Various: N-O has lost the plot over potential end of Mike Ashley's tenure

[Joey Linton]

The club is in limbo until this is resolved, no one right now is running Newcastle United. Just get it sorted ffs.

 

Totally agree. The club is drifting along aimlessly with an owner who doesn't want to be there and there are issues that need addressing...fan ticket refunds being one of them. I think the people at nufctsust should be pressuring the PL to get this sorted asap, as it's definitely have a detrimental effect on the club and the fanbase.

Where's Greg?

 

I'm here.

 

We are doing what we can on the season ticket issue - the club don't give a s*** unfortunatley.

 

On the takeover - I don't think there's any value in us doing anything with the PL - the O&D test is what it is and will be done when it is done - there's nothing we or anyone else can do to speed up or put pressure on that process.

 

What about the cup tickets?  They should be refunding those by now.

[gdm]

Dont rule out the Saudis dropping out of the takeover in some way, leaving Staveley and the Reubens trying to do it themselves again.

 

Just as a means to getting the takeover completed and the Saudis joining at a later date once they have their issues with the O and D tests sorted.

 

Not a likely scenario but something like that could happen.

 

I was wondering myself if that was maybe  a contingency plan

[KaKa]

I really more concerned about the season restarting tbh.

 

Really think if this is still up in the air by then, Bruce will have us moving towards the relegation zone, which will not help things whatsoever.

 

Technically it would as i think it was agreed its easier to buy a club in the EFL than it is in the EPL I get the point you are making though

 

I hear you

 

I mean, I was of course presuming they can still pull out at anytime right? Even though everything has been agreed subject to this test being passed?

 

If the season restarts and Bruce starts tanking the team and we head into the bottom three while this takeover is still being processed, if they have any leeway to cancel I could definitely see that happening. It would be so typical man. Urgh.

[FloydianMag]

Dont rule out the Saudis dropping out of the takeover in some way, leaving Staveley and the Reubens trying to do it themselves again.

 

Just as a means to getting the takeover completed and the Saudis joining at a later date once they have their issues with the O and D tests sorted.

 

Not a likely scenario but something like that could happen.

 

I was wondering myself if that was maybe  a contingency plan

 

Wouldn’t that give the fat cunt the opportunity to pull out though as that isn’t the deal that’s been agreed?

[relámpago blanco]

Dont rule out the Saudis dropping out of the takeover in some way, leaving Staveley and the Reubens trying to do it themselves again.

 

Just as a means to getting the takeover completed and the Saudis joining at a later date once they have their issues with the O and D tests sorted.

 

Not a likely scenario but something like that could happen.

 

I was wondering myself if that was maybe  a contingency plan

 

Wouldn’t that give the fat cunt the opportunity to pull out though as that isn’t the deal that’s been agreed?

The deal is with the holding company so from his perspective legally the deal is the same.

[Guest godzilla]

Dont rule out the Saudis dropping out of the takeover in some way, leaving Staveley and the Reubens trying to do it themselves again.

 

Just as a means to getting the takeover completed and the Saudis joining at a later date once they have their issues with the O and D tests sorted.

 

Not a likely scenario but something like that could happen.

 

I was wondering myself if that was maybe  a contingency plan

 

Wouldn’t that give the fat c*** the opportunity to pull out though as that isn’t the deal that’s been agreed?

The deal is with the holding company so from his perspective legally the deal is the same.

 

Tin hat theory this mind. They won't be pulling out, it will either be done with them or it will be knocked back, as the same issues will still be there whenever they returned to the table if that was the case

[Kanj]

Spot on mini thread by Liam Kennedy

 

[UncleBingo]

Spot on mini thread by Liam Kennedy

 

 

That's exactly the sort of thing I was on about earlier when I was talking about the Trust writing to the PL about making a decision.

[FloydianMag]

I might be wrong but I doubt the PL will give a fuck.

[LV]

 

Ok any body language experts out there ? Hes looking off to his right a lot - what does that mean ? A couple of smiles and blinking of eyes ... C'mon we need to know ?

 

This might help.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-lying-to-you-by-watching-their-face-a6846611.html

 

 

This so called FBI expert was clearly just trying to sell a book. Everyone has different body language and even lie detectors don’t work, hence why they are not used as evidence in the U.K.

[Eveready]

Absolutely ignorant on these matters so apologies if this has already been addressed.  I have been trying to keep track of this, reading the last hundred pages or so.

 

Does anyone know how the Owners & Directors test applies to a club like Manchester United, which is publicly traded, as surely anyone can technically become a 'part-owner'?  Not sure if there's a threshold in terms of it only applying to people who own a certain percentage of the club, I skimmed their page extremely quickly but didn't see anything.  Surely they can't be doing checks on anyone purchasing shares in club.  Does that mean in their case that only directors need to be vetted?  Does that then mean different rules apply to publicly and privately owned clubs?

 

My legal knowledge is exceptionally limited, I'm expecting there's a simple and sensible answer to this.

[Shadow Puppets]

Spot on mini thread by Liam Kennedy

 

 

I'm sorry like, but that's really embarassing. The Premier League won't, nor should they, give a fuck about any of those things he writes.

[LFEE]

I see the club had just released a profit. Not surprised!

 

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/newcastle-reveal-almost-doubled-profits-18332554.amp?__twitter_impression=true

[Eveready]

Absolutely ignorant on these matters so apologies if this has already been addressed.  I have been trying to keep track of this, reading the last hundred pages or so.

 

Does anyone know how the Owners & Directors test applies to a club like Manchester United, which is publicly traded, as surely anyone can technically become a 'part-owner'?  Not sure if there's a threshold in terms of it only applying to people who own a certain percentage of the club, I skimmed their page extremely quickly but didn't see anything.  Surely they can't be doing checks on anyone purchasing shares in club.  Does that mean in their case that only directors need to be vetted?  Does that then mean different rules apply to publicly and privately owned clubs?

 

My legal knowledge is exceptionally limited, I'm expecting there's a simple and sensible answer to this.

 

Should've read the Premier League page a little closer, I have found this:

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/appendix-3---owners-and-directors-test/

 

but the definition of 'Relevant Person' expressly excludes any external legal, financial or other professional advisers where they are acting in a capacity regulated by a professional regulatory body and do not hold any interest (in excess of a 5% shareholding) in the Club.

 

But even from this an average person would not qualify for exemption on being regulated and Baron Capital own over 5% of Man Utd despite being regulated and I can't find anything about them undergoing the Owners and Directors test, though I'd imagine the rules may have changed since they breached this threshold in 2014.

http://andersred.blogspot.com/2014/03/baron-capitals-stake-in-manchester.html

 

So Baron Capital owns 24% of "A" shares and therefore owns more than 5.5% of the club.

 

Hoping someone with some legal knowledge or even anyone with above average intelligence could clear this up for me.

[jdckelly]

Absolutely ignorant on these matters so apologies if this has already been addressed.  I have been trying to keep track of this, reading the last hundred pages or so.

 

Does anyone know how the Owners & Directors test applies to a club like Manchester United, which is publicly traded, as surely anyone can technically become a 'part-owner'?  Not sure if there's a threshold in terms of it only applying to people who own a certain percentage of the club, I skimmed their page extremely quickly but didn't see anything.  Surely they can't be doing checks on anyone purchasing shares in club.  Does that mean in their case that only directors need to be vetted?  Does that then mean different rules apply to publicly and privately owned clubs?

 

My legal knowledge is exceptionally limited, I'm expecting there's a simple and sensible answer to this.

owners or anyone who has at least 30% of the shares I think

[huss9]

Spot on mini thread by Liam Kennedy

 

 

I'm sorry like, but that's really embarassing. The Premier League won't, nor should they, give a fuck about any of those things he writes.

 

i see where you're coming from but i disagree.

it needs saying.

this wouldnt be happening if it were one of the big six being taken over.

the fat cunt has taken, and is continuing to takeour money.

employees are  furloughed and non the wiser about their futures.

the season restarts soon and we are just an empty vessel floating along.

 

how the fuck our current owner gets away with it i dont know.

 

i bet if he tries to buy another club, he'll sail through the owners test.

[Eveready]

Absolutely ignorant on these matters so apologies if this has already been addressed.  I have been trying to keep track of this, reading the last hundred pages or so.

 

Does anyone know how the Owners & Directors test applies to a club like Manchester United, which is publicly traded, as surely anyone can technically become a 'part-owner'?  Not sure if there's a threshold in terms of it only applying to people who own a certain percentage of the club, I skimmed their page extremely quickly but didn't see anything.  Surely they can't be doing checks on anyone purchasing shares in club.  Does that mean in their case that only directors need to be vetted?  Does that then mean different rules apply to publicly and privately owned clubs?

 

My legal knowledge is exceptionally limited, I'm expecting there's a simple and sensible answer to this.

owners or anyone who has at least 30% of the shares I think

Thanks, do you happen to have a source for this by any chance?

 

Just wondering if they might end up with the Saudi's purchasing their 80% of the club split across 3 separate legal entities, in that case they would then be exempt from having to undergo these tests and then only the directors would have to be vetted.

[Teasy]

The Premier League shouldn't give a f*** about the fans of one of its clubs?  Of course they should, I mean they very likely don't, but they should.

 

It also needs to be said wether they give a s*** or not.  Even more so if they don't actually.

[jdckelly]

Absolutely ignorant on these matters so apologies if this has already been addressed.  I have been trying to keep track of this, reading the last hundred pages or so.

 

Does anyone know how the Owners & Directors test applies to a club like Manchester United, which is publicly traded, as surely anyone can technically become a 'part-owner'?  Not sure if there's a threshold in terms of it only applying to people who own a certain percentage of the club, I skimmed their page extremely quickly but didn't see anything.  Surely they can't be doing checks on anyone purchasing shares in club.  Does that mean in their case that only directors need to be vetted?  Does that then mean different rules apply to publicly and privately owned clubs?

 

My legal knowledge is exceptionally limited, I'm expecting there's a simple and sensible answer to this.

owners or anyone who has at least 30% of the shares I think

Thanks, do you happen to have a source for this by any chance?

 

Just wondering if they might end up with the Saudi's purchasing their 80% of the club split across 3 separate legal entities, in that case they would then be exempt from having to undergo these tests and then only the directors would have to be vetted.

just what I found on wikipedia

[jdckelly]

The Premier League shouldn't give a fuck about the fans of one of its clubs?  They don't, but of course they should.

maybe they should but ultimately they're not answerable to fans they're answerable to the 20 premier league clubs

[Eveready]

Absolutely ignorant on these matters so apologies if this has already been addressed.  I have been trying to keep track of this, reading the last hundred pages or so.

 

Does anyone know how the Owners & Directors test applies to a club like Manchester United, which is publicly traded, as surely anyone can technically become a 'part-owner'?  Not sure if there's a threshold in terms of it only applying to people who own a certain percentage of the club, I skimmed their page extremely quickly but didn't see anything.  Surely they can't be doing checks on anyone purchasing shares in club.  Does that mean in their case that only directors need to be vetted?  Does that then mean different rules apply to publicly and privately owned clubs?

 

My legal knowledge is exceptionally limited, I'm expecting there's a simple and sensible answer to this.

owners or anyone who has at least 30% of the shares I think

Thanks, do you happen to have a source for this by any chance?

 

Just wondering if they might end up with the Saudi's purchasing their 80% of the club split across 3 separate legal entities, in that case they would then be exempt from having to undergo these tests and then only the directors would have to be vetted.

just what I found on wikipedia

Cheers.  The Premier League page itself seems to state the 5% in which case I don't think it feasible for them to split the equity over so many legal entities so I guess it's a bit of a no go anyway.  Just my simple brain trying to think of some loophole which I'm sure lawyers with triple my IQ have already ruled out.

[bhoywhonder]

Spot on mini thread by Liam Kennedy

 

 

 

I'm sorry like, but that's really embarassing. The Premier League won't, nor should they, give a fuck about any of those things he writes.

 

 

You have absolutely got to be taking the piss? This is precisely everything the Premier League should be concerned about. What the fuck else are they for?

[jdckelly]

Spot on mini thread by Liam Kennedy

 

 

 

I'm sorry like, but that's really embarassing. The Premier League won't, nor should they, give a fuck about any of those things he writes.

 

 

You have absolutely got to be taking the piss? This is precisely everything the Premier League should be concerned about. What the fuck else are they for?

making money through sponsorships and tv deals for its 20 member clubs

[Guest neesy111]

Spot on mini thread by Liam Kennedy

 

 

I'm sorry like, but that's really embarassing. The Premier League won't, nor should they, give a f*** about any of those things he writes.

 

i see where you're coming from but i disagree.

it needs saying.

this wouldnt be happening if it were one of the big six being taken over.

the fat c*** has taken, and is continuing to takeour money.

employees are  furloughed and non the wiser about their futures.

the season restarts soon and we are just an empty vessel floating along.

 

how the f*** our current owner gets away with it i dont know.

 

i bet if he tries to buy another club, he'll sail through the owners test.

 

Last sentence is embarrassing.

[Teasy]

The Premier League shouldn't give a f*** about the fans of one of its clubs?  They don't, but of course they should.

maybe they should but ultimately they're not answerable to fans they're answerable to the 20 premier league clubs

 

Of course.  Still think it's worth saying even if it will fall on deaf ears though.  Much like a lot of the opposition to the takeover was never going to have a effect on a legal process but was still worth saying.