buzz Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Either way it just makes no sense to me. Why would the buyers not insist the manager be replaced? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 I do believe pif hold an interest still. I don’t believe that they’ll be just as happy to buy us as a championship club tho. I’ve said for a while now that staying up is a must and looks like that hope is ebbing away. If they buy us in the championship that credit to them. People need to start bracing themselves for being in the same division as the Mackems and them having the wealthy engaged new owner but that’s a discussion for another time Yeah I don’t think relegation would automatically rule us out of being bought, but it would mean compromises. Be that Ashley having to accept a lower offer (which we all have doubts on), or him only receiving say £200m and then the remainder once we are promoted. If they wanted to build us up gradually with reasonable singings, then they may think they could still get the majority of those players to play for us in the Championship for a season under new owners and the promise that the club is going somewhere. If they were after Mbappe type deals then I think it maybe more unlikely that they would buy us because they would be left with buying a squad to get us out of the Championship, and then another to elevate us again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Either way it just makes no sense to me. Why would the buyers not insist the manager be replaced? That's my line of thinking as well. Surely if the deal was close to being done or even if they were just very confident of it getting done, the buyers would be doing all they can to protect their future investment. To me that would mean them telling Ashley to chuck Bruce out and to add his compensation package onto the price at the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Either way it just makes no sense to me. Why would the buyers not insist the manager be replaced? That's my line of thinking as well. Surely if the deal was close to being done or even if they were just very confident of it getting done, the buyers would be doing all they can to protect their future investment. To me that would mean them telling Ashley to chuck Bruce out and to add his compensation package onto the price at the end. And if they lose the arbitration case? As much as we all want it you can’t have people that don’t own the club making decisions. Ashley should have enough sense of his own to protect his investment. Unfortunately he’s thick as mince Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbheed Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Either way it just makes no sense to me. Why would the buyers not insist the manager be replaced? That's my line of thinking as well. Surely if the deal was close to being done or even if they were just very confident of it getting done, the buyers would be doing all they can to protect their future investment. To me that would mean them telling Ashley to chuck Bruce out and to add his compensation package onto the price at the end. More than likely a legal and ethical minefield. They dont own the club after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 “You don’t think”. There you go. If you (and manorpark ) used ‘think’ as part of your positive takeover predilection then it would add an element of reality to your posts. No one can provide a statement directly from PIF. it’s all guesswork. We’d nearly all like to think this would go through. It’s probably the only thing that can save our club from the monotonous modus operandi we are currently suffering. Deary me, I’m so glad I don’t need need you’re level of verification to come to a conclusion on clear evidence. You’d struggle in any job which included making a decision on the balance of probabilities that’s for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Whitley mag[/member] are you saying that the full 300m is sitting in escrow right now? it's a lot different to say the deposit is still in escrow; which would be standard in any type of transaction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 If we got relegated, any ambitious investor would see us as a potential bargain. It's only through abhorrent mismanagement that we'd be in a position which contradicted our legitimate standing: without the cancerous, self-destructive management, NUFC is very much a sub-elite Premier League club - with all of the associated infrastructure, assets, fanbase, position in the regional hierarchy, and financial muscle. Only if we stayed out of the top league for an extended period and began forcibly downsizing/decaying could we lose the 'PL club in all but name' moniker we'd inevitably adopt. The point is: I can't see the likes of - certainly Staveley - being put-off, and probably not the Saudis either, given their interest is broader than just football and would represent a long-term investment in any case. However, the trouble is, Mike Ashley is never going to sell at a bargain price. I feel relegation would mean the end of any takeover until such a time that we get promoted or it became an asset he didn't have the wealth or interest to sustain, to the extent that he'd accept a reasonable price from a chancer line Donald. It's safe to assume that, without a galvanising force like Hughton or a managerial behemoth like Rafa, the former of those outcomes is extremely unlikely. So I really believe that, right now, we're in a desperately precarious position. The next few weeks could define the next few years. Scary shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 If we got relegated, any ambitious investor would see us as a potential bargain. It's only through abhorrent mismanagement that we'd be in a position which contradicted our legitimate standing: without the cancerous, self-destructive management, NUFC is very much a sub-elite Premier League club - with all of the associated infrastructure, assets, fanbase and financial muscle. Only if we stayed out of the top league for an extended period and began forcibly downsizing/decaying could we lose the 'PL club in all but name' moniker we'd inevitably adopt. The point is: I can't see the likes of - certainly Staveley - being put-off, and probably not the Saudis either, given their interest is broader than just football and would represent a long-term investment in any case. However, the trouble is, Mike Ashley is never going to sell at a bargain price. I feel relegation would mean the end of any takeover until such a time that we get promoted or it became an asset he didn't have the wealth or interest to sustain, to the extent that he'd accept a reasonable price from a chancer line Donald. Basically agree with everything you have said, apart from the final paragraph. History sides with you, 100% - but haven't a clue how his mindset will be after this cost and fatigue of this current challenge for the PIF sale. I do wonder given he seems desperate to see it through with this buyer, that if, he does win the case in their favor and is able to sell to them - he will be open to structuring any type of deal that would include 1) sell at reduced price 2) additional payment if promoted or something. Again, history says why think this Kanji? The difference is this time, he's literally finger tips away from being tight with a sovereign wealth fund that is a complete gamechanger for his retail ambitions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleBingo Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 If we got relegated, any ambitious investor would see us as a potential bargain. It's only through abhorrent mismanagement that we'd be in a position which contradicted our legitimate standing: without the cancerous, self-destructive management, NUFC is very much a sub-elite Premier League club - with all of the associated infrastructure, assets, fanbase, position in the regional hierarchy, and financial muscle. Only if we stayed out of the top league for an extended period and began forcibly downsizing/decaying could we lose the 'PL club in all but name' moniker we'd inevitably adopt. The point is: I can't see the likes of - certainly Staveley - being put-off, and probably not the Saudis either, given their interest is broader than just football and would represent a long-term investment in any case. However, the trouble is, Mike Ashley is never going to sell at a bargain price. I feel relegation would mean the end of any takeover until such a time that we get promoted or it became an asset he didn't have the wealth or interest to sustain, to the extent that he'd accept a reasonable price from a chancer line Donald. It's safe to assume that, without a galvanising force like Hughton or a managerial behemoth like Rafa, the former of those outcomes is extremely unlikely. So I really believe that, right now, we're in a desperately precarious position. The next few weeks could define the next few years. Scary shit. I honestly think Ashley would take £250M now with another £100M once we get promoted. He knows he won't get anything like that if he has to sell to a new buyer, that's why he's all in with the Saudis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 It's plausible I suppose but the squabble over the up front price might still be a massive stumbling block. He'll want as close to £300m up front as he can get, potentially encroaching into the buyers' "sort the place out" fund. At which point he says forget it, I'll make sure we get promoted, see you in 12 months for the full 300mill. At which point, of course, we finish 14th in the Championship and the downsizing commences. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Whitley mag[/member] are you saying that the full 300m is sitting in escrow right now? it's a lot different to say the deposit is still in escrow; which would be standard in any type of transaction. Not sure ask GC but my main point being is that subsequent to PIF’s withdrawal statement, they we’re clearly ready to complete deal, making previous statement re withdrawing due to economic factors redundant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Whitley mag[/member] are you saying that the full 300m is sitting in escrow right now? it's a lot different to say the deposit is still in escrow; which would be standard in any type of transaction. Not sure ask GC but my main point being is that subsequent to PIF’s withdrawal statement, they we’re clearly ready to complete deal, making previous statement re withdrawing due to economic factors redundant. What statement did they make after the withdrawal statement quoting change in economics? I missed that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted March 8, 2021 Share Posted March 8, 2021 Whitley mag[/member] are you saying that the full 300m is sitting in escrow right now? it's a lot different to say the deposit is still in escrow; which would be standard in any type of transaction. Not sure ask GC but my main point being is that subsequent to PIF’s withdrawal statement, they we’re clearly ready to complete deal, making previous statement re withdrawing due to economic factors redundant. What statement did they make after the withdrawal statement quoting change in economics? I missed that one. Take a look in the positive thread, I think Yasir has sent you a clue today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinky Jim Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Interesting article in the chronicle........I’ve copy and pasted it below to save anyone from having to click onto their site. The Premier League were 'provisionally minded' to conclude that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) would become a director of Newcastle United as part of a proposed takeover last year. Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) hoped to take up an 80% stake in the club after joining forces with the Reuben Brothers (10%) and financier Amanda Staveley (10%). A takeover had never been closer in the Ashley era - a £340m deal was agreed - but the consortium encountered complications with the regulator, the Premier League, when it came to who was going to the club's ultimate beneficial owner. As ChronicleLive reported on August 2, the buyers offered assurances from the 'highest possible level' to try and establish that it was the PIF, rather than the Saudi government, who would be in charge. However, given how the crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is the chairman of the PIF as well as the country's deputy prime minister, this was not a straightforward issue. A state formally becoming a director of a Premier League club would have been unprecedented and, if Saudi Arabia were put forward as a proposed director in the first place, the Saudi government would have inevitably faced awkward questions about pirate bay television broadcaster beoutQ. The consortium ultimately walked away last summer but, as ChronicleLive previously reported, both the buyers and seller remain committed to the deal if the Premier League were willing to give the green light. This takeover saga has now entered its next stage - arbitration - and Mike Ashley has been hell-bent on somehow finding a way forward. So much so, the Newcastle owner even took the arbitrators and the Premier League to the High Court in an attempt to remove Michael Beloff as chairman of an arbitration panel due to hear the Magpies' legal dispute with the Premier League The details of this particular case have been published on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute's website after the club's legal team, Nick De Marco, Shaheed Fatima and Tom Richards, successfully argued that there was a public interest in doing so. As a result, it can be revealed that the Premier League wrote a letter to Newcastle on June 12 last year after the league's organising body concluded that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 'would become a director' of the club. In the background to this letter, Judge Mark Pelling makes it clear that it 'was not suggested' that the Premier League had decided that Saudi Arabia 'had been or would be disqualified from being a director or that it would refuse to agree the proposed change of control'. But the letter set out the substance of the Premier League's reasoning. The letter confirms how the PIF 'expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of director under [Premier League] rules, even though it would not be formally appointed as a director'. The Premier League agreed on this point. Having then taken external legal advice, the Premier League were 'provisionally minded to conclude' that Saudi Arabia would become a director under the rules as well'. The following was noted: PIF's directors are 'appointed by royal decree and its current board is almost exclusively composed of KSA government ministers'; PIF law puts it 'expressly under the direction of…a KSA government ministry'; the PIF's function is to 'serve the national interest of KSA'; and it would 'appear that the PIF is state-owned' and 'manages only state-owned assets'. It was made clear to Newcastle if the Premier League then decided that Saudi Arabia will not become a director, then it will 'proceed to a decision' on the application of the owners' and directors' test for the individuals who have been declared, including the PIF. However, if the Premier League board decided that Saudi Arabia also needed to be regarded as a future director, there had to be a 'declaration in respect of KSA and the board's decision' and the application had to 'be made in respect of KSA also'. As Judge Pelling points out, Newcastle disputed this conclusion and the 'lawfulness of the process by which it was arrived at' by the Premier League. The Premier League 'contends' that the PIF is 'controlled by the government' of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but Newcastle 'does not accept' that - hence why this dispute has gone to arbitration. Judge Pelling said that the text of the letter 'makes it abundantly clear that the sole issue' that the Premier League had decided - and then only provisionally - was that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 'satisfied the definitions so that it was to be regarded as a director'. Therefore, according to Judge Pelling, the 'only dispute that can or will be decided in the current arbitration is whether this conclusion is correct' The three-man arbitration panel - Michael Beloff, Lord Neuberger and Lord Dyson - will make that call. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 How very chronicle to print something that was news last week and widely covered as if it was some sort of new information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Just the time it takes them to type it up using a single finger on each hand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. He's had an extra years worth of TV money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. He's had an extra years worth of TV money. Doesn't matter with Ashley. No amount of money is enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishMagpie Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Will he not just pocket the parachute money? How much is that nowadays? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 I believe the term is trouser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawK Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 I believe the term is trouser. I looked this up, apparently the earliest time this was used as a term on this forum was to reference Kieron Dyer not bothering to earn his money, courtesy of user '2sheds' in 2007: https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=43352.msg940653#msg940653 McCreery was a far more dedicated player than dyer can ever dream of. The little bastard should have been peddled the moment he refused to play for us. Lets face it he has done nothing of any note since then (apart from trouser a few million from us) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 Ashley hates to lose 100 pence never mind 100 million pounds. What the hell is he thinking, man. He's had an extra years worth of TV money. Aye and of course the club has run on fairy dust in that time so that money is all his. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts