Shearergol Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Wonder if Justin Barnes has been through the O&D test since he’s had such a say in our club over the past few years, after all the process is reviewed annually, apparently. Very good point. What % of NUFC does Justin own? What % would MBS own? Well he’s chairman of the company who were aiming to buy us, no? A chairman isn’t an owner. So MBS would own 0% of NUFC, PIF would own 80% of NUFC. Being a chairman doesn’t necessarily indicate full control, it’s a strategic role at board level. PIFs comment is that the PIF board wouldn’t have any control over day-to-day NUFC matters, which makes sense because they’re an investment vehicle and not intending to be in control. Barnes isn’t a listed owner or director of NUFC but has control over the decision making in the club - something the PL ‘fears’ MBS would. Yet why is Barnes allowed to have any say in the club without these thorough checks which are apparently routinely applied and re-applied every season? This is also ignoring the ridiculous conclusion the PL have drawn that it is acceptable to take 3 months to decide ‘who is who’ and then offer a potential 18-month process as a resolution. They’re not concerned mbs will have influence. They want to bring him in as a reason to fail the test. If that wasn’t the case the consortium would simply agree. As I keep telling you, this is about piracy, not control. Are you posting these as facts? Be careful or you might get called out. The bit in bold is absolute nonsense, so farfetched it makes so little sense. You’re also now ignoring the points about why MBS should have the test applied to him, but not Justin Barnes. Are you saying Barnes has influence over Ashley? Are all club advisors and employees subjected to the test? Why do you feel it’s far fetched? Why don’t the consortium just agree to it? What’s it to them if it’ll allow the test to pass? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Staggered anyone believes the s*** Masters has come out with today. No other clubs have had an input, what a load of bollocks respected journalists like Henry Winter have confirmed this. Wanting to make the govt the owner, Staveley had already confirmed that so nothing new. However, this appears nothing more than putting a major obstacle in the way to prevent deal. Why would anyone be surprised PIF have walked away at the thought of waiting 18 months for arbitration, and then they would conduct test after that. There is absolutely no reason the PL couldn’t have treat PIF as a separate entity if they wished, the simple fact is it was a perfect excuse for them. They state they never leaked any info re deal, this goes against what people involved with NUST have said, Bill Bush’s name has cropped up frequently with briefing certain parties. The length of time they’ve taken to manipulate this outcome should tell us all we need to know, they never wanted the Saudis in the league, and most definitely not as owners of NUFC. That last sentence is bullshit. That’s why we get called deluded. Come on you don’t think they’ve done this to extract revenge for all those frustrated attempts at taking legal action re piracy ? I mean the bit about nufc. Nothing will ever change my view that if this had been a 3 billion purchase of Salford’s finest, it wouldn’t have gone through. There would have been a resolution worked out re ownership structure and nothing will ever convince me otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 So many people need to read up the roles of chairman, CEO and board of directors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Everything that I've seen suggests that it's the Saudi state rather than MbS that the PL think should be included in the test (for all we know MbS has already been included, as you'd expect as the chairman of PIF). Staveley said that the PL wanted the KSA to be tested, Masters referred only to an 'entity' (although the rules of the test only referres to a 'person' so I'm not sure how they could legally apply it to an entity) so it seems to be the Saudi state that they want to include rather than MbS. So they can subsequently make the case that the WTO argued that KSA didn't do enough to stop piracy by Beoutq? Feels like this is dead in the water now. Back to not caring then I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Wonder if Justin Barnes has been through the O&D test since he’s had such a say in our club over the past few years, after all the process is reviewed annually, apparently. Very good point. What % of NUFC does Justin own? What % would MBS own? Well he’s chairman of the company who were aiming to buy us, no? A chairman isn’t an owner. So MBS would own 0% of NUFC, PIF would own 80% of NUFC. Being a chairman doesn’t necessarily indicate full control, it’s a strategic role at board level. PIFs comment is that the PIF board wouldn’t have any control over day-to-day NUFC matters, which makes sense because they’re an investment vehicle and not intending to be in control. Barnes isn’t a listed owner or director of NUFC but has control over the decision making in the club - something the PL ‘fears’ MBS would. Yet why is Barnes allowed to have any say in the club without these thorough checks which are apparently routinely applied and re-applied every season? This is also ignoring the ridiculous conclusion the PL have drawn that it is acceptable to take 3 months to decide ‘who is who’ and then offer a potential 18-month process as a resolution. They’re not concerned mbs will have influence. They want to bring him in as a reason to fail the test. If that wasn’t the case the consortium would simply agree. As I keep telling you, this is about piracy, not control. Are you posting these as facts? Be careful or you might get called out. The bit in bold is absolute nonsense, so farfetched it makes so little sense. You’re also now ignoring the points about why MBS should have the test applied to him, but not Justin Barnes. Justin Barnes is just an employee / consultant. He's not on the board. Tell me what executive decisions he has done? He’s made decisions on player signings, for starters. He’s also not an employee or recorded consultant of NUFC - according to the club, he doesn’t exist. Yet he’s allowed to make decisions for the club. Masters seems to think the O&D test should be applied to anyone with significant control over a club - has his role not been significant over the last few years? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Wonder if Justin Barnes has been through the O&D test since he’s had such a say in our club over the past few years, after all the process is reviewed annually, apparently. Very good point. What % of NUFC does Justin own? What % would MBS own? Well he’s chairman of the company who were aiming to buy us, no? A chairman isn’t an owner. So MBS would own 0% of NUFC, PIF would own 80% of NUFC. Being a chairman doesn’t necessarily indicate full control, it’s a strategic role at board level. PIFs comment is that the PIF board wouldn’t have any control over day-to-day NUFC matters, which makes sense because they’re an investment vehicle and not intending to be in control. Barnes isn’t a listed owner or director of NUFC but has control over the decision making in the club - something the PL ‘fears’ MBS would. Yet why is Barnes allowed to have any say in the club without these thorough checks which are apparently routinely applied and re-applied every season? This is also ignoring the ridiculous conclusion the PL have drawn that it is acceptable to take 3 months to decide ‘who is who’ and then offer a potential 18-month process as a resolution. They’re not concerned mbs will have influence. They want to bring him in as a reason to fail the test. If that wasn’t the case the consortium would simply agree. As I keep telling you, this is about piracy, not control. Are you posting these as facts? Be careful or you might get called out. The bit in bold is absolute nonsense, so farfetched it makes so little sense. You’re also now ignoring the points about why MBS should have the test applied to him, but not Justin Barnes. Are you saying Barnes has influence over Ashley? Are all club advisors and employees subjected to the test? Why do you feel it’s far fetched? Why don’t the consortium just agree to it? What’s it to them if it’ll allow the test to pass? Of course he has control over Ashley - he makes decisions for him Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Would or wouldn't? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Bottom line is that piracy and the influence of others has stopped this and unless Qatar agree to it, it never stood a chance. The Saudis have played a shocker by the looks unless the PL did give firm assurances it would be passed before the process formally started only to then allow Qatar and others to turn the screw. In which case the PL need to be called out and taken to task. Time to ramp up the pressure imo, have to feel they are white washing and brushing important questions under the carpet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Wonder if Justin Barnes has been through the O&D test since he’s had such a say in our club over the past few years, after all the process is reviewed annually, apparently. Very good point. What % of NUFC does Justin own? What % would MBS own? Well he’s chairman of the company who were aiming to buy us, no? A chairman isn’t an owner. So MBS would own 0% of NUFC, PIF would own 80% of NUFC. Being a chairman doesn’t necessarily indicate full control, it’s a strategic role at board level. PIFs comment is that the PIF board wouldn’t have any control over day-to-day NUFC matters, which makes sense because they’re an investment vehicle and not intending to be in control. Barnes isn’t a listed owner or director of NUFC but has control over the decision making in the club - something the PL ‘fears’ MBS would. Yet why is Barnes allowed to have any say in the club without these thorough checks which are apparently routinely applied and re-applied every season? This is also ignoring the ridiculous conclusion the PL have drawn that it is acceptable to take 3 months to decide ‘who is who’ and then offer a potential 18-month process as a resolution. They’re not concerned mbs will have influence. They want to bring him in as a reason to fail the test. If that wasn’t the case the consortium would simply agree. As I keep telling you, this is about piracy, not control. Are you posting these as facts? Be careful or you might get called out. The bit in bold is absolute nonsense, so farfetched it makes so little sense. You’re also now ignoring the points about why MBS should have the test applied to him, but not Justin Barnes. Justin Barnes is just an employee / consultant. He's not on the board. Tell me what executive decisions he has done? He’s made decisions on player signings, for starters. He’s also not an employee or recorded consultant of NUFC - according to the club, he doesn’t exist. Yet he’s allowed to make decisions for the club. Masters seems to think the O&D test should be applied to anyone with significant control over a club - has his role not been significant over the last few years? Which players has he had influence in? You haven't got a fucking clue and just making wild statements to fit your argument. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Already been explained, but you never seem to listen to anyone. He and KSA are uninterested in NUFC, they don’t want to be involved and being subjected to the test will make them involved (and prove the PL’s point that they are involved). That would be an inconvenience to them and they and too much hassle for what is a very low level investment for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Wonder if Justin Barnes has been through the O&D test since he’s had such a say in our club over the past few years, after all the process is reviewed annually, apparently. Very good point. What % of NUFC does Justin own? What % would MBS own? Well he’s chairman of the company who were aiming to buy us, no? A chairman isn’t an owner. So MBS would own 0% of NUFC, PIF would own 80% of NUFC. Being a chairman doesn’t necessarily indicate full control, it’s a strategic role at board level. PIFs comment is that the PIF board wouldn’t have any control over day-to-day NUFC matters, which makes sense because they’re an investment vehicle and not intending to be in control. Barnes isn’t a listed owner or director of NUFC but has control over the decision making in the club - something the PL ‘fears’ MBS would. Yet why is Barnes allowed to have any say in the club without these thorough checks which are apparently routinely applied and re-applied every season? This is also ignoring the ridiculous conclusion the PL have drawn that it is acceptable to take 3 months to decide ‘who is who’ and then offer a potential 18-month process as a resolution. They’re not concerned mbs will have influence. They want to bring him in as a reason to fail the test. If that wasn’t the case the consortium would simply agree. As I keep telling you, this is about piracy, not control. Are you posting these as facts? Be careful or you might get called out. The bit in bold is absolute nonsense, so farfetched it makes so little sense. You’re also now ignoring the points about why MBS should have the test applied to him, but not Justin Barnes. Are you saying Barnes has influence over Ashley? Are all club advisors and employees subjected to the test? Why do you feel it’s far fetched? Why don’t the consortium just agree to it? What’s it to them if it’ll allow the test to pass? Of course he has control over Ashley - he makes decisions for him Does he? I thought he advised him. Never been in the room at the time so I’ll bow to your first hand knowledge. This thread is visual aids but the Barnes/MBS comparison takes the biscuit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Already been explained, but you never seem to listen to anyone. He and KSA are uninterested in NUFC, they don’t want to be involved and being subjected to the test will make them involved (and prove the PL’s point that they are involved). That would be an inconvenience to them and they and too much hassle for what is a very low level investment for them. What involvement is required after going through the test? You mean that if they’re put forward, and pass (you say it would) then they’re forced to start acting in that role? Weird fucking logic man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Would or wouldn't? Wouldn’t, sorry. Typing on a mobile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Already been explained, but you never seem to listen to anyone. He and KSA are uninterested in NUFC, they don’t want to be involved and being subjected to the test will make them involved (and prove the PL’s point that they are involved). That would be an inconvenience to them and they and too much hassle for what is a very low level investment for them. What involvement is required after going through the test? You mean that if they’re put forward, and pass (you say it would) then they’re forced to start acting in that role? Weird f***ing logic man. The test is the involvement. As soon as PIF put him forward for the test, they’re accepting he is involved. How difficult is that to comprehend. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Wonder if Justin Barnes has been through the O&D test since he’s had such a say in our club over the past few years, after all the process is reviewed annually, apparently. Very good point. What % of NUFC does Justin own? What % would MBS own? Well he’s chairman of the company who were aiming to buy us, no? A chairman isn’t an owner. So MBS would own 0% of NUFC, PIF would own 80% of NUFC. Being a chairman doesn’t necessarily indicate full control, it’s a strategic role at board level. PIFs comment is that the PIF board wouldn’t have any control over day-to-day NUFC matters, which makes sense because they’re an investment vehicle and not intending to be in control. Barnes isn’t a listed owner or director of NUFC but has control over the decision making in the club - something the PL ‘fears’ MBS would. Yet why is Barnes allowed to have any say in the club without these thorough checks which are apparently routinely applied and re-applied every season? This is also ignoring the ridiculous conclusion the PL have drawn that it is acceptable to take 3 months to decide ‘who is who’ and then offer a potential 18-month process as a resolution. They’re not concerned mbs will have influence. They want to bring him in as a reason to fail the test. If that wasn’t the case the consortium would simply agree. As I keep telling you, this is about piracy, not control. Are you posting these as facts? Be careful or you might get called out. The bit in bold is absolute nonsense, so farfetched it makes so little sense. You’re also now ignoring the points about why MBS should have the test applied to him, but not Justin Barnes. Justin Barnes is just an employee / consultant. He's not on the board. Tell me what executive decisions he has done? He’s made decisions on player signings, for starters. He’s also not an employee or recorded consultant of NUFC - according to the club, he doesn’t exist. Yet he’s allowed to make decisions for the club. Masters seems to think the O&D test should be applied to anyone with significant control over a club - has his role not been significant over the last few years? Which players has he had influence in? You haven't got a f***ing clue and just making wild statements to fit your argument. www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/06/15/mike-ashley-drafts-trusted-abrasive-lieutenant-help-run-newcastle/ I mean this article is one of many which cites Justin Barnes’ control at the club. Rafa(?) name checked Barnes as making decisions in signings too, IIRC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 In fact isn’t it widely reported Barnes is involved in the sale of the club? That’s a major involvement for someone who’s not involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Already been explained, but you never seem to listen to anyone. He and KSA are uninterested in NUFC, they don’t want to be involved and being subjected to the test will make them involved (and prove the PL’s point that they are involved). That would be an inconvenience to them and they and too much hassle for what is a very low level investment for them. What involvement is required after going through the test? You mean that if they’re put forward, and pass (you say it would) then they’re forced to start acting in that role? Weird f***ing logic man. The test is the involvement. As soon as PIF put him forward for the test, they’re accepting he is involved. How difficult is that to comprehend. And if it’s simply to pass the test, what’s the issue? You say it would pass, but they choose not to do it. The only reason they won’t put him forward for it is because they know it would fail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 In fact isn’t it widely reported Barnes is involved in the sale of the club? That’s a major involvement for someone who’s not involved. On behalf of Ashley, under Ashley’s control. Ffs you’re clutching hard here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 In fact isn’t it widely reported Barnes is involved in the sale of the club? That’s a major involvement for someone who’s not involved. On behalf of Ashley, under Ashley’s control. Ffs you’re clutching hard here. “Barnes handled negotiations with Staveley and her backers, and he has previously had an input into contract talks.” https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/mike-ashley-makes-contingency-plans-newcastle-united-2906162 Are contract negotiations not a board-level decision? I mean the evidence of Barnes’ involvement is clear as day for anyone to see. Not sure who you’ve been following for the past 5 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 In fact isn’t it widely reported Barnes is involved in the sale of the club? That’s a major involvement for someone who’s not involved. On behalf of Ashley, under Ashley’s control. Ffs you’re clutching hard here. “Barnes handled negotiations with Staveley and her backers, and he has previously had an input into contract talks.” https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/mike-ashley-makes-contingency-plans-newcastle-united-2906162 Are contract negotiations not a board-level decision? I mean the evidence of Barnes’ involvement is clear as day for anyone to see. Not sure who you’ve been following for the past 5 years. Write to the PL, ask them then. I’ll enjoy reading their reply. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Already been explained, but you never seem to listen to anyone. He and KSA are uninterested in NUFC, they don’t want to be involved and being subjected to the test will make them involved (and prove the PL’s point that they are involved). That would be an inconvenience to them and they and too much hassle for what is a very low level investment for them. What involvement is required after going through the test? You mean that if they’re put forward, and pass (you say it would) then they’re forced to start acting in that role? Weird f***ing logic man. The test is the involvement. As soon as PIF put him forward for the test, they’re accepting he is involved. How difficult is that to comprehend. And if it’s simply to pass the test, what’s the issue? You say it would pass, but they choose not to do it. The only reason they won’t put him forward for it is because they know it would fail. Where have I said it would pass? Stop making things up. I have no idea if it would pass, but the PL aren’t requesting him to go through the test to purposely fail him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 There’s a reason why the consortium would want MBS subjected to the test. Anyone answer why? Already been explained, but you never seem to listen to anyone. He and KSA are uninterested in NUFC, they don’t want to be involved and being subjected to the test will make them involved (and prove the PL’s point that they are involved). That would be an inconvenience to them and they and too much hassle for what is a very low level investment for them. What involvement is required after going through the test? You mean that if they’re put forward, and pass (you say it would) then they’re forced to start acting in that role? Weird f***ing logic man. The test is the involvement. As soon as PIF put him forward for the test, they’re accepting he is involved. How difficult is that to comprehend. And if it’s simply to pass the test, what’s the issue? You say it would pass, but they choose not to do it. The only reason they won’t put him forward for it is because they know it would fail. Because the they are beholden to the requirements of the test, it's not a one-off thing. Anyway, no one has said that it's MbS that is the issue. Masters said it's an entity and Staveley said KSA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Anyone had this response from NUST whats their take ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Right clearly I'm not getting emails. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts