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

[Jinky Jim]

Sorry if already mentioned, another spanner in the works / further delay

 

"The Football Association have written to Saudi Arabia's main TV sports station to threaten legal action over the illegal broadcasting of vintage FA Cup matches involving Newcastle United. "

 

 

 

I know,I know but some Saudi’s on Twitter have already rubbished this...... Gist of it is, they have the rights to the matches they showed.

 

 

Question is, is the FA letter a bullshit article or have the FA been duped?

[Stifler]

Sorry if already mentioned, another spanner in the works / further delay

 

"The Football Association have written to Saudi Arabia's main TV sports station to threaten legal action over the illegal broadcasting of vintage FA Cup matches involving Newcastle United. "

The culture minister for Saudi Arabia has already said that they own the rights.

[manorpark]

Sorry if already mentioned, another spanner in the works / further delay

 

"The Football Association have written to Saudi Arabia's main TV sports station to threaten legal action over the illegal broadcasting of vintage FA Cup matches involving Newcastle United. "

 

 

 

 

It is odd how these things keep on getting repeated, long after they have been de-bunked.

 

As Stifleaay says, the Saudies have confirmed they own the rights to show those matches.

[Dokko]

If they have the rights then it makes the fa look totally incompetent and with an agenda to derail the takeover.

[Judge Holden]

Sorry if already mentioned, another spanner in the works / further delay

 

"The Football Association have written to Saudi Arabia's main TV sports station to threaten legal action over the illegal broadcasting of vintage FA Cup matches involving Newcastle United. "

 

 

 

I know,I know but some Saudi’s on Twitter have already rubbished this...... Gist of it is, they have the rights to the matches they showed.

 

If true.

[Guest The Little Waster]

https://twitter.com/NewcastleFansTV/status/1266679751797886978?s=20

 

🤪

[Choppy Chop Chop]

Spot on mini thread by Liam Kennedy

 

 

Absolute nonsense thread. Things like this shouldn't just be accepted and rushed through just to help the mental health of Newcastle fans

 

Absolute nonsense post. No it wont change nowt and they won't be concerned about nufc fans mental health, but they should be concerned with an owner taking fans money for no reason and not giving them any clue about whats going on.

 

I understand your reasons behind not wanting it to happen etc but not everything the 'pro takeover fans' say is bollocks.

 

That lads most definitely bringing to light a few things that need to be said with regards to staff and refunds.

 

They should be concerned with the current c*** of an owner taking the p*ss out of fans and staff. 100%.

 

This is nowt to do with being anti or pro the takeover. Takeovers of companies take time , you can't just rush things through especially when possibly important information has just come to light, regarding the piracy thing. If they give a timeline of say 2 weeks, then what if more information becomes available in 13 days time that could affect the decision?

 

But you are anti-takeover by PIF, let's get that out there just to clarify.

 

I don't think anybody needs that clarified but thanks anyway

 

have you ever been involved with an acquisition of a company?

 

I have and right now, if this was not a football club company, legally following everything that has passed to this point in terms of the sale/purchase of what is a legal fully registered and recognised trading business enterprise, this is a done deal.

 

No-one can pull out, even if monies owed to all parties were still to be transferred to close any holding account and therefore financially complete the deal at each end, the legal fact of the matter is that again, as of now, as of how far along this is, it’s a done deal.

 

It’s a done deal because the buyer’s money has been paid (as per whatever any agreements exist between the two etc.) into an account, and that money is locked in now.

 

Again the buyer can’t just withdraw that money and the seller can’t just return it or not accept it.

 

Not unless both mutually agree to terminate everything and both sides would have to do that, one or the other cannot just pull out, they would face legal proceedings which for example if Ashley decided to withdraw, could see him lose the business full stop and even pay them the actual agreed price to get out of it. Likewise the seller could end up having to pay up the full agreed price as compensation and end up with nothing.

 

Of course no-one knows the stipulations and clauses in any detail which could see both seller or buyer allowed to break off from the deal mutually or forego a security deposit etc.

 

If this was a none football club business, however, even without the transfer of funds at the end of all parties, it would to all intents and purposes be a done deal.

 

Legally as a business it’s a done deal, even without the transfer of funds which of course would follow and conclude everything officially and leave nothing to be withdrawn, rejected, opposes or contested.

 

Right now, it can’t be concluded officially as a legal football club entity as well as a legal business entity, funds transferred or not, until the PL approve the takeover in compliance with their own TOS that legally grants the business it’s status to operate as a football club in the PL’s competition.

 

If they don’t approve the takeover, legally, as business, they will still own NUFC or can’t be stopped owning the club as a business and can still apply to register to operate as a football club or retain their status as a football club with the FA and EFL, which legally they can’t be denied or can be revoked. And if I’m correct in thinking, membership as such grants all football clubs who are members with the right to participate in any competition the FA/FL grant licence to operate under them which the PL must comply with in order to run their own competition as long as member clubs also comply. As such any Football Association member club can enter any competition/win promotion if they adhere to the TOS of those competitions which is based solely on sporting, spectator, stadium, safety, policing, stewarding and the ability to financially support putting out a team to fulfil all fixture requirements in general for all of the FA/FL licenced competitions.

 

In short there are so many legal ways around things and as a business, legally as things stand, this is a done deal, only because this is also a football club requiring additional  approval to also operate as a football club in the competition ran by the PL, legally, it’s not a done deal on that side.

 

It would take an unprecedented ruling by the PL to deny NUFC’s legal status as a PL club and in ways that 100% couldn’t be contested and overruled which would also legally challenge the status of NUFC operating as registered and recognised business entity which again, right now, Ashley no longer owns because he’s sold it as a business and now it rests with the PL as to whether they will also legally own a PL football club.

 

Every challenge, opposition, red flag, raised question mark, ethical, moral, financial, individually as persons involved, criteria, the PL has to go over with a fine tooth comb, and no matter what, they will eventually have no legal or sporting, financial or business basis in which to deny NUFC’s PL status as per their own TOS, unless they rewrite them and force every PL club to satisfy and risk losing their licence to run their competition under the FA who grants any football club great and small, professional or amateur, in the entire football pyramid, providing they adhere to their TOS, the right and status to enter/participate in every one of their competitions or any they licence to.

 

I personally think the checks have been done, funds have or are being transferred to all parties involved and the only thing delaying any official announcement is to allow the PL to focus on restarting the season first and when that’s done every party involved will have had enough time to work on their own individual PR pieces and can also release media Q&As that they can all answer in unison in terms of any questions about privacy, dead widows letters, amnesty international, human rights issues and so on.

 

The PL want this as much as we do, they want their money, they want another contender and an extra European super club to relegate rivals from Spain and Italy, they want an injection of big spending in the transfer market and want above all else, for them and anyone else to come and buy their product and no-one elses.

 

I recommend everyone ignores any scare mongering or hyperbole in the press who no f*** all, be patient, relax and be confident that legally as a business, this is at the stage now where it’s a done deal, where legally as a football club, there is no other conclusion, and that’s what will soon be confirmed.

 

And we will only find out when the official site says say, in black and white.

 

:smitten: :smitten:

[Dr Jinx]

So has either MBS or Yasir Al-Rumayyan been convinced of any crime? No.

 

Are they skint? No.

 

Have they conducted any sort of dishonest act that would be deemed prosecutorial in the United Kingdom? Well, certainly not that could be proven. So the answer again is no. You would have to have evidence that either MBS or Yasir Al-Rumayyan had direct involvement in BeoutQ, say for example a photo of him holding the box giving a massive thumbs up..

 

Being the head of a state does not make you responsible for every crime committed within it. In the case of BeoutQ, if it’s proven that they have used Arabsat to steal BeIn’s IP, that’s more of a corporate crime and can always be passed off as someone within the organisation taking a bung to allow it. It’s impossible to track it back to MBS.

 

Unless they have devised a whole new test just for us and nobody else, I can’t see any reason why this can be stopped, according to their own rules.

 

 

[adam1]

So we're supposed to be getting an announcement today aren't we?

[Chris_R]

 

Have they conducted any sort of dishonest act that would be deemed prosecutorial in the United Kingdom? Well, certainly not that could be proven. So the answer again is no. You would have to have evidence that either MBS or Yasir Al-Rumayyan had direct involvement in BeoutQ, say for example a photo of him holding the box giving a massive thumbs up..

 

 

Why do people keep saying this? The directors' test criteria are copy and pasted literally on this very page for you yet you still say the above. For clarity, here's the relevant part:

 

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;

 

There is NO requirement for anything to be proven. None. It's "in the reasonable opinion of the board". That's it. No conviction is required, no "hard evidence" needed, the board just have to decide, in their own opinion, that if they'd done this in the UK then it would be "on offence". That is all that is required to fail this test.

