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

[Guest]

[Raconteur]

 

but the state of KSA haven't even been accused of being behind the piracy afaik, just not doing enough to stop it and/or not allowing bein to pursue people through the courts - i'm just not seeing this MBS link at all personally, i don't see where or what it gets them as there is no chance on the face of the earth anyone takes MBS to court over piracy like   and that's the only benefit for them of getting MBS linked isn't it?

 

you could see there being more mileage in that from the other directors of PiF as wasn't one of them tentatively linked to it in some way?  but they were offered that and refused apparently, idk

 

surely they'd not be so bold as to claim him ordering the khashoggi murder constitutes a reasonable crime and disqualify him on those grounds

 

I must admit that I don’t know how BeOutQ is structured, but the nature of the service is inherently political in nature - it was clearly two fingers up at Qatar and BeIn (emphasised by their ads). Is the PL out of line to ask the question as part of their O&D test? Some would say yes, but I wouldn’t agree.

 

And I also think you’re correct to say that no one in bringing MBS in front of the WTO or a British civil court. That’s why I believe that the PL and BeIn are bandying together for similar but different reasons - BeIn want to protect their rights, and the PL want to use the leverage made available to them to ask questions (hoping to fight piracy) while supporting their commercial partners.

[Penn]

If Ashley  takes legal  action action against the premier league.  I  wonder  if they would rather offer Ashley a decent out of court settlement than get dragged though the courts .

 

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action?

 

Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million).  So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs.

 

Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League.

 

So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford?  Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves?

 

The PL have assets of around £400,000 and a turnover of around £3m (their acounts are freely available on Companies House).

 

It could be that the clubs would be asked to step in to bail them out but the Premier League Ltd would not be likely to be able to afford to pay out much.

 

You're looking at the wrong accounts.

 

(not that it matters, because Ashley suing the Premier League is another fantasy scenario that people are believing in because it's a comforting, rather than realistic, thought)

[Guest neesy111]

 

but the state of KSA haven't even been accused of being behind the piracy afaik, just not doing enough to stop it and/or not allowing bein to pursue people through the courts - i'm just not seeing this MBS link at all personally, i don't see where or what it gets them as there is no chance on the face of the earth anyone takes MBS to court over piracy like   and that's the only benefit for them of getting MBS linked isn't it?

 

you could see there being more mileage in that from the other directors of PiF as wasn't one of them tentatively linked to it in some way?  but they were offered that and refused apparently, idk

 

surely they'd not be so bold as to claim him ordering the khashoggi murder constitutes a reasonable crime and disqualify him on those grounds

 

I must admit that I don’t know how BeOutQ is structured, but the nature of the service is inherently political in nature - it was clearly two fingers up at Qatar and BeIn (emphasised by their ads). Is the PL out of line to ask the question as part of their O&D test? Some would say yes, but I wouldn’t agree.

 

And I also think you’re correct to say that no one in bringing MBS in front of the WTO or a British civil court. That’s why I believe that the PL and BeIn are bandying together for similar but different reasons - BeIn want to protect their rights, and the PL want to use the leverage made available to them to ask questions (hoping to fight piracy) while supporting their commercial partners.

 

[Shearergol]

If Ashley  takes legal  action action against the premier league.  I  wonder  if they would rather offer Ashley a decent out of court settlement than get dragged though the courts .

 

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action?

 

Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million).  So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs.

 

Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League.

 

So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford?  Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves?

 

The PL have assets of around £400,000 and a turnover of around £3m (their acounts are freely available on Companies House).

 

It could be that the clubs would be asked to step in to bail them out but the Premier League Ltd would not be likely to be able to afford to pay out much.

 

You're looking at the wrong accounts.

 

(not that it matters, because Ashley suing the Premier League is another fantasy scenario that people are believing in because it's a comforting, rather than realistic, thought)

 

How's your pursuit of Mauriss coming on Penn[/member] Luke?

[Rocker]

So, what are the next steps to keep the pressure up?

[samptime29]

#wait

[Montey]

So, what are the next steps to keep the pressure up?

 

I really think the answer to this question is, to keep doing what is being done.

 

Part of convincing the PL that they need to fix things is to show them that this will not go away with time - that they and their sponsors can't just ignore this anticipating that we'll lose interest in a few days.  They need to see 4 weeks later that it's not dying down and it will go on and on until they act.  Right now they will have advisors saying to them, "don't worry, give it a few days, and they'll get bored and stop - just look at their pathetic campaigns against Mike Ashley."  They need to be shown that this advice is not correct - this requires persistence and determination.

 

- Keep pushing the petition and see if it can get to 200,000 signatures.

- Keep sending MPs letters, even changing the subject of letters to MPs to be along the lines of "the PL continues ignoring us, we urge the parliament to act."

- Keep targeting PL social media.

- Keep targeting PL sponsors' social media.

- Keep targeting other PL clubs' social media.

- Keep reaching out and pushing for support from popular personalities.

- Keep digging and posting about compromised relationships and conflicts of interest within the PL.

 

All of this impacts the PL (it's a marketing, brand value nightmare if nothing else) - we need to keep at it!

[Robster]

If Ashley  takes legal  action action against the premier league.  I  wonder  if they would rather offer Ashley a decent out of court settlement than get dragged though the courts .

 

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action?

 

Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million).  So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs.

 

Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League.

 

So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford?  Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves?

 

The PL have assets of around £400,000 and a turnover of around £3m (their acounts are freely available on Companies House).

 

It could be that the clubs would be asked to step in to bail them out but the Premier League Ltd would not be likely to be able to afford to pay out much.

 

You're looking at the wrong accounts.

 

(not that it matters, because Ashley suing the Premier League is another fantasy scenario that people are believing in because it's a comforting, rather than realistic, thought)

 

Feeling ready to take part in an adult conversation yet Penn[/member] ?

I'm still (genuinely) interested to hear your opinion on why you think the PL haven't outright rejected it.

[Pons Alias]

I love the way Penn comes on here, tell us we’re wrong, but not why, then fucks off.

 

That’s a Troll in my book.

[Scotty66]

[OpenC]

I love the way Penn comes on here, tell us we’re wrong, but not why, then fucks off.

 

That’s a Troll in my book.

 

There's nee point in explaining, I hear it's all stuff we wouldn't understand

[Montey]

 

This is a good thread.

[Papavasiliou]

 

I still struggle to believe Coca-Cola and the like are even noticing what's going on. The waves we're making aren't exactly gonna shake their boat.

[duo]

It's not about legal cases or who is responsible for enforcing rights. It's about what BeIN and other rights holders would think.

 

If the PL allowed the Saudis in, then BeIN would rightly feel that the PL are not protecting their rights, supporting piracy, and would say "well why should we bid again next time round?". Not just BeIN, but others might think the same too in case the PL do the same to them.

Let's not confuse PIF with Saudi Arabia- PIF is a company in its own right, much as BEIN is in Qatar.  If you start liking them to their state then for me you start to question whether BEIN are fit to broadcast the Premier League. It is widely accepted that they bought the World Cup, corruption at the highest level.  How is that a good image for the Premier League?  Its not they've turned a blind eye for the ££££.  The hypocrisy of it all is  ridiculous.  The PL should treat PIF as it has BEIN a separate company and get this approved.

[Shearergol]

I love the way Penn comes on here, tell us we’re wrong, but not why, then fucks off.

 

That’s a Troll in my book.

 

It's also all explained on his twitter feed. Although it's a load of nothingness.

[loki679]

 

I still struggle to believe Coca-Cola and the like are even noticing what's going on. The waves we're making aren't exactly gonna shake their boat.

 

They'll be noticing.  They'll take even more notice if we include links to their competitors products along with the corruption stuff.

[James]

Has it been established definitively that Luke Edwards is Penn?

[LV]

Nope

[Shearergol]

Has it been established definitively that Luke Edwards is Penn?

 

Tons more evidence of that than there is of PIF still being involved in a bid to buy the club.

 

 

[OpenC]

 

[Montey]

 

I still struggle to believe Coca-Cola and the like are even noticing what's going on. The waves we're making aren't exactly gonna shake their boat.

 

If you're not watching this stuff regularly (social media trends) you'd be very surprised about just how sensitive major brands are about their social media profile and to social media campaigns.

 

If you look to the US market, especially, there are loads of brands that have removed products, changed product names, and issued grovelling apologies for past perceived sins all on the basis of a social media and write-in campaigning by small numbers of activists.  For example, here's an article (https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/list-companies-changed-or-dropped-brands-amid-social-justice-movement#article) that discusses a number of major brands who are changing what they do due to a perception that what they are doing is socially no longer acceptable - yet when the general public is surveyd on these subjects it almost universally turns out that they don't care that much about the issues being addressed.  If you're interested in knowing more about this type of activism, it generally comes under the heading of "cancel culture".

 

A specific example of such a activist organisation is called "Sleeping Giants" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Giants) they have caused hundreds (possibly thousands) of companies stop advertising on media outlets they don't like or on media programs they don't like.  They have achieved this across a number of countries.  When they've been researched by journalists it's been determined that they usually have a very small number of active people who are very good ate whipping up social media mobs and to convince companies that they are facing a tsunami of opposition (when in fact its a tiny minority).

 

So, there is ample evidence that highly energetic social media campaigns, accompanied by write-in activism, petitions, and other actions, have been very successful in having large companies change in quite significant ways.

 

Edit:  I should add that more and more companies are now waking up to just how small these activist groups are, and how little influence they really have, and are increasingly telling the activists to bugger off.  But most large companies are not there yet.

[Billy Pilgrim]

You’re absolutely off your lips if your think the Premier League’s brand is majorly affected by any of this, literally the only people who give a fuck about this happening are the Saudis and us, everyone else is dead against it for obvious reasons beginning with the actual nasty craic related to dealing with the Saudis up to being scared of us being the richest club in the universe.

 

From what I can see the only way to get some kind of resolution is pressure from parliament or the courts, the league are not going to pass this unless they’re told to and nobody is going to tell them to so we might as well pack up and go home before we all completely lose our minds.

 

The only thing giving this any life whatsoever is the possibility that Ashley has some legal leverage over them now, that he feels slighted or is desperate because the money is already allocated elsewhere. Once he no longer has much skin the game we are truly fucked, mackem style fucked.

[RS]

Has it been established definitively that Luke Edwards is Penn?

Not him. His earlier posts are just typical fan stuff. Only recently he’s came at a different angle. He’s right about the deal being dead in the water though. Anger should be aimed at the PL and no one else.

[Chris_R]

It's not about legal cases or who is responsible for enforcing rights. It's about what BeIN and other rights holders would think.

 

If the PL allowed the Saudis in, then BeIN would rightly feel that the PL are not protecting their rights, supporting piracy, and would say "well why should we bid again next time round?". Not just BeIN, but others might think the same too in case the PL do the same to them.

Let's not confuse PIF with Saudi Arabia- PIF is a company in its own right, much as BEIN is in Qatar.  If you start liking them to their state then for me you start to question whether BEIN are fit to broadcast the Premier League. It is widely accepted that they bought the World Cup, corruption at the highest level.  How is that a good image for the Premier League?  Its not they've turned a blind eye for the ££££.  The hypocrisy of it all is a ridiculous.  The PL should treat PIF as it has BEIN a separate company and get this approved.

 

The PL HAVE turned a blind eye for £s though. That's the entire point.

 

This is all about money. About protecting their revenue streams which, although we don't like it, is BeIN. And others will be watching how they look after BeIN and if they are willing to put their nose out of joint to put the SA bid through, the rest will be almost as unhappy thinking they might be next to be cast aside.

 

Whether it all fits in with the criteria of the O&Ds test is secondary, sadly. It shouldn't be this way, but it clearly is.