Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

[Whitley mag]

Oh well Luke Edwards line about the club now thinking about considering other bidders seems like a load of bullshit.

 

 

[gdm]

I wish he could consider other bidders tbh 

[Bishops Finger]

7 minutes ago, gdm said:

I wish he could consider other bidders tbh 

TBH we'd be lucky if there were more bidders and if there was they'd probably end up worse than Ashley. Saying that, Ashley has already stripped all the assets so now much more to take

[Whitley mag]

7 minutes ago, gdm said:

I wish he could consider other bidders tbh 

Depends who other bidders are, there’s clearly nobody else with any real credentials interested.

 

If Jeff Bezos all of a sudden declared

an interest we’d all be in, unfortunately it would more than likely be a US leveraged buyout by some chancer like that De Grosa.

[Montey]

If the Premier League (and the Cartel6) won't allow the PIF takeover then they won't allow any other takeover of similar capability.

 

(In my opinion) the PL & Big6 stopped the PIF takeover because they don't want another money-bags club to compete with.  If I (and others) am correct with this theory, it means that even if another buyer came along the PL & Big6 would stop any takeover unless it was a smaller buyer.  This means that any takeover that would be approved would be one that kept us in a position mostly similar to where we are now.  Consequently, to accept any other takeover (other than the PIF takeover) is effectively to accept that NUFC will never be a club in a position to regularly compete for anything (other than a Leicester like miracle every few decades).

[Cookie1892]

8 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

The PL published a new handbook on Friday with some interesting looking changes to the O&D test.

 

They’ve introduced an “owners’ charter” which has to be submitted by each director 14 days before the start of each season. Although the rules are silent on what the Owners’ Charter actually is, “Owners’ Charter means the document of that name agreed by Clubs” is all the rules say.

 

It also requires that “where the Director is not a natural person, it must ensure that the individual signing the Owners’ Charter on its behalf is duly authorised to do so.”

 

And there is a new guidance note added to the O&D test in Section F that states "where these Rules impose an obligation on a Director (or proposed Director) to submit a Declaration (whether under this Rule F.2 or Rule F.24) and the Director (or proposed Director) concerned is not a natural person, it must ensure that the individual signing the Declaration on its behalf is duly authorised to do so and to bind that Director to comply with the obligations placed upon it by these Rules."

 

They have also altered the definition of "Connected Person" (which is a term used in the all important definition of "Control") to include reference to circumstances involving a person who is not a natural person.

 

No idea what that means for us, but it seems that the PL are concerned that their previous rules didn't deal clearly enough with circumstances where a person taking control is not a natural person i.e. a company or state.

 

 

 

 

the way i read that it seems better for us i think

 

they are saying that any placed in a directors role by an owner that is not a 'natural person' i.e a state must be bound by the prem league rules etc

[Dr Jinx]

If any of the “big 6” clubs did indeed actively try and block a takeover and the PL listened and did their bidding, isn’t that by it’s own merit a slam dunk case of anti competition?

[Montey]

5 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

If any of the “big 6” clubs did indeed actively try and block a takeover and the PL listened and did their bidding, isn’t that by it’s own merit a slam dunk case of anti competition?

 

Which, I believe, is the reason that Mike Ashley and NUFC have taken the PL to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, where such cases are determined.

[McCormick]

9 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

If any of the “big 6” clubs did indeed actively try and block a takeover and the PL listened and did their bidding, isn’t that by it’s own merit a slam dunk case of anti competition?

Only if they can prove it. Which, I imagine, would be difficult to do…

[Jackie Broon]

10 minutes ago, Cookie1892 said:

 

the way i read that it seems better for us i think

 

they are saying that any placed in a directors role by an owner that is not a 'natural person' i.e a state must be bound by the prem league rules etc

 

I'm not sure that's good for us though.

 

Aside from the new stuff that seems be in response to our takeover, they've also made changes that seam to mean the directors of the ESL clubs would be disqualified from being directors. 

[TK-421]

19 minutes ago, Cookie1892 said:

 

the way i read that it seems better for us i think

 

they are saying that any placed in a directors role by an owner that is not a 'natural person' i.e a state must be bound by the prem league rules etc

 

But, does that not mean the PL would want any 'not natural person' i.e. the KSA, to go through the O&D test, which is where this kind of stalled in the first place, with the separation argument between PIF and The KSA, and KSA/MBS not going through the test?

 

To me it looks like the PL have just updated the rules to make that clear now, and its little/no help to us.

 

Happy to be wrong, though.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by TK-421

[Ankles Bennett]

So the owners charter is a charter agreed by "clubs".  It doesn't state all clubs so the owners charter means a majority of clubs OR more than likely the Big 6 are being given the power to vote against a takeover (Project Big Picture) if they feel their revenue streams are threatened by such a takeover.

[Whitley mag]

11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I'm not sure that's good for us though.

 

Aside from the new stuff that seems be in response to our takeover, they've also made changes that seam to mean the directors of the ESL clubs would be disqualified from being directors. 

I’m presuming Beloff hasn’t been responsible for writing these changes to section A of the rule book.

 

[Jackie Broon]

4 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said:

So the owners charter is a charter agreed by "clubs".  It doesn't state all clubs so the owners charter means a majority of clubs OR more than likely the Big 6 are being given the power to vote against a takeover (Project Big Picture) if they feel their revenue streams are threatened by such a takeover.

 

That bit seems to possibly be more of a response to the ESL. It also requires any director that is involved in any other football organisation to disclose that and what is discussed at their meetings.

[Whitley mag]

Surely this part would just refer to PIF governor being duty bound by PL rules and having authority from KSA which Al-Rumayyan does.

 

In any case would any subsequent detrimental changes to rule book in relation to our bid not make the PL look more guilty and that the original ODT didn’t have the scope to fail our bid ?

 

 

And there is a new guidance note added to the O&D test in Section F that states "where these Rules impose an obligation on a Director (or proposed Director) to submit a Declaration (whether under this Rule F.2 or Rule F.24) and the Director (or proposed Director) concerned is not a natural person, it must ensure that the individual signing the Declaration on its behalf is duly authorised to do so and to bind that Director to comply with the obligations placed upon it by these Rules."

 

 

[Joey Linton]

1 hour ago, Whitley mag said:

Oh well Luke Edwards line about the club now thinking about considering other bidders seems like a load of bullshit.

 

 

If you think Ryder is correct of course. That's quite a leap of faith. 

[Jackie Broon]

4 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Surely this part would just refer to PIF governor being duty bound by PL rules and having authority from KSA which Al-Rumayyan does.

 

In any case would any subsequent detrimental changes to rule book in relation to our bid not make the PL look more guilty and that the original ODT didn’t have the scope to fail our bid ?

 

 

And there is a new guidance note added to the O&D test in Section F that states "where these Rules impose an obligation on a Director (or proposed Director) to submit a Declaration (whether under this Rule F.2 or Rule F.24) and the Director (or proposed Director) concerned is not a natural person, it must ensure that the individual signing the Declaration on its behalf is duly authorised to do so and to bind that Director to comply with the obligations placed upon it by these Rules."

 

 

 

I thought that at first but reading again the Director that would bound by the rules would be the KSA, not Al-Rumayyan himself if he were authorised to sign on the KSA's behalf. So it doesn't really seem to resolve the issue for us, which is that the KSA don't want to be subject to the PL's rules.

[STM]

More good news I see.

[Scoot]

1 minute ago, STM said:

More good news I see.

Where?

[ianovthetoon]

Bit left field and a total conspiracy theory but could this be a positive step for the takeover? There could be a bit of a Mexican stand-off in the background. Wraith and his pal seem to be a bit disappointed but I just don’t get it. We were never going to get a quick decision on jurisdiction without a hearing and it’s going in to summer recess. 
 

So maybe on the face of it it’s doom and gloom as people now believe PIF are going to walk. Maybe Ashley will now go nuclear on the premier league and all of the ‘evidence’ will come out via the press and other preferred media channels. Maybe the sheer threat of it will force the premier league to do a deal?

 

Maybe I’m just clutching at straws. I do wonder though why this hasn’t been an option. If there’s any evidence of illegal wrongdoing the powers that be would be compelled to investigate and bring criminal charges if any complaints/evidence came to light

 

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by ianovthetoon

[Shearergol]

3 minutes ago, ianovthetoon said:

Bit left field and a total conspiracy theory but could this be a positive step for the takeover? There could be a bit of a Mexican stand-off in the background. Wraith and his pal seem to be a bit disappointed but I just don’t get it. We were never going to get a quick decision on jurisdiction without a hearing and it’s going in to summer recess. 
 

So maybe on the face of it it’s doom and gloom as people now believe PIF are going to walk. Maybe Ashley will now go nuclear on the premier league and all of the ‘evidence’ will come out via the press and other preferred media channels. Maybe the sheer threat of it will force the premier league to do a deal?

 

Maybe I’m just clutching at straws. I do wonder though why this hasn’t been an option. If there’s any evidence of illegal wrongdoing the powers that be would be compelled to investigate and bring criminal charges if any complaints/evidence came to light

 

 

 

There is no mind blowing evidence. If there was any this would already have been done. It’s Ashley just saying “this isn’t fair”.

[cubaricho]

3 minutes ago, ianovthetoon said:

Maybe the sheer threat of it will force the premier league to do a deal?

 

Maybe I’m just clutching at straws. I do wonder though why this hasn’t been an option.

 

Literally no one cares about Newcastle apart from Newcastle fans. They'll look at us and go "boo hoo" and then turn back to their own teams safe in knowing that we weren't given the power to compete. The Prem are going to fuck us and no one but us is going to care - it's the status quo.

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, cubaricho said:

 

Literally no one cares about Newcastle apart from Newcastle fans. They'll look at us and go "boo hoo" and then turn back to their own teams safe in knowing that we weren't given the power to compete. The Prem are going to fuck us and no one but us is going to care - it's the status quo.

Correct 

[buzz]

8 minutes ago, ianovthetoon said:

Bit left field and a total conspiracy theory but could this be a positive step for the takeover? There could be a bit of a Mexican stand-off in the background. Wraith and his pal seem to be a bit disappointed but I just don’t get it. We were never going to get a quick decision on jurisdiction without a hearing and it’s going in to summer recess. 
 

So maybe on the face of it it’s doom and gloom as people now believe PIF are going to walk. Maybe Ashley will now go nuclear on the premier league and all of the ‘evidence’ will come out via the press and other preferred media channels. Maybe the sheer threat of it will force the premier league to do a deal?

 

Maybe I’m just clutching at straws. I do wonder though why this hasn’t been an option. If there’s any evidence of illegal wrongdoing the powers that be would be compelled to investigate and bring criminal charges if any complaints/evidence came to light

 

 

 

 

There's probably no evidence. The PL will be well covered.

[et tu brute]

5 minutes ago, cubaricho said:

 

Literally no one cares about Newcastle apart from Newcastle fans. They'll look at us and go "boo hoo" and then turn back to their own teams safe in knowing that we weren't given the power to compete. The Prem are going to fuck us and no one but us is going to care - it's the status quo.

 

I'll go one step further, they all will be laughing their tits off about what is happening with us.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by et tu brute