[t00nraider]

So we're supposed to be getting an announcement today aren't we?

1st of June 2020. 3am.

[LV]

There's a good article in the Athletic today on the PIF and how the acquisition of NUFC fits into their 2030 vision. It goes through some of their other investments this year too.

 

Yeah that was a great read. Particularly interesting re their potential idea to mimic the City Football Group model, with them supposedly already having looked into Botafogo. Do they just love black and white stripes or summin?

 

Supposedly it's the colours of Islam or something.

 

Will probably be green then - although in Islam we don’t really have a colour as such

 

There is something about black and white flags and Khorasan or something though no?

[Guest The Little Waster]

There's a good article in the Athletic today on the PIF and how the acquisition of NUFC fits into their 2030 vision. It goes through some of their other investments this year too.

 

Yeah that was a great read. Particularly interesting re their potential idea to mimic the City Football Group model, with them supposedly already having looked into Botafogo. Do they just love black and white stripes or summin?

 

Supposedly it's the colours of Islam or something.

 

Will probably be green then - although in Islam we don’t really have a colour as such

 

There is something about black and white flags and Khorasan or something though no?

 

[Scotty66]

 

Have they conducted any sort of dishonest act that would be deemed prosecutorial in the United Kingdom? Well, certainly not that could be proven. So the answer again is no. You would have to have evidence that either MBS or Yasir Al-Rumayyan had direct involvement in BeoutQ, say for example a photo of him holding the box giving a massive thumbs up..

 

 

Why do people keep saying this? The directors' test criteria are copy and pasted literally on this very page for you yet you still say the above. For clarity, here's the relevant part:

 

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;

 

There is NO requirement for anything to be proven. None. It's "in the reasonable opinion of the board". That's it. No conviction is required, no "hard evidence" needed, the board just have to decide, in their own opinion, that if they'd done this in the UK then it would be "on offence". That is all that is required to fail this test.

 

But I'm guessing this is where the buyers legal team would have a field day if it gets rejected on that basis. Surely they need to have some basic form of evidence to make it "reasonable"

 

I think this is why the WTO report is so important, but then even that is not concrete evidence.

[Guest godzilla]

 

Have they conducted any sort of dishonest act that would be deemed prosecutorial in the United Kingdom? Well, certainly not that could be proven. So the answer again is no. You would have to have evidence that either MBS or Yasir Al-Rumayyan had direct involvement in BeoutQ, say for example a photo of him holding the box giving a massive thumbs up..

 

 

Why do people keep saying this? The directors' test criteria are copy and pasted literally on this very page for you yet you still say the above. For clarity, here's the relevant part:

 

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;

 

There is NO requirement for anything to be proven. None. It's "in the reasonable opinion of the board". That's it. No conviction is required, no "hard evidence" needed, the board just have to decide, in their own opinion, that if they'd done this in the UK then it would be "on offence". That is all that is required to fail this test.

 

The opinion has to be based on evidence that it's an offence in the first place though and that the Owners/Directors are directly involved; or are you saying then they can just make a decision because in their opinion it's an offence. That really would stand up well in court in the event of a takeover being knocked back.

[Chris_R]

 

But I'm guessing this is where the buyers legal team would have a field day if it gets rejected on that basis. Surely they need to have some basic form of evidence to make it "reasonable"

 

I think this is why the WTO report is so important, but then even that is not concrete evidence.

 

Such a court case over the word "reasonable" would take years, and have so many appeals from both sides, whichever way it went. The PL have time to do that, I'm not sure PIF or Ashley do. In the interim, the club would be unable to compete in the PL until a ruling was awarded in PIF's favour, though possibly if it eventually went their way they could sue for loss of earnings. It would be a mess. But are PIF really that determined to go ahead with this deal that they'd be happy to go down that route? Maybe they are, but equally likely they could just say "Stuff this" and go buy another club somewhere else.

 

All I'm getting at is people saying "This can't fail" or "This is just a matter of time" or "This cannot be stopped" really don't seem to have read and understood the wording of the test. I'm not saying it will fail, but to suggest it cannot fail is ridiculous.

[BlueStar]

So we're supposed to be getting an announcement today aren't we?

 

[Dr Jinx]

 

The directors' test criteria are copy and pasted literally on this very page for you

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;

 

There is NO requirement for anything to be proven. None. It's "in the reasonable opinion of the board". That's it. No conviction is required, no "hard evidence" needed, the board just have to decide, in their own opinion, that if they'd done this in the UK then it would be "on offence". That is all that is required to fail this test.

 

Yes. I posted it.

 

In the reasonable opinion of the board have they 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.

 

F.1.5.2.

in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or

 

F.1.5.3.

in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous (comparable) offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

 

So the board have to reasonably come to a conclusion that MBS or YAR have been involved in any act which could be considered dishonest.

 

So a crown prince or the head or PIF and Aramco will be deemed to have acted dishonestly? It’s a cluster fuck if they were to do that.

[Guest Butcher]

I honestly don't think there's any chance at all that it will be rejected.

[Chris_R]

So a crown prince or the head or PIF and Aramco will be deemed to have acted dishonestly?

 

You think that's such a reach? This thread is littered with people saying "They probably were involved in the piracy, but nobody can prove it lol". In the reasonable opinion of a great number of people on this board, the Saudi government have been behind the piracy.

 

Now I'm not a solicitor or lawyer, so I cannot speculate on what level of proof, if any, is required to have a "reasonable opinion" on anything. All I'm saying is that it's preposterous to suggest that this cannot fail.

[Dr Jinx]

So a crown prince or the head or PIF and Aramco will be deemed to have acted dishonestly?

 

You think that's such a reach? This thread is littered with people saying "They probably were involved in the piracy, but nobody can prove it lol". In the reasonable opinion of a great number of people on this board, the Saudi government have been behind the piracy.

 

Now I'm not a solicitor or lawyer, so I cannot speculate on what level of proof, if any, is required to have a "reasonable opinion" on anything. All I'm saying is that it's preposterous to suggest that this cannot fail.

 

Oh they could reject it alright but it would be a diplomatic shit show. It would be like someone telling the Queen that she couldn’t own horses because her family have a few known diddlers

[OCK]

We filthy rich yet?

[Chris_R]

So a crown prince or the head or PIF and Aramco will be deemed to have acted dishonestly?

 

You think that's such a reach? This thread is littered with people saying "They probably were involved in the piracy, but nobody can prove it lol". In the reasonable opinion of a great number of people on this board, the Saudi government have been behind the piracy.

 

Now I'm not a solicitor or lawyer, so I cannot speculate on what level of proof, if any, is required to have a "reasonable opinion" on anything. All I'm saying is that it's preposterous to suggest that this cannot fail.

 

Oh they could reject it alright but it would be a diplomatic shit show. It would be like someone telling the Queen that she couldn’t own horses because her family have a few known diddlers

 

You're being too generic. It would be more like the Queen buying a horse off someone but then trying to enter it into a race where there was a sign up saying "if in my reasonable opinion someone in your family has done something which may lead to prosecution I reserve the right to not let you enter", and being told that she therefore couldn't enter the race. The PL can't stop PIF buying Newcastle, they can only stop Newcastle entering their competition.

 

There's a massive amount of scope for this to fail. Yes, there'd be legal fallout, but would PIF have the stomach for the fight to own us? Are they THAT invested in owning Newcastle United specifically? Or would they just move on, and in the background sue the PL to get their £17m deposit back whilst going to buy another club? I'd suggest the latter rather than the former, and the PL could easily stump them the £17m without it even going to court just to avoid a fiasco.

 

Guess who wins again?

[Guest godzilla]

So a crown prince or the head or PIF and Aramco will be deemed to have acted dishonestly?

 

You think that's such a reach? This thread is littered with people saying "They probably were involved in the piracy, but nobody can prove it lol". In the reasonable opinion of a great number of people on this board, the Saudi government have been behind the piracy.

 

Now I'm not a solicitor or lawyer, so I cannot speculate on what level of proof, if any, is required to have a "reasonable opinion" on anything. All I'm saying is that it's preposterous to suggest that this cannot fail.

 

You were putting it across that this was the case though and now you're saying I cannot speculate. If you really think the PL can make a reasonable opinion without evidence then you're kidding yourself. If they have this and can show this evidence does implicate the buyers, then yes they can knock the takeover back. They need that evidence first to form that 'reasonable opinion' that this is the case though otherwise they will face a massive lawsuit.

[Chris_R]

Are you seriously saying that nobody can have a reasonable opinion on anything without evidence?

 

I reasonably believe many things with no evidence whatsoever.

 

Again, I'm not saying this will fail, I'm just saying it's ridiculous to suggest it cannot. There's too many people in this thread who seem so utterly convinced that this cannot in any way be stopped. You might be in for a shock.