Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

Jinky Jim

by Jinky Jim
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Whitley mag

Whitley mag

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Thumbheed said:

 

The examples make perfect sense but is this really a fair comparison? So in the example if equinor, would the argument still be valid if said trade minister was chairman of equinor and furthermore if Norway's entered legal system is defined by him and his family; the same legal system we're supposed to accept as legally binding? 

Edit: wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that guy to be a named director?

I suppose it boils down to the fact can it be argued MBS is a figurehead and is it reasonable for the Governor to be the named Director for the purpose of running a football club. I wouldn’t claim to know how the legal team will argue the toss on this. I mean would it be reasonable for the whole of the PIF board to be submitted for the test as you could argue they could all hold influence. I’m sure when the deal was originally called off, Staveley in her interview with Caulkin said they had offered to put the whole PIF board forward but they wanted the state. What did she mean by the whole PIF board ? What I can say for certain is that De Marco and Fatima will know a hell of a lot more about separation than Luke fucking Edwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaizero

Kaizero

Posted
Posted
On 13/04/2021 at 12:38, AyeDubbleYoo said:

This thread really shouldn't exist, I don't see why we can just discuss the takeover in one place. 

Essentially a similar reason to why we have one transfer rumors thread and one twitter transfer rumors thread. This thread merits its existence as in the other thread you'd get jumped if you were just a tiny bit positive, to the degree there's even spillage over into this thread from people wanting to jump others for being positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandy

Wandy

Posted
Posted

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/04/15/did-premier-league-delay-newcastle-takeover-changed-will-second/?utm_content=football&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1618489656

 

The proposed £305 million takeover of Premier League Newcastle United by a Saudi Arabian-backed consortium collapsed last year after the group declined to take up the Premier League's offer of independent arbitration to decide who would own the club.

It has now emerged that Boris Johnson reportedly acted on a personal plea from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with the Prime Minister urged to "correct and reconsider" a "wrong" decision by the Premier League, which was accused of blocking the takeover of the club. But where does this all leave the takeover, Newcastle United and the future of the club?

What does the latest news mean?

Beyond the political row, and legitimate questions as to why the Prime Minister reportedly involved himself, nothing has changed in terms of the potential takeover of Newcastle United. It can still be revived and the club’s owner Mike Ashley is not speaking to any other bidder. The Sports Direct owner, who was paid a £15million deposit, is determined to sell to the consortium led by financier Amanda Staveley and involving her firm, PCP Capital Partners, the Reuben Brothers and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia which would take an 80 per cent stake.

It was known that Boris Johnson had taken an interest – that was clear from the email he sent the Newcastle United Supporters Trust last August when he said there should be “clarity” on why there was such a delay by the Premier League on the decision over whether the Owners and Directors Test had been passed. What was not known is the level of that involvement with Johnson reportedly being lobbied by the Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman and also allegedly asking a senior No10 aid, Lord Eddie Lister – who is a Middle East expert – to take up the complaint.

It is clear from the persistence of the Government and the tone of their emails how sensitive they regarded the whole issue and the potential ramifications for Middle East trade and relations. There was also the on going concern over human rights, the geo-politics of the region – with the proxy war against Qatar – and the complication as to whether the piracy of Premier League broadcast rights was state-sponsored by the Saudis. They denied this but a World Trade Organisation report concluded otherwise. There had also been murmurings of complaints from other Premier League clubs.

We also already know that there was a high-level meeting after the Saudis withdrew the £305million bid in frustration between the various parties, including the Premier League, and that this also ended without resolution. It is unclear who brokered the meeting but it may have involved the Foreign Office at some level.

Whether the latest news hampers or hinders the bid remains to be seen. It will be argued it, again, shows that it is state-backed while PIF continue to argue it remains a separate investment vehicle making independent decisions.

In short this is a fiendishly complicated saga.

Why did the Premier League drag their heels so long?

It depends who you believe on this one. The Premier League will argue they did not drag their heels but the fact is taking more than 17 weeks to decide whether the nominated directors from the new owners passed the organisation’s owners and directors test is unusual. The Premier League will claim otherwise but while there may have been some delay because of the pandemic – remember the bid was formally submitted while football was shutdown last year and no-one knew when it would re-start and at what cost – that does not explain how incredibly long it took not to make a decision.

It is evident from the emails sent by the Department for Digital, Culture Media and Sport that government officials felt a decision was “imminent” on more than one occasion (and The Daily Telegraph understands this to be the case) and the Premier League also appeared to indicate that it was close – although it then qualified that by adding there could be yet more delays.

