Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

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

Yorkie

by Yorkie
in Football

 Share

Will the takeover be complete by this summer?  

312 members have voted

  1. 1. Will the takeover be complete by this summer?

    • Yes
      87
    • No
      183

Recommended Posts

Chris_R

Chris_R

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

We don't know if the PL asked to interview MBS and therefore that PIF refused.

We don't know if that's why PIF ultimately walked away.

Unless I've missed something, in which case apologies.

I am under the impression that it's public knowledge that PIF were asked to name MBS as a shadow director and refused. So much has happened that I forget where I get that from and don't have time to look that up as I'm heading back out soon, but I'm sure it's in the public domain and beyond dispute that this was asked for by the PL and PIF refused.

Both parties then refused to move - The PL couldn't continue with the O&Ds checks, and PIF refused to accept that he'd be a shadow director. This continued for week after week until eventually PIF walked away.This is absolutely the timeline as I understand it from what happened last year, and I'm under the impression all of it is common knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris_R

Chris_R

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, TRon said:

If it's that cut and dried, what is the point of arbitration?

 

 

I don't think there's any point, personally. But some people keep rolling the dice when they're already down. It's the club's money, so they're entitled to crack on.

I guess they want to have arbitration rule that MBS is not a shadow director, but I cannot see how that can logically be an outcome any arbitration panel reaches based on what we know. He's literally the chairman of the organisation buying us. It's bonkers to say he cannot and will not have any say over our running, it's genuine head-in-clouds stuff.

And in fact initially the club refused arbitration, did they not? Presumably they reached this conclusion too at least initially.

 

 

Edited by Chris_R

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Prophet

The Prophet

Posted
Posted (edited)

Fair enough, you could well be correct there as I glazed over for large chunks of the saga. There are others out there who followed the whole affair more closely who will have a better idea than me.

 

 

Edited by The Prophet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Teasy

Teasy

Posted
Posted (edited)

So explain why they would even need MBS to be put forward as a shadow director?  The club buying side put forward directors, shadow director is something the PL decide on themselves.  So the PL could have simply said he's a shadow director because he's chairman of PIF, said he was involves in piracy (no conviction needed only PL opinion required) and disqualified the takeover based on that.  Why have they kept stalling the firm decision instead? Yeah seems like a hell of a lot of speculation to me.

 

 

Edited by Teasy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

I don't think there's any point, personally. But some people keep rolling the dice when they're already down. It's the club's money, so they're entitled to crack on.

I guess they want to have arbitration rule that MBS is not a shadow director, but I cannot see how that can logically be an outcome any arbitration panel reaches based on what we know. He's literally the chairman of the organisation buying us. It's bonkers to say he cannot and will not have any say over our running, it's genuine head-in-clouds stuff.

And in fact initially the club refused arbitration, did they not? Presumably they reached this conclusion too at least initially.

Actually, it's not about shadow directorships, that's something different, it's about 'control' as defined in the PL's rules.

And it's not MbS that the PL are saying would be in 'control', it's the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Ultimately no one on this board is qualified or has the information before them to give a legal opinion on the whether the KSA would be in control of NUFC for the purposes of the definition in the rules. Least of all someone who doesn't get those crucial details correct.

Both sides appear confident in their positions (although the PL side not confident to actually made a formal decision and defend an appeal on that basis).

We will probably find out one way or the other in around August.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

Stavely did say that the PL were asking for MBS to go through the O&D test, didnt she? 

Nope, 'The Premier League wanted the country, Saudi, to become a director of the football club,' Staveley told The Athletic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Candi_Hills

Candi_Hills

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

Let me once more spell out the big problem here, which I've consistently pointed out since day 1 when this takeover story first broke:

- Anyone who the PL consider will have influence over the club can be named a "shadow director" - This is in the PL's own rules

- MBS is chairman of PIF, so he will clearly have influence over NUFC if PIF buy us, I cannot see how anyone can realistically dispute this no matter what anyone says about the actual makeup of the board of NUFC

- MBS, via his role running the Saudi state, is suspected of having approved of or helped facilitate piracy - It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT whether PIF and the Saudi State are separate legal entities because MBS exists in both parts of the Venn Diagram. What he did in one circle is relevant in the other circle, even if they are separate entities, because he actually did it and is head of both.

- People suspected of being involved in piracy (No conviction required - suspicion is enough by the PL's handbook) are prohibited from being involved in clubs under the PL's own rules

- The PL asked for MBS's details so they could run the above checks on him as a shadow director, which he would clearly fail

- PIF refused, because they knew he'd clearly fail

- PL said "Fine, we'll wait then, we can't proceed without that info"

- PIF walked away after losing a Mexican stand-off

NONE of the above has been cleared up. All of those issues remain. This takeover, quite simply, cannot happen and will not happen because MBS's previous suspected involvement in piracy precludes it from ever completing. Don't misunderstand me, I'd love it to happen. But wanting something doesn't mean I can suspend all disbelief in facts.

 

 

 

I personally don't think will come down to legal technicalities. The PL handbook is as binding as Boris' lockdown rules. It'll just be a case of which dodgy bastard can leverage what and against whom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris_R

Chris_R

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Teasy said:

So explain why they would even need MBS to be put forward as a shadow director?  The club buying side put forward directors, shadow director is something the PL decide on themselves.  So the PL could have simply said he's a shadow director because he's chairman of PIF, said he was involves in piracy (no conviction needed only PL opinion required) and disqualified the takeover based on that.  Why have they kept stalling the firm decision instead? Yeah seems like a hell of a lot of speculation to me.

Because PIF won't agree he's a shadow director and so won't provide the details of him that the PL need, they're objecting to that part. And the PL are insisting he is. So they couldn't proceed with the O&D test because PIF weren't giving them the information they needed.

Everything I've said about shadow directors, piracy etc is in the PLs own rulebook regarding the O&Ds test. It's clear as day what's happened here.

3 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

Stavely did say that the PL were ultimately asking for MBS to go through the O&D test, didnt she? 

This is what I was trying to remember, yes. So from a fairly reputable source in the whole matter, you'd think.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris_R

Chris_R

Posted
Posted
Just now, Candi_Hills said:

 

I personally don't think will come down to legal technicalities. The PL handbook is as binding as Boris' lockdown rules. It'll just be a case of which dodgy bastard can leverage what and against whom.

Well hopefully you're right.

However I cannot see how the PL's own rules, as enforced by the PL, regarding who can be in the PL, can be decided by anyone else? The PL is just a club, a society if you like. There's membership rules. Don't like the rules? You're welcome to not be in the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

Because PIF won't agree he's a shadow director and so won't provide the details of him that the PL need, they're objecting to that part. And the PL are insisting he is. So they couldn't proceed with the O&D test because PIF weren't giving them the information they needed.

Everything I've said about shadow directors, piracy etc is in the PLs own rulebook regarding the O&Ds test. It's clear as day what's happened here.

This is what I was trying to remember, yes. So from a fairly reputable source in the whole matter, you'd think.

 

You haven't read the O&D test properly then, see F.1.1.1. The PL absolutely could and should have made a formal decision on that basis. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yelevats

Yelevats

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Ben said:

ESL backed by the Saudis apparently, which if proved could be a negative.

Next season 5 years is are going to be great...... new Castore kit, 52,000 screaming Geordies, Lee Charnaz & Justin Barnes enjoying the opening day sunshine, Steve, Steve, Steve & Steve roaming the technical area with Bosman signings making their debuts as we get beat off "great team Arsenal". I cannot wait! :celb:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Ben said:

ESL backed by the Saudis apparently, which if proved could be a negative.

That was a made up story that was instantly discredited. I wouldn't have any effect anyway because the legal issue is whether or not the KSA would control the club, that would have no impact upon whether they control the club or not, even if it weren't made up bollocks.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris_R

Chris_R

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

You haven't read the O&D test properly then, see F.1.1.1. The PL absolutely could and should have made a formal decision on that basis. 

The formal decision would've been "No", granting PIF more time to do what is needed, which is in PIF's favour, cannot be held against the PL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben

Ben

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

That was a made up story that was instantly discredited. I wouldn't have any effect anyway because the legal issue is whether or not the KSA would control the club, that would have no impact upon whether they control the club or not, even if it weren't made up bollocks.

I thought it was as well but Jacobs has just said the new info is coming out next week

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

The formal decision would've been "No", granting PIF more time to do what is needed, which is in PIF's favour, cannot be held against the PL. 

Not when they have explicitly asked for a decision to be made (which Staveley has said they did) and by refusing to make a decision the PL denied them the right to appeal.

I deal with decision making processes that are in some distant ways similar in my job, if I were to act the way the PL have, refusing to make a decision and so denying the right of appeal, I would get absolutely torn apart by the ombudsman that regulates what I do.

I see both sides of the argument in terms of the KSA being in control of the club. I'm probably about 50/50 on which way that argument will go (although I'm more confident that the PL will settle before it gets to that). But there's just no argument that the PL have behaved correctly in how they've gone about the decision making process.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites
et tu brute

et tu brute

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Who instantly discredited it? I haven’t seen anyone other than Keith tell us it’s not true.

Edwards for one did within in an exclusive immediately after tweeting the day before that this would blow the takeover totally. I don't know what's going to happen and nobody else does either. Just have to wait for the legal action to run it's course.

 

 

Edited by et tu brute

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...