount of truth. Then again, if this Arabsat is owned by as many countries as it's suggested then I don't see how any one of them can be held solely accountable as a country, surely it would be down to the head of the department in that country who ran their participation being liable? In a normal company it's the CEO that holds ultimate responsibility isn't it? Not the shareholders. (I'm clutches at straws here based on assumptions that I know little about ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 So, based on the highlighted part of this FA rule, pretty much any excuse could stop a potential takeover if the board of the FA decide their opinion is reasonable: F.1.6: 'In the reasonable opinion of the board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3 if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction.' think that's what's had a few twitching aye cause it's vague af You can see an appeal if turned down, should that fail litigation. I doubt the Saudis would just walk away. It’s about face saving etc with them however it would be a mega delay. Would the PL go down that route and would the government have a discrete word with them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Any allegations would have to not only proven, but linked to any of our potential board members. There will be a lot of back and fourth, but I think if they were going to reject it they'd have done so by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 So, based on the highlighted part of this FA rule, pretty much any excuse could stop a potential takeover if the board of the FA decide their opinion is reasonable: F.1.6: 'In the reasonable opinion of the board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3 if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction.' think that's what's had a few twitching aye cause it's vague af You can see an appeal if turned down, should that fail litigation. I doubt the Saudis would just walk away. It’s about face saving etc with them however it would be a mega delay. Would the PL go down that route and would the government have a discrete word with them? they'll probably just buy the PL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 We filthy rich yet? Still just catflap Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Some shite on the Chronic website about legal docs not coming from Bein sports. Link was on FB refuse to give them a click. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Just had a notification on my lock screen.. "Sky Sports - Newcastle takeover - Premier League refuse.." Shit myself ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 We filthy rich yet? Still just catflap ... please I'm begging you, no I'm threatening you, if you don't shut up I'm gonna cut your head off. Shove it in the microwave, wait until it goes ping, mash it up with a bit of milk and butter and ram it up your backside. SO JUST SHUT UP! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 Isn't the point of the test that's its against the owners and directors which would be PIF, PCP, and the Reuben brothers. PIF is it's own legal entity, we wouldn't be directly owned by the Saudi state or Royalty but rather an investment vehicle. So the criteria should be against the directors of PIF. MBS is chairman of PIf so not sure if he gets assessed but could you imagine the fallout if the PL said he wasn't plus none of allegations can be directly linked to him. How can alleged human rights abuses by the Saudi government be linked to PIF? How can alledged piracy i.e. BeOutQ and Arabsat be linked to PIF? How can PIF be shown to be able to influence the prince that owns Sheffield United. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 C'mon guys get this done. When Messi retires I want to latch onto you to prolong my 15 year streak of football bliss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted May 12, 2020 Share Posted May 12, 2020 So, based on the highlighted part of this FA rule, pretty much any excuse could stop a potential takeover if the board of the FA decide their opinion is reasonable: F.1.6: 'In the reasonable opinion of the board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3 if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction.' People wonder why these things take time. That point there is all based on the opinion on the board, not a cold hard fact. If it's about opinions these things will be discussed at great length. Anyone know how many people at the PL will be involved in this ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts