Jump to content

Takeover Thread - July 1st statement, Staveley letter to Tracey Crouch (and response) in OP


Yorkie

Will the takeover be complete by this summer?  

312 members have voted

  1. 1. Will the takeover be complete by this summer?

    • Yes
      87
    • No
      183


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, 54 said:

When I last looked in here, things where seeming somewhat positive, a few people had (admittedly dubious) ITK's, and De Marco's tweet? How has it derailed to the standard bullshit? Are people not allowing others to be optimistic again?

gdm's inability to use the Ignore function.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 54 said:

When I last looked in here, things where seeming somewhat positive, a few people had (admittedly dubious) ITK's, and De Marco's tweet? How has it derailed to the standard bullshit? Are people not allowing others to be optimistic again?

People can be optimistic if they want. 
 

I think if you look back all this started because I mentioned Rafa in talks with Everton may mean it’s not as advanced as we think then got attacked for it. I think considering a lot of people had belief Rafa was waiting it out for us it’s pretty relevant & valid to post he’s in talks with Everton 


so we only allowed to post positive pish in here as well now?

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SweMag said:


No you didn’t. You said the exact things I posted. Check your posts.

 

Funny thing about Luke Edwards:

 

 

 

I’m not sure what your point is? Views/reports can change based on what people are told.

 

His initial tweet appears to be his own opinion, his follow up tweet clearly states it is something he has been told.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Robster said:

gdm's inability to use the Ignore function.


people were replying to & quoting me about me mentioning Rafa. Why you not telling them just to ignore me? Why do I have to just ignore their pish ?

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

I’m not sure what your point is? Views/reports can change based on what people are told.

 

His initial tweet appears to be his own opinion, his follow up tweet clearly states it is something he has been told.


[emoji38][emoji38][emoji38]

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

I tell you what I find interesting about that disclosure re the premier league's position in their accounts.

 

The fact that they made it at all.

 

If you're confident the chances are remote, you don't need to say anything about it.

 

Wasn't it about that time they were asking for financial details of the extent of Newcastle's claim?

 

Because if you know what you're on the hook for, you're supposed to disclose that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Abacus said:

I tell you what I find interesting about that disclosure re the premier league's position in their accounts.

 

The fact that they made it at all.

 

If you're confident the chances are remote, you don't need to say anything about it.

 

Wasn't it about that time they were asking for financial details of the extent of Newcastle's claim?

 

Because if you know what you're on the hook for, you're supposed to disclose that too.

IT's not interesting that they made the disclosure, they had to. There is zero chance that the PL auditors were not aware of the claim and they would have made damn sure it was disclosed before signing off the accounts. Chances of winning or losing don't come into it, it's a matter of fact that the litigation is there.

 

The bit on not having any liability can be two fold, wither (a) they believe that there is at least a 50.1% chance of being successful or (b) they believe that if they were to lose the penalty would not be financial - i.e. remedy would be for the takeover to be approved.

 

How the conversation would have gone is

Mr Auditor 'What do you believe the payout would be, and do you have anything to support that'

Masters 'We haven't reached that stage, we are strongly contesting the CAT stream and believe that arbitration is the forum to resolve this. The outcome of arbitration will be that either we were right in how we dealt with it last year (and this is our position) or we have to rerun the tests just on the disclosed directors. There is no financial liability in play here.

Mr Auditor 'Cheers, that will do - stick a line in to that effect and we're good to go'

 

They wouldn't go fishing for a potential liability amount just for the accounts, better to not know. That would have been solicitors chasing it for their own purpose

 

There is nothing more to it than that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gdm said:

Nothing but a troll who only posts in two threads :sleepy2:

 

Says the Newcastle Online TROLL !!

 

As discussed many times previously on here, there are (in the current state of NUFC) only two threads of any relevance.

 

That will change, but at present that is how it absolutely is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

IT's not interesting that they made the disclosure, they had to. There is zero chance that the PL auditors were not aware of the claim and they would have made damn sure it was disclosed before signing off the accounts. Chances of winning or losing don't come into it, it's a matter of fact that the litigation is there.

 

The bit on not having any liability can be two fold, wither (a) they believe that there is at least a 50.1% chance of being successful or (b) they believe that if they were to lose the penalty would not be financial - i.e. remedy would be for the takeover to be approved.

 

How the conversation would have gone is

Mr Auditor 'What do you believe the payout would be, and do you have anything to support that'

Masters 'We haven't reached that stage, we are strongly contesting the CAT stream and believe that arbitration is the forum to resolve this. The outcome of arbitration will be that either we were right in how we dealt with it last year (and this is our position) or we have to rerun the tests just on the disclosed directors. There is no financial liability in play here.

Mr Auditor 'Cheers, that will do - stick a line in to that effect and we're good to go'

 

They wouldn't go fishing for a potential liability amount just for the accounts, better to not know. That would have been solicitors chasing it for their own purpose

 

There is nothing more to it than that.

 

 

Agreed, but the solicitors chasing it could have amounted to an attempt to gauge a settlement figure in the event they looked like losing!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly this forum man. It’s become utter shyte. If you all want to bicker with each other why not just WhatsApp each other personally or something then we don’t all have to see the tedious patter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...