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

[Guest reefatoon]

Well something definitely changed around that time.

[TRon]

As i understand it is is much more specific about Mohammed Bin Salman who is director of the investment fund coughing up the money. The consortium had some nominated directors who they said had authority and were running the money for NUFC but the league essentially did not believe that MBS wouldnt have authority over them and thus asked that he go through a fit and proper person test (which I dont know if plausible he would pass). The consortium gave over as I understand it a lot of written guarantees that MBS would not have any say in teh running of it but essentially the league did not believe it, and that was the end of that.

 

I'm not aware of all the intricacies, but how does the Saudi bid for ownership differ from Man City's takeover which was heralded by the football world, and given a red carpet welcome by the PL?

 

 

[RS]

 

Sex robots

[Hhtoon]

As i understand it is is much more specific about Mohammed Bin Salman who is director of the investment fund coughing up the money. The consortium had some nominated directors who they said had authority and were running the money for NUFC but the league essentially did not believe that MBS wouldnt have authority over them and thus asked that he go through a fit and proper person test (which I dont know if plausible he would pass). The consortium gave over as I understand it a lot of written guarantees that MBS would not have any say in teh running of it but essentially the league did not believe it, and that was the end of that.

 

I'm not aware of all the intricacies, but how does the Saudi bid for ownership differ from Man City's takeover which was heralded by the football world, and given a red carpet welcome by the PL?

 

Different owners tests back then I believe.

[Happinesstan]

As i understand it is is much more specific about Mohammed Bin Salman who is director of the investment fund coughing up the money. The consortium had some nominated directors who they said had authority and were running the money for NUFC but the league essentially did not believe that MBS wouldnt have authority over them and thus asked that he go through a fit and proper person test (which I dont know if plausible he would pass). The consortium gave over as I understand it a lot of written guarantees that MBS would not have any say in teh running of it but essentially the league did not believe it, and that was the end of that.

 

I'm not aware of all the intricacies, but how does the Saudi bid for ownership differ from Man City's takeover which was heralded by the football world, and given a red carpet welcome by the PL?

 

Maybe they didn't withhold any names from the list to be tested.

[Ankles Bennett]

At the end of the day, whatever the reasons for it collapsing all I will say is, if this same consortium had bid for ANY of the top 6 clubs there is absolutely no way it wouldn't have been approved. It may have taken slightly longer than the 2 to 4 weeks that was mentioned but there is literally no way the premier league would have acted in the same way as they did with us. I'm 100% convinced this.

 

It's a closed shop at the top of the league, everyone else is just expected to be happy to make up the numbers every season.

Exactly this.  We are just cannon fodder for the top six.

[Happinesstan]

At the end of the day, whatever the reasons for it collapsing all I will say is, if this same consortium had bid for ANY of the top 6 clubs there is absolutely no way it wouldn't have been approved. It may have taken slightly longer than the 2 to 4 weeks that was mentioned but there is literally no way the premier league would have acted in the same way as they did with us. I'm 100% convinced this.

 

It's a closed shop at the top of the league, everyone else is just expected to be happy to make up the numbers every season.

Exactly this.  We are just cannon fodder for the top six.

 

We are. But suggesting the PL are opposed to a top 7, is a bit mental. I can certainly get on board with the top 6 being opposed, but not the PL.

 

 

[Chris_R]

As i understand it is is much more specific about Mohammed Bin Salman who is director of the investment fund coughing up the money. The consortium had some nominated directors who they said had authority and were running the money for NUFC but the league essentially did not believe that MBS wouldnt have authority over them and thus asked that he go through a fit and proper person test (which I dont know if plausible he would pass). The consortium gave over as I understand it a lot of written guarantees that MBS would not have any say in teh running of it but essentially the league did not believe it, and that was the end of that.

 

I'm not aware of all the intricacies, but how does the Saudi bid for ownership differ from Man City's takeover which was heralded by the football world, and given a red carpet welcome by the PL?

 

 

 

Man City's takeover had no links to piracy

 

Ours did, via MBS and then the Saudi state.

[Tiresias]

Also they've changed the checks to be more rigorous since. And of course it is us that fall victim 

[Raconteur]

But my analogy is if the Duchy wanted to buy us, would the PL be happy with the CEO / Governor  and board of directors to be subjected to test, or would they insist on Prince Charles also being subjected to it ?

 

In my view no they wouldn’t, as quite rightly he would have no involvement in the day to day running of the club. And furthermore their is absolutely no way they would insult a member of our own royal family.

 

Being involved in day-to-day running is not the object of the test. It's all about control which is defined as:

“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

older(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

 

PIF would have to prove objectively that their governance is entirely separate and outside the influence of MBS/KSA (which is in effect the same thing). I think that is a very hard argument to prove. Why would no Saudi law firm take up the PL in their attempts to combat BeOutQ? How can any Saudi body of wealth (let alone one legally benefiting the state) be independent in the light of MBS' previous actions? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017-19_Saudi_Arabian_purge)

 

So when PIF present a verdict from the Saudi court saying PIF is independent, it really carries zero weight.

 

I'm guessing here, but in my view it is likely the PL made the PIF-MBS connections very quickly (it should take less than a minute if you go on their website- www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/Boradmembers.aspx) and the consortium then spent time trying to find various alternate ways around the inevitable, ultimately unsuccessfully.

 

And FWIW, in the example you gave yes Charles would be considered a Director for the purposes of the test unless his ownership was through a sufficiently independent trust structure to convince the PL he would not be able to place influence over the club. It's not uncommon for monarchs to be considered beneficial owners of assets and be subject to financial crime monitoring as anyone else could be- in fact they are usually required to be subject to enhanced measures vs the man in the street.

 

"Control" is absolutely what it came down to. The bolded comment is something that a lot of people say "yeah, but" in response, but can't actually deny. So maybe it "should" have been rejected, but it was never getting approved.

[TRon]

As i understand it is is much more specific about Mohammed Bin Salman who is director of the investment fund coughing up the money. The consortium had some nominated directors who they said had authority and were running the money for NUFC but the league essentially did not believe that MBS wouldnt have authority over them and thus asked that he go through a fit and proper person test (which I dont know if plausible he would pass). The consortium gave over as I understand it a lot of written guarantees that MBS would not have any say in teh running of it but essentially the league did not believe it, and that was the end of that.

 

I'm not aware of all the intricacies, but how does the Saudi bid for ownership differ from Man City's takeover which was heralded by the football world, and given a red carpet welcome by the PL?

 

 

 

Man City's takeover had no links to piracy

 

Ours did, via MBS and then the Saudi state.

 

The bid wasn't failed on account of piracy as far as I'm aware, and MBS was not a named owner. Possibly why the PL wanted him to be named so they could legitimately reject the bid.

[TRon]

Also they've changed the checks to be more rigorous since. And of course it is us that fall victim 

 

How have they changed the checks? I thought they were considering doing that after the PIF bid, but it hasn't happened yet?

 

 

[Whitley mag]

But my analogy is if the Duchy wanted to buy us, would the PL be happy with the CEO / Governor  and board of directors to be subjected to test, or would they insist on Prince Charles also being subjected to it ?

 

In my view no they wouldn’t, as quite rightly he would have no involvement in the day to day running of the club. And furthermore their is absolutely no way they would insult a member of our own royal family.

 

Being involved in day-to-day running is not the object of the test. It's all about control which is defined as:

“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

older(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

 

PIF would have to prove objectively that their governance is entirely separate and outside the influence of MBS/KSA (which is in effect the same thing). I think that is a very hard argument to prove. Why would no Saudi law firm take up the PL in their attempts to combat BeOutQ? How can any Saudi body of wealth (let alone one legally benefiting the state) be independent in the light of MBS' previous actions? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017-19_Saudi_Arabian_purge)

 

So when PIF present a verdict from the Saudi court saying PIF is independent, it really carries zero weight.

 

I'm guessing here, but in my view it is likely the PL made the PIF-MBS connections very quickly (it should take less than a minute if you go on their website- www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/Boradmembers.aspx) and the consortium then spent time trying to find various alternate ways around the inevitable, ultimately unsuccessfully.

 

And FWIW, in the example you gave yes Charles would be considered a Director for the purposes of the test unless his ownership was through a sufficiently independent trust structure to convince the PL he would not be able to place influence over the club. It's not uncommon for monarchs to be considered beneficial owners of assets and be subject to financial crime monitoring as anyone else could be- in fact they are usually required to be subject to enhanced measures vs the man in the street.

 

That’s all great if the PL applied these rules consistently every season which I believe is in their power to do. I don’t disagree that MBS would have the power to exert influence, but as you correctly state that would apply to any person of wealth in Saudi Arabia, which in this instance would surely include the owner of Sheffield United. Also Sheik Mansour could fall into this category, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to state that Khalifa Bin Zayed as the ruler of Abhu Dhabi would be able to exert influence over Man City or that the Chinese National Party would be able exert influence over Fosun at Wolves.

 

Yes none of the above are accused of piracy, however the PL insist that at this stage that hasn’t even been considered.

 

I ultimately believe if it wasn’t for the piracy, the PL would have been more than happy to accept PIF as a separate entity.

 

 

 

[marki]

I believe the combined wealth of the consortium being worth more than every pl team put together was just to much to take for some ,no way this was ever going ahead thinking about it ..shithouses the lot of them

[Tiresias]

Also they've changed the checks to be more rigorous since. And of course it is us that fall victim 

 

How have they changed the checks? I thought they were considering doing that after the PIF bid, but it hasn't happened yet?

 

A while ago wasn't it just between man city and now

[LV]

I believe the combined wealth of the consortium being worth more than every pl team put together was just to much to take for some ,no way this was ever going ahead thinking about it ..shithouses the lot of them

 

Yes, I think that def was a big consideration

[bigfella]

 

Sex robots

 

2,3,1.

[Raconteur]

Tough call - the young fella on the right is the one who doesn't wear socks

[bigfella]

Tough call - the young fella on the right is the one who doesn't wear socks

 

I'm comfortable in my choices.

[Montey]

But my analogy is if the Duchy wanted to buy us, would the PL be happy with the CEO / Governor  and board of directors to be subjected to test, or would they insist on Prince Charles also being subjected to it ?

 

In my view no they wouldn’t, as quite rightly he would have no involvement in the day to day running of the club. And furthermore their is absolutely no way they would insult a member of our own royal family.

 

Being involved in day-to-day running is not the object of the test. It's all about control which is defined as:

“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

older(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

 

PIF would have to prove objectively that their governance is entirely separate and outside the influence of MBS/KSA (which is in effect the same thing). I think that is a very hard argument to prove. Why would no Saudi law firm take up the PL in their attempts to combat BeOutQ? How can any Saudi body of wealth (let alone one legally benefiting the state) be independent in the light of MBS' previous actions? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017-19_Saudi_Arabian_purge)

 

So when PIF present a verdict from the Saudi court saying PIF is independent, it really carries zero weight.

 

I'm guessing here, but in my view it is likely the PL made the PIF-MBS connections very quickly (it should take less than a minute if you go on their website- www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/Boradmembers.aspx) and the consortium then spent time trying to find various alternate ways around the inevitable, ultimately unsuccessfully.

 

And FWIW, in the example you gave yes Charles would be considered a Director for the purposes of the test unless his ownership was through a sufficiently independent trust structure to convince the PL he would not be able to place influence over the club. It's not uncommon for monarchs to be considered beneficial owners of assets and be subject to financial crime monitoring as anyone else could be- in fact they are usually required to be subject to enhanced measures vs the man in the street.

 

"Control" is absolutely what it came down to. The bolded comment is something that a lot of people say "yeah, but" in response, but can't actually deny. So maybe it "should" have been rejected, but it was never getting approved.

 

The one reason I don't agree with this is because (in my opinion) it's easily resolved.

 

The Premier League could have made the approval conditional on there being no evidence of MBS (or anyone else the PL doesn't like) influencing the operation of the club.  The O&D Test is, allegedly, run every year for each club in the PL, so it would be easy for the PL to decide at a latter date that MBS had influenced the running of the club and to then eject NUFC out of the League.

 

Having said this, it is possible that the PL attempted exactly this and it may have been what caused PIF to withdraw their involvement (viewing the naming of MBS in such a manner as being insulting).

[Sima]

 

Sex robots

 

2,3,1.

 

Which method are you using?

[mouldy_uk]

 

Sex robots

 

Sex robots

 

2,3,1.

 

010101

[Whitley mag]

Liam Kennedy and Miles Starforth’s latest take, most journalists seem to agree on one thing Ashley wants out.

 

All quiet on the takeover front, is that a good or a bad thing?

 

LK: “Quiet makes a real change, doesn’t it? If it was dead, we’d know. People must take comfort from that. But things are going on in the background, and on the ‘hush, hush’, which really is no bad thing. This is how it should have been from the start. Will these behind-closed-doors talks be enough? I can’t say. Good things come to the those who wait. Ashley wants out and he will be gone whether it is in weeks or months – we’re in the Ashley endgame, I’m sure of that.”

 

MS: “Everything has gone very quiet, and if there was no chance of the takeover being resurrected, I think we’d know by now. So the complete silence from the buying side – and owner Mike Ashley – can be taken as a sign that there’s still a chance of a positive resolution to this long-running saga. United’s fans have done their bit by voicing their support for the would-be buyers – and pressuring the Premier League – and now they must wait.”

[Dr Jinx]

How do we know they would have found MBS an unfit or unproper person? That’s a rather massive political call.

 

Would they have had to inform PIF that this may have been the case?, which is why then they pulled out?

 

On the surface it looks like the PL just didn’t follow their own procedures

[Whitley mag]

But my analogy is if the Duchy wanted to buy us, would the PL be happy with the CEO / Governor  and board of directors to be subjected to test, or would they insist on Prince Charles also being subjected to it ?

 

In my view no they wouldn’t, as quite rightly he would have no involvement in the day to day running of the club. And furthermore their is absolutely no way they would insult a member of our own royal family.

 

Being involved in day-to-day running is not the object of the test. It's all about control which is defined as:

“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

older(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

 

PIF would have to prove objectively that their governance is entirely separate and outside the influence of MBS/KSA (which is in effect the same thing). I think that is a very hard argument to prove. Why would no Saudi law firm take up the PL in their attempts to combat BeOutQ? How can any Saudi body of wealth (let alone one legally benefiting the state) be independent in the light of MBS' previous actions? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017-19_Saudi_Arabian_purge)

 

So when PIF present a verdict from the Saudi court saying PIF is independent, it really carries zero weight.

 

I'm guessing here, but in my view it is likely the PL made the PIF-MBS connections very quickly (it should take less than a minute if you go on their website- www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/Boradmembers.aspx) and the consortium then spent time trying to find various alternate ways around the inevitable, ultimately unsuccessfully.

 

And FWIW, in the example you gave yes Charles would be considered a Director for the purposes of the test unless his ownership was through a sufficiently independent trust structure to convince the PL he would not be able to place influence over the club. It's not uncommon for monarchs to be considered beneficial owners of assets and be subject to financial crime monitoring as anyone else could be- in fact they are usually required to be subject to enhanced measures vs the man in the street.

 

"Control" is absolutely what it came down to. The bolded comment is something that a lot of people say "yeah, but" in response, but can't actually deny. So maybe it "should" have been rejected, but it was never getting approved.

 

The one reason I don't agree with this is because (in my opinion) it's easily resolved.

 

The Premier League could have made the approval conditional on there being no evidence of MBS (or anyone else the PL doesn't like) influencing the operation of the club.  The O&D Test is, allegedly, run every year for each club in the PL, so it would be easy for the PL to decide at a latter date that MBS had influenced the running of the club and to then eject NUFC out of the League.

 

Having said this, it is possible that the PL attempted exactly this and it may have been what caused PIF to withdraw their involvement (viewing the naming of MBS in such a manner as being insulting).

 

I might be wrong but didn’t Staveley mention something similar to this in her interview with Caulkin. I seem to recall her mentioning a scenario where directors could be removed or similar and it was completely unacceptable ?