Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 The TV rights is nothing to do with the delay - it’s the make up of PIF and influence of MBS. Which is easily solved and will be solved. You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts? Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time. Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/ Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters. Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer. So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool. And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time? Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it. Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment. Who else is left?... Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy? Already been answered countless times - because the PL have concerns he will have control of (or major influence in) the club, which is against their rules as a state cannot own a club. Right, so they want it so they can reject it? So basically they have every right to be asking for this if it's going to be the case (you say it's easily solved) It is easily solved - assurances have been given that MBS will have no control. PL weren’t willing to accept that, but with the pressure now being applied, it is hoped that the PL will reconsider this stance and accept the assurances they have been given. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I wonder when the title will be Official: Saudi-backed consortium re-inserts bid to buy NUFC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Holden Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 The TV rights is nothing to do with the delay - it’s the make up of PIF and influence of MBS. Which is easily solved and will be solved. You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts? Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time. Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/ Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters. Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer. So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool. And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time? Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it. Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment. Who else is left?... Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy? Already been answered countless times - because the PL have concerns he will have control of (or major influence in) the club, which is against their rules as a state cannot own a club. Right, so they want it so they can reject it? So basically they have every right to be asking for this if it's going to be the case (you say it's easily solved) It is easily solved - assurances have been given that MBS will have no control. PL weren’t willing to accept that, but with the pressure now being applied, it is hoped that the PL will reconsider this stance and accept the assurances they have been given. When was the last time you had cheese on your beans? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 The TV rights is nothing to do with the delay - it’s the make up of PIF and influence of MBS. Which is easily solved and will be solved. You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts? Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time. Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/ Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters. Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer. So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool. And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time? Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it. Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment. Who else is left?... Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy? Already been answered countless times - because the PL have concerns he will have control of (or major influence in) the club, which is against their rules as a state cannot own a club. Right, so they want it so they can reject it? So basically they have every right to be asking for this if it's going to be the case (you say it's easily solved) It is easily solved - assurances have been given that MBS will have no control. PL weren’t willing to accept that, but with the pressure now being applied, it is hoped that the PL will reconsider this stance and accept the assurances they have been given. When was the last time you had cheese on your beans? Around 3-4 months ago, I’d say. They were on toast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Regarding the Financial Times article... The Premier League gave them “private assurances” before the deal was signed and again in mid-April that “approval would be forthcoming soon” before the mood music changed in June. Source: https://theathletic.com/1963663/2020/07/30/newcastle-united-takeover-withdraw-staveley-ashley-pif-premier-league/ So at that point it appears Bein really got their hooks into the PL somehow. Another issue, and one I want to shift the focus to briefly, is the supposed opposition from other premier league clubs. The only teams I saw specifically mentioned were Tottenham and Liverpool, but let's assume the entire top 6 had reservations along with others. On what grounds would they be objecting? This is a question I can't find an answer to that sounds like anything other than sour grapes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Regarding the Financial Times article... The Premier League gave them “private assurances” before the deal was signed and again in mid-April that “approval would be forthcoming soon” before the mood music changed in June. Source: https://theathletic.com/1963663/2020/07/30/newcastle-united-takeover-withdraw-staveley-ashley-pif-premier-league/ So at that point it appears Bein really got their hooks into the PL somehow. Another issue, and one I want to shift the focus to briefly, is the supposed opposition from other premier league clubs. The only teams I saw specifically mentioned were Tottenham and Liverpool, but let's assume the entire top 6 had reservations along with others. On what grounds would they be objecting? This is a question I can't find an answer to that sounds like anything other than sour grapes. Well you'd think that most people would object to Saudi's owning a club in the PL based on moral issues. It "shouldn't" have any standing in the PL tests, but you can see why the majority of people/clubs would object to it. It's like why Daniel Bryan refuses to be part of the WWE events in Saudi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choppy Chop Chop Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 like a moth to a flame keep checking back here to see if Ashley's screwed us over again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 The point is it should be straightforward and transparent, if they want to reject it then fine. But make a decision and say why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I think its a lot simpler than being made out, I think its as simple as The PL don't want it as it upsets sponsors They don't have legal grounds to reject and therefore will be liable to legal recourse They are therefore refusing to respond until it goes away, and according to their rules they can Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Logic Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Well you'd think that most people would object to Saudi's owning a club in the PL based on moral issues. It "shouldn't" have any standing in the PL tests, but you can see why the majority of people/clubs would object to it. I didn't ask what people would object to, and tagging clubs onto an answer about people and trying to suggest it is the same thing doesn't really work imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I think its a lot simpler than being made out, I think its as simple as The PL don't want it as it upsets sponsors They don't have legal grounds to reject and therefore will be liable to legal recourse They are therefore refusing to respond until it goes away, and according to their rules they can Sadly their method will probably work. It's been a good concerted effort by fans so far but it'll die out. Especially when fans are allowed back in stadiums. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 The TV rights is nothing to do with the delay - it’s the make up of PIF and influence of MBS. Which is easily solved and will be solved. You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts? Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time. Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/ Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters. Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer. So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool. And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time? Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it. Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment. Who else is left?... Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy? Accidentally deleted my post when trying to amend it... Because the PL believe MBS will have a significant influence on the club. Nothing to do with piracy but PL do not want him to have control of a PL club. The test would fail if he was appointed a director (due to a state owning a club, nothing to do with piracy), which is why PIF/Staveley refuse to do so. That's a really peculiar take. I feel like you're applying FIFA rules regarding government intervention to the FA O&D test. I haven't seen any reference to state ownership in the O&D test, but I confess I wasn't looking for it. I wanted to ask a few quick questions, as you are certain "piracy did nothing to hold up the deal" Do you accept that MBS is a board member of PIF? Do you accept that BeOutQ was a pirate organisation? Do you accept that BeOutQ was set up specifically by the KSA government to piss off Qatar/BeIn as part of their geopolitical bullshit? Is it thus impossible to suggest MBS was probably involved in piracy? Like, I don't know how you can say piracy didn't hold up the deal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I think its a lot simpler than being made out, I think its as simple as The PL don't want it as it upsets sponsors They don't have legal grounds to reject and therefore will be liable to legal recourse They are therefore refusing to respond until it goes away, and according to their rules they can I think it really does boil down to this. It's cynical and corrupt, but it's happening in front of us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papavasiliou Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I think its a lot simpler than being made out, I think its as simple as The PL don't want it as it upsets sponsors They don't have legal grounds to reject and therefore will be liable to legal recourse They are therefore refusing to respond until it goes away, and according to their rules they can I think it really does boil down to this. It's cynical and corrupt, but it's happening in front of us Upsets the top 6 too. Can't be having that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I think its a lot simpler than being made out, I think its as simple as The PL don't want it as it upsets sponsors They don't have legal grounds to reject and therefore will be liable to legal recourse They are therefore refusing to respond until it goes away, and according to their rules they can Agree, a decision without a decision. I don't know whether not applying the test fairly is open to challenge in itself though. If it's considered an internal process of a private company I'm not sure if it would be. Might be up to them if they follow it or not on any given day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Well you'd think that most people would object to Saudi's owning a club in the PL based on moral issues. It "shouldn't" have any standing in the PL tests, but you can see why the majority of people/clubs would object to it. I didn't ask what people would object to, and tagging clubs onto an answer about people and trying to suggest it is the same thing doesn't really work imo. So you don't feel clubs in the league can express moral reasons for not wanting a Saudi owned club in the PL? That's surely just your take on things? Why can individuals, human rights groups, other companies all have morality reasons to object to it but clubs can't? Again, I'm not saying any of these objections should stand, I'm saying it will be the reason given, and nobody could argue with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St1pe Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Anyone else outwardly accepting the takeover isn’t going to happen yet opening the forum/twitter every day hoping for some sort of deal resurrection? The lack of definitive news is killing me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I think its a lot simpler than being made out, I think its as simple as The PL don't want it as it upsets sponsors They don't have legal grounds to reject and therefore will be liable to legal recourse They are therefore refusing to respond until it goes away, and according to their rules they can If this is the case, it beggars belief that the PL can be allowed to get away with this course of action, given the money at stake. Does seem like they will get away with it though. This is quite a comical comment I know, given the talk about corruption etc, but can the buyers go to UEFA or FIFA to appeal ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Well you'd think that most people would object to Saudi's owning a club in the PL based on moral issues. It "shouldn't" have any standing in the PL tests, but you can see why the majority of people/clubs would object to it. I didn't ask what people would object to, and tagging clubs onto an answer about people and trying to suggest it is the same thing doesn't really work imo. So you don't feel clubs in the league can express moral reasons for not wanting a Saudi owned club in the PL? That's surely just your take on things? Why can individuals, human rights groups, other companies all have morality reasons to object to it but clubs can't? Again, I'm not saying any of these objections should stand, I'm saying it will be the reason given, and nobody could argue with it. Are morality reasons part of the O&D test? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Are the NUST going to take anymore steps and encourage fans to write to their MP's again after everyone was ignored by Richard Masters. I reckon the pressure needs to be kept up rather than just nothing else happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Well you'd think that most people would object to Saudi's owning a club in the PL based on moral issues. It "shouldn't" have any standing in the PL tests, but you can see why the majority of people/clubs would object to it. I didn't ask what people would object to, and tagging clubs onto an answer about people and trying to suggest it is the same thing doesn't really work imo. So you don't feel clubs in the league can express moral reasons for not wanting a Saudi owned club in the PL? That's surely just your take on things? Why can individuals, human rights groups, other companies all have morality reasons to object to it but clubs can't? Again, I'm not saying any of these objections should stand, I'm saying it will be the reason given, and nobody could argue with it. Are morality reasons part of the O&D test? No, hence my second line. IF (and it's not confirmed) that the reason the PL haven't accepted is because they don't want to upset the other clubs then obviously there will be hell on. However, that's never going to be proved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlymouthGeordie Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Anyone else outwardly accepting the takeover isn’t going to happen yet opening the forum/twitter every day hoping for some sort of deal resurrection? The lack of definitive news is killing me. Yeah, I'm the same. I was gutted when the offer was withdrawn but also relieved to know at least it was over. Now it's even worse as it's even less likely it'll happen but there according to every journalist or news outlet going there is still a crumb of hope as all parties (buyer and seller) are still "committed" to the deal. Although I have no idea how you can be committed to a deal and simultaneously pull out of said deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ClintonBaptiste Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 Cancel my subscription to the resurrection Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 I got a feeling that ironically Ashley has the power to force a response from PL because he is the only one who can legitimately raise a legal battle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stal Posted August 12, 2020 Share Posted August 12, 2020 All these thoughts that ashley is on our side; what if he's simply arguing for any sale? Could be he's pushing the PL but it's to sell to this American morris bloke that no one except cosplay lee ryder wants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts