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

[Ankles Bennett]

Its a bit like the Keegan case as in constructive dismissal - the PL have engineered a situation where any self respecting bidder would walk away due to frustration

 

Fair play to the number of posters on here who predicted that only to be shot down.

 

I guess it’s proven to be massive naivety on my part but I just didn’t foresee an entity like the PIF walking away in response to something like that.

 

But, if what AS says is correct, the PL wanted KSA not PIF to be named as the majority director, which 'is impossible'. So with the PL refusing to approve or refuse them and with no timescale for any sort of decision, then the uncertainty going on just ends up harming the club and its ongoing plans.

 

If the PL haven't been made formally aware of the withdrawal yet, in theory the tests are still on going. Of course the headlines will have made it back to the PL, and perhaps this will force a dialogue with them asking what is happening. Who knows, perhaps a dialogue + adverse publicity will engineer a way through to suit all parties, and it could be back on.

 

#Clutching

I suspect the PLwanted the saudi state to be named as a director so they had a solid case to reject it on the basis of their failure to combat the tv piracy.  Clearly they couldn't pin that on PIF as a director.  Effectively the PLtried to maneuver the consortium to a position that gave them grounds to reject instead of accepting PIF as a director.

[Raconteur]

I do think the deal is not dead yet. The key is, unlike prior takeovers, this time Ashley do willing to sell and the buyer do willing to meet his asking price. They are on the same boat. Even if this got rejected as long as Staveley can come up a new deal the process can restart very quickly. That also probably explains why Staveley put no blame on Ashley and we also didn’t hear any bad words from Ashley against Staveley (Unlike last time).

 

They still can make a deal. The problem is how to get SA funding AND pass the O&D test.

 

That problem is the reason the deal is dead.

 

Aye. But this can be resolved.

 

1. Use public pressure to force PL to withdraw the ridiculous requirement. This is what they are doing.

 

2. Cut down PIF involvement so that they are no longer ultimate owner. As said this can be done as long as Reuben is willing to.

 

 

I can win the lottery, but doesn't mean it's likely.

 

1. The PL won't care about "public pressure" from a number of NUFC fans. Why would they?

2. There was a reason they looked for investment from other parties. It's not going to happen with just AS and the Ruebens.

 

1. Well I don’t think it is impossible. No harm to try. And as I said this requirement is unfair, as clear as fuck. If the PL bows down to the public pressure, fine. If not, reconstruct the deal.

 

2. Yea but what I get from ASs interview is PL is asking to put SA as director because “the involvement of SA on PIF and in-turn PIF on the club is too significant”. Which is the composition of the 300m. If report is correct PIF is funding 80% of the amount (I.e. 240m) and thus they will be the majority shareholder.  That also means as long as Reuben is willing to increase his shares, up to the point where he is the majority shareholder, the requirement might be lifted.

 

In fact I wonder what would happen if the club changes their composition of shareholders in the future, say Reuben sold 20% of his shares back to PIF. Does this constitute as a takeover and subject to O&D test again?

 

I’m not sure that logic is sound. Whether PIF holds 80% or 1%, there are still going to be questions regarding separation between government investment vehicle and government.

[TK-421]

You don't make a public announcement that you are pulling out as a pressure tactic, that's nuclear

 

I'd guess PCP/Reuben wanted to go with option 1, which was the strongly worded statement on Tuesday.

 

PIF clearly decided they'd had enough and decided to go with the nuclear option 2 and withdraw, which due to the balance of power, PCP/Reuben had to go along with.

 

PCP and hopefully Reuben are clearly still heavily (emotionally at least) invested in this, the club and the area to a degree.

 

Guess we just need to see how the PL responds (if they do) and if they'll bow to pressure and revisit the consortium structure demands, and/or whether there's and work that can be done behind the scenes to redress the power balance of the consortium, or see if KSA can do anything to appease the PL (unlikely).

[The Prophet]

I agree it's a last ditch move by Stavely, I just don't think it'll work. The PL have what they wanted, they don't have to make a decision.

[Robster]

I agree it's a last ditch move by Stavely, I just don't think it'll work. The PL have what they wanted, they don't have to make a decision.

and they've made their bosses (Liverpool et al), happy.

[Nobody]

Thank fuck we only have to deal with the cunts at the PL for one more season.

[OpenC]

I'd guess PCP/Reuben wanted to go with option 1, which was the strongly worded statement on Tuesday.

 

I'm not holding out any false hope, but for me what happened yesterday was very much option 1 and a strongly worded statement.  It is the nuclear option, of course, and will conclude the process one way or another (and quite possibly already has).

[Jackie Broon]

I agree it's a last ditch move by Stavely, I just don't think it'll work. The PL have what they wanted, they don't have to make a decision.

 

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m.

[Guest]

What do we reckon the chances of Ashley going legal with this could be? £300m or so he’s losing out on here.

[Montey]

I wanted this deal as much as anyone but Saudi Arabia are hardly faultless here.

 

Saudi Arabia pirating the Premier League's biggest oversea broadcaster.

 

PL sending complaints to the wrong email address. Seriously?

 

During the process they even banned BeIn.  Helping no-one.

 

I wish they sort their relationship out.  And try again with buying hs.  Them having a healthy relationship with Qatar (at least whilst they hold PL rights) is the way to go.

 

You obviously have no idea why their relationship with Qatar is so bad, so let's go with some education and see whether you change your mind or are just a Qatari stooge...

 

• In 1996 Qatar launches Al Jazeera, which "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler." and "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler."
  
• Qatar has often "exiled its most powerful critics to Saudi Arabia."
  
• In 1995 Qatar's new ruler established ties with Iran, transferring their affiliation from Saudi Arabia (a Sunni nation) to Iran (a Shia nation).
  
• In 1996 there was an attempted coup d'etat against the ruler of Qatar, who blamed government officials from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE.
  
• In 2014 the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar due to Qatar backing Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries).
  
• In 2002 Al Jazeera published a secret peace treaty between Saudi Arabia and Isarael.
  

 

More generally, it is important to know about Qatar:

• Jamal Ahmed al-Fadi, a former business agent for Osama bin Laden, said to the 9/11 Commission and US Congress that Bin Laden had told him in 1993 that the Qatar Charitable Society was one of Bin Laden's sources of funding.
  
• Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy, a previous employee of the Qatar Central Bank, was a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, and was living freely in Qatar in 2014 (and is on a world wide terrorist blacklist).
  
• Abd al-Rahman bin Umayr al-Nuaymi, who was also a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, was the president of the Qatar Football Association and allegedly provided £1.5+million per month to al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Syria (he is also on a world wide terrorist blacklist and living freely in Qatar).
  
• ... and many more links to international terrorist groups (like al-Qaeda, ISIL, Hamas)
  

 

So whilst Saudi Arabia can certainly be painted as a group of bad guys, Qatar is (in at least equal measure) also a country ruled by and supporting some terribly evil people.  To suggest that Saudi Arabia should just have "a healthy relationship with Qatar" is incredibly naive.  To suggest that the Premier League is justified to reject Saudi involvement in the Premier League whilst also taking Qatari money is just morally and ethically bankrupt!  Saudi Arabia and Qatar (in fact Qatar and many countries in the region) are effectively in their own version of the Cold War and to suggest they could just have "a healthy relationship" is like asking the United States of America, England, and other NATO countries to just have "a healthy relationship" with the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

Sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis
  

[gjohnson]

I agree it's a last ditch move by Stavely, I just don't think it'll work. The PL have what they wanted, they don't have to make a decision.

 

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m.

 

How's that? Ashley gets the 17m deposit, not them

[Slim]

Crazy thing if we were in the championship they probbly would passed tje owners test.  Once we are promoted they can't do shit.  See Sheffield United

[Hudson]

I wanted this deal as much as anyone but Saudi Arabia are hardly faultless here.

 

Saudi Arabia pirating the Premier League's biggest oversea broadcaster.

 

PL sending complaints to the wrong email address. Seriously?

 

During the process they even banned BeIn.  Helping no-one.

 

I wish they sort their relationship out.  And try again with buying hs.  Them having a healthy relationship with Qatar (at least whilst they hold PL rights) is the way to go.

 

You obviously have no idea why their relationship with Qatar is so bad, so let's go with some education and see whether you change your mind or are just a Qatari stooge...

 

• In 1996 Qatar launches Al Jazeera, which "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler." and "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler."
  
• Qatar has often "exiled its most powerful critics to Saudi Arabia."
  
• In 1995 Qatar's new ruler established ties with Iran, transferring their affiliation from Saudi Arabia (a Sunni nation) to Iran (a Shia nation).
  
• In 1996 there was an attempted coup d'etat against the ruler of Qatar, who blamed government officials from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE.
  
• In 2014 the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar due to Qatar backing Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries).
  
• In 2002 Al Jazeera published a secret peace treaty between Saudi Arabia and Isarael.
  

 

More generally, it is important to know about Qatar:

• Jamal Ahmed al-Fadi, a former business agent for Osama bin Laden, said to the 9/11 Commission and US Congress that Bin Laden had told him in 1993 that the Qatar Charitable Society was one of Bin Laden's sources of funding.
  
• Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy, a previous employee of the Qatar Central Bank, was a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, and was living freely in Qatar in 2014 (and is on a world wide terrorist blacklist).
  
• Abd al-Rahman bin Umayr al-Nuaymi, who was also a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, was the president of the Qatar Football Association and allegedly provided £1.5+million per month to al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Syria (he is also on a world wide terrorist blacklist and living freely in Qatar).
  
• ... and many more links to international terrorist groups (like al-Qaeda, ISIL, Hamas)
  

 

So whilst Saudi Arabia can certainly be painted as a group of bad guys, Qatar is (in at least equal measure) also a country ruled by and supporting some terribly evil people.  To suggest that Saudi Arabia should just have "a healthy relationship with Qatar" is incredibly naive.  To suggest that the Premier League is justified to reject Saudi involvement in the Premier League whilst also taking Qatari money is just morally and ethically bankrupt!  Saudi Arabia and Qatar (in fact Qatar and many countries in the region) are effectively in their own version of the Cold War and to suggest they could just have "a healthy relationship" is like asking the United States of America, England, and other NATO countries to just have "a healthy relationship" with the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

Sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis
  

 

The whole things is just how the worlds plays out now, wank aint it

[jackyboy]

They've stopped us from probably taking one of the Champions league spots. Look at the little group up there, feeding at the trough. Each one of those would be concerned at possibly losing their place along with £70 mill?  plus. Of course they influenced the decision making

[Montey]

I wanted this deal as much as anyone but Saudi Arabia are hardly faultless here.

 

Saudi Arabia pirating the Premier League's biggest oversea broadcaster.

 

PL sending complaints to the wrong email address. Seriously?

 

During the process they even banned BeIn.  Helping no-one.

 

I wish they sort their relationship out.  And try again with buying hs.  Them having a healthy relationship with Qatar (at least whilst they hold PL rights) is the way to go.

 

You obviously have no idea why their relationship with Qatar is so bad, so let's go with some education and see whether you change your mind or are just a Qatari stooge...

 

• In 1996 Qatar launches Al Jazeera, which "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler." and "routinely criticized Saudi Arabia's ruler."
  
• Qatar has often "exiled its most powerful critics to Saudi Arabia."
  
• In 1995 Qatar's new ruler established ties with Iran, transferring their affiliation from Saudi Arabia (a Sunni nation) to Iran (a Shia nation).
  
• In 1996 there was an attempted coup d'etat against the ruler of Qatar, who blamed government officials from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, and the UAE.
  
• In 2014 the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar due to Qatar backing Islamist groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (listed as a terrorist organisation by many countries).
  
• In 2002 Al Jazeera published a secret peace treaty between Saudi Arabia and Isarael.
  

 

More generally, it is important to know about Qatar:

• Jamal Ahmed al-Fadi, a former business agent for Osama bin Laden, said to the 9/11 Commission and US Congress that Bin Laden had told him in 1993 that the Qatar Charitable Society was one of Bin Laden's sources of funding.
  
• Khalifa Muhammad Turki al-Subaiy, a previous employee of the Qatar Central Bank, was a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, and was living freely in Qatar in 2014 (and is on a world wide terrorist blacklist).
  
• Abd al-Rahman bin Umayr al-Nuaymi, who was also a senior level financier of al-Qaeda, was the president of the Qatar Football Association and allegedly provided £1.5+million per month to al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Syria (he is also on a world wide terrorist blacklist and living freely in Qatar).
  
• ... and many more links to international terrorist groups (like al-Qaeda, ISIL, Hamas)
  

 

So whilst Saudi Arabia can certainly be painted as a group of bad guys, Qatar is (in at least equal measure) also a country ruled by and supporting some terribly evil people.  To suggest that Saudi Arabia should just have "a healthy relationship with Qatar" is incredibly naive.  To suggest that the Premier League is justified to reject Saudi involvement in the Premier League whilst also taking Qatari money is just morally and ethically bankrupt!  Saudi Arabia and Qatar (in fact Qatar and many countries in the region) are effectively in their own version of the Cold War and to suggest they could just have "a healthy relationship" is like asking the United States of America, England, and other NATO countries to just have "a healthy relationship" with the Soviet Union in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

Sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_relations
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
  
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis
  

 

The whole things is just how the worlds plays out now, wank aint it

 

Yep, it's super shit.  But, wishful thinking won't change that - so we have a choice:  have a club that is pure of heart, pure of mind, and pure of action whilst playing in a lower league; or have a club that is owned and funded by people we don't like but allows us to exist and compete in the Premier League.  There is no middle ground, the Premier League is completely corrupted and to be in it requires clubs and fans to tolerate evil people & regimes.  Make your choice.

[jdckelly]

Crazy thing if we were in the championship they probbly would passed tje owners test.  Once we are promoted they can't do shit.  See Sheffield United

well given the Wigan fiasco (approved by EFL then Admin literally a month later) the EFL test is clearly faulty

[ScottishMagpie]

I don't think it's completely dead yet but it's on a ventilator and relatives have been told to say their goodbyes.

 

Only way I think this comes back from the precipice is if the government get involved.  After this manoeuvre by the buyers I can't see the PL just suddenly turning round and going "oh, okay, come back to today and we'll approve it".  They'll need external pressure applied to them and I don't think our fanbase marching on the PL HQ is the answer.

 

Gonna hate myself for saying this but possibly Big Mike going to the government and basically telling them that the £300m was going to go to "saving" the high street they might be motivated to get on the blower to masters and tell him to kiss the ring.

[Jackie Broon]

I agree it's a last ditch move by Stavely, I just don't think it'll work. The PL have what they wanted, they don't have to make a decision.

 

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m.

 

How's that? Ashley gets the 17m deposit, not them

 

The PL's actions, or lack of them, have caused the consortium to lose the £17m deposit. They would've got it back if they'd refused the test. So they will have a case to take the PL to court to recover that money as an absolute minimum.

[St1pe]

Are we likely to get a club statement today? Because we deserve one. If it is officially dead we also need some sort of indication what is happening moving forward. Not just for us but for the players as well. Is there actually going to be funds available this window? I know there’ll be tons of people who don’t care after it’s collapsed but there needs to be some sort of plan to move forward.

 

I bet for the first time in this ownership process Mike is just as fed up as us ?

[jdckelly]

I agree it's a last ditch move by Stavely, I just don't think it'll work. The PL have what they wanted, they don't have to make a decision.

 

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m.

 

How's that? Ashley gets the 17m deposit, not them

 

The PL's actions, or lack of them, have caused the consortium to lose the £17m deposit. They would've got it back if they'd refused the test. So they will have a case to take the PL to court to recover that money as an absolute minimum.

problem is I can't see a legal case having any legs on the basis of they weren't prompt enough when the PL made clear there is no time limit

[Matt]

I'll be honest, I'm pretty disappointed in the consortium if it's true the whole thing has fallen down because the PL wanted to apply the Director's test in effect to MBS/KSA and the Saudis are not happy being subject to that level of scrutiny (which is not a one-off test, it's an ongoing obligation). It's there in the rulebook and I think some of the quotes from Staveley are trying to make it sound as though the PL were asking something unreasonable.

 

If I were entering into a transaction in my professional life, then I am expected to exercise diligence in understanding who I'm dealing with- not just directly- but those who will be the ultimate beneficiaries of that transaction. Under no circumstances would I consider stopping at PIF and not considering MBS and the Saudi state as controlling persons. PIF is not an independently-managed fund, MBS heads the board of PIF and is the absolute monarch of KSA. Even if we weren't personally involved, he has demonstrated in the Ritz Carlton incident that he can easily exercise control over other wealthy Saudis and members of the expansive royal family and that the legal system in KSA does nothing to protect individuals from the actions of the monarchy.

 

If you can still be bothered to read it, this is straight from the PL's own rulebook:

 

 

A.1.56. Subject to Rule A.1.57, “Director” means any Person occupying the position of director of a Club whose particulars are registered or registrable under the provisions of section 162 of the Act and includes a shadow director, that is to say, a Person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the Club are accustomed to act, or a Person having Control over the Club, or a Person exercising the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company; 

 

A.1.50. “Control” means the power of a Person to exercise, or to be able to exercise or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Control shall be deemed to

include:

 

(a) the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or

 

(b) the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to exercise the voting rights applicable to, Shares in the Club (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club.

 

For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of an Associate of any Person or of a Connected Person to any Person shall be attributed to that Person

 

 

 

[Shearergol]

I'll be honest, I'm pretty disappointed in the consortium if it's true the whole thing has fallen down because the PL wanted to apply the Director's test in effect to MBS/KSA and the Saudis are not happy being subject to that level of scrutiny (which is not a one-off test, it's an ongoing obligation). It's there in the rulebook and I think some of the quotes from Staveley are trying to make it sound as though the PL were asking something unreasonable.

 

If I were entering into a transaction in my professional life, then I am expected to exercise diligence in understanding who I'm dealing with- not just directly- but those who will be the ultimate beneficiaries of that transaction. Under no circumstances would I consider stopping at PIF and not considering MBS and the Saudi state as controlling persons. PIF is not an independently-managed fund, MBS heads the board of PIF and is the absolute monarch of KSA. Even if we weren't personally involved, he has demonstrated in the Ritz Carlton incident that he can easily exercise control over other wealthy Saudis and members of the expansive royal family and that the legal system in KSA does nothing to protect individuals from the actions of the monarchy.

 

If you can still be bothered to read it, this is straight from the PL's own rulebook:

 

 

A.1.56. Subject to Rule A.1.57, “Director” means any Person occupying the position of director of a Club whose particulars are registered or registrable under the provisions of section 162 of the Act and includes a shadow director, that is to say, a Person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the Club are accustomed to act, or a Person having Control over the Club, or a Person exercising the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company; 

 

A.1.50. “Control” means the power of a Person to exercise, or to be able to exercise or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Control shall be deemed to

include:

 

(a) the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or

 

(b) the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to exercise the voting rights applicable to, Shares in the Club (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club.

 

For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of an Associate of any Person or of a Connected Person to any Person shall be attributed to that Person

 

 

 

 

Which is why a lot of people thought that this would fail.

[Robster]

Are we likely to get a club statement today?

Absolutely no chance.

(imo)

[Jackie Broon]

I agree it's a last ditch move by Stavely, I just don't think it'll work. The PL have what they wanted, they don't have to make a decision.

 

But now not making a decision is potentially going to cost the PL a minimum of £17m.

 

How's that? Ashley gets the 17m deposit, not them

 

The PL's actions, or lack of them, have caused the consortium to lose the £17m deposit. They would've got it back if they'd refused the test. So they will have a case to take the PL to court to recover that money as an absolute minimum.

problem is I can't see a legal case having any legs on the basis of they weren't prompt enough when the PL made clear there is no time limit

 

The test has a timescale of 5 working days and it seems like they've actively refused to make a decision.

[St1pe]