Certainly the bidders thought it was close and also, despite the controversy, despite the accusations of broadcast piracy, believed the bid would be approved. Time and again the argument was put forward that the UK government did business with Saudi Arabia and so the Saudis should be allowed to be part of buying a Premier League football club.

The Daily Telegraph eventually revealed that there was an “impasse” with concerns over the ownership structure and who will have the final say in the decision-making process. It transpired that the buyers were struggling to satisfy the Premier League which wanted greater clarity regarding the link between the PIF and the Saudi state.

The Premier League was reportedly unconvinced by the argument that the PIF is independent despite the crown prince being the fund’s chairman. Three-fifths of the Newcastle board was to be made up of Saudi representatives led by Yasir Al-Rumayyan who is the governor of the PIF.

Once that story was published the bid was quickly withdrawn despite Amanda Staveley insisting they had answered all the questions from the Premier League which wrote to Newcastle and said it had provisionally decided that the PIF is “controlled” by the Saudi state meaning it “would become a director of the club”. This caused a great deal of anger and confusion.

What are the chances of it being back on the table?

High. Very high. In fact it can be argued it was never really ‘off the table’ despite the Saudis formally withdrawing in anger. The key now is not the row over political lobbying but the forthcoming Premier League arbitration hearing which has been instigated by Newcastle and the club’s owner Mike Ashley. At the height of the deadlock arbitration, available through the Premier League’s rulebook, it was offered to the bidders but they were worried about the independence of the process. Since then it has been formally asked for by Newcastle to query the Premier League’s decision-making but – as yet – the private hearing has not taken place.

It was due to happen in February but we are now into April and it remains shrouded in secrecy. In saying that we do know who will be on the three-man panel after Newcastle revealed the club had been unsuccessful in a High Court bid to remove Michael Beloff QC as chairman alleging that he could be “biased” as he had previously advised the Premier League in relation to a potential change to its owners and directors test.

The ruling was made public and revealed former Supreme Court Judge Lord David Neuberger – who was chosen by Newcastle - and former Master of the Rolls Lord John Dyson – who was selected by the Premier League - have also been selected to sit on the panel. It was also revealed by Newcastle that it was “considering whether or not to pursue an appeal” which may further delay the arbitration hearing.

The Newcastle legal team is led by Nick de Marco QC who has a strong track record in winning legal cases in football. If he is successful with this one it will be a significant embarrassment to the Premier League and will pile pressure on its chief executive Richard Masters. It is also expected to lead to the bid being re-submitted and, given Newcastle appear to have escaped relegation, on similar terms to the £305million offer that was accepted. There may be some re-negotiated given the delay and the continued financial effects of the pandemic but Mike Ashley remains committed to the deal and the buyers have not walked away.

If they lose the arbitration hearing then it gets more complicated. It is understood that part of the agreement to undertake the process is to accept its ruling but such is Ashley’s determination to win he may pursue other legal routes if he loses. There is also the possibility of legal action being taken by Newcastle fans who, through the Newcastle Consortium Supporters Ltd, have already submitted a Letter Before Action to the Premier League.

The saga may continue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jinky Jim

Jinky Jim

Posted
Posted
Just now, Wandy said:

The thought of this going through, and it also taking Masters down at the same time, is mouth watering.

Also believe Gary Hoffman (chair of the Premier League) who took up his post in June, also has a lot of baggage when it comes to the takeover fiasco...would love to know how much influence he had on the PL delaying everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dokko

Dokko

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I still find it mental that we delayed the arbitration and are now considering delaying it even further by appealing. I don't understand that at all. 

 It's all about the game and how you play it.

All about control and if you can take it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AyeDubbleYoo

AyeDubbleYoo

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Dokko said:

 It's all about the game and how you play it.

All about control and if you can take it.

Didn't we want the arbitration done though? It seems the only way forward. Taking 4 months to challenge a well-respected lawyer who confirmed he was independent, seems crazy. And they lost.

The person we nominated helped to nominate the third person FFS.

 

 

Edited by AyeDubbleYoo

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dokko

Dokko

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Didn't we want the arbitration done though? It seems the only way forward. Taking 4 months to challenge a well-respected lawyer who confirmed he was independent, seems crazy. And they lost.

Maybe DeMarco is on hourly rates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben

Ben

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Doctor Zaius said:

He's a fucking cunt is what he is.

Its not the content, but his delivery. Smarmy, vindictive and arrogant.

The sooner he stops covering us, the better.

100% agree, I would even say he has a personal vendetta against the fans of the club and actively takes the opposing view of the majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Wandy said:

The thought of this going through, and it also taking Masters down at the same time, is mouth watering.

Yes, would be all the sweeter knowing he has been unethically batting for the top 6 at the detriment of the rest of the Premier clubs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...