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

[Fantail Breeze]

Just now, SweMag said:

Yes that’s exactly what you said.

 

You also said Luke Edwards has been the most accurate journo regarding the Saudi deal from day one and that he was ”sold down the river” by the Mike Ashley camp regarding Mauriss...

 

I said Edwards and Jacobs have been more accurate than the likes of Caulkin and Kennedy - which is true. For the above reasons.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Chris_R said:

 

I guess that in reality, there's only one possible outcome. Like when a coin is tossed into the air, its landing position is not known yet. But it is already either 100% heads or 100% tails, because everything is already in motion. But we still say the outcome is 50/50 because we have no idea how it will land, we are unable to tell.

 

Same applies here. There's nothing we can do to influence the outcome, the wheels are already in motion. The outcome really is pre-determined in that respect but we don't (despite whatever you might say) know what it will be. It's therefore entirely reasonable to simplify that to 50/50 because as fans we're only concerned with 2 possible outcomes - Takeover or No Takeover. Yes there are other niche things that might come out of it - compensation to Ashley with no takeover etc, but we really don't care as fans. It's Yes or No that we care about to the takeover happening. 2 outcomes we care about.

 

And from a scientific perspective, when you have 2 things which you have NO basis on which to decide which one is more likely (Hint: That's now), you have to assume their chances are equal - you have no information on which to base a judgement on. Which is EXACTLY how we are now; you (and I, and everyone else) has NO information on how likely each side is to prevail. We're not lawyers. We've seen none of the evidence. We're not involved AT ALL.

 

You can claim you think it's 99/1 in favour of the takeover or whatever other waffle drifts around your head, but you're outright lying to yourself, you are living a lie. Which is fine, carry on. Your life, live the lie if you want. I really don't care what you do. But please understand that it angers people when you come in here, look us in the eye and lie to us too. It's tiring, insulting to people's intelligence and not welcome.

 

So back to the original point, yes scientifically it must be dealt with as 50/50 as far as outside observers with no information are concerned, when there are only 2 outcomes we care about with no proof of which is more likely. That's how maths works.

 

You typed out a full page to define what 50/50 means? 

 

I mean that's impressive, but this is a case about the sale of a football club, it will come down to who has the best legal case, or whether the judge is subconsciously biased one way or the other. It's not really 50/50 at all. 

[gdm]

4 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

You typed out a full page to define what 50/50 means? 

 

I mean that's impressive, but this is a case about the sale of a football club, it will come down to who has the best legal case, or whether the judge is subconsciously biased one way or the other. It's not really 50/50 at all. 

think he means to us it’s 50/50 as we have none of that info. As in we can’t really say it it’ll happen one way or the other 

 

sorry if I’ve got that wrong 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by gdm

[TheHoob]

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Caulkin was sold down the river last summer by Staveley and looked a bit silly by the end of it.

 

Edwards did know about the collapse last summer, that’s not disputable.  His general journalism is complete bollocks, but he got that right. 

 

My point (repeated again because you’ve clearly not listened), is that Edwards and Jacobs have PL sources and have maintained a fairly negative opinion throughout. If those people become positive, it’s highly likely to be good news.

 

Listening to them is therefore more worthwhile than someone like Kennedy, who has relentlessly listened to the same people who have been positive throughout.

 

I'd deleted my post before you posted because I couldn't be arsed to get into this whole thing again. I have listened but we clearly have very different opinions on these journos and what the turn of events last year means for their credibility and their sources.

[Chris_R]

6 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

You typed out a full page to define what 50/50 means? 

 

I mean that's impressive, but this is a case about the sale of a football club, it will come down to who has the best legal case, or whether the judge is subconsciously biased one way or the other. It's not really 50/50 at all. 

 

Of course. I clearly said that really there's only one possible outcome, we just don't know what it is, so we as observers must wrongly assume it's 50/50 because we're operating from a position of total ignorance, until that ignorance is cleared up and we are given any good reason to say otherwise. But that's clearly not yet.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Chris_R

[TRon]

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

 

Of course. I clearly said that really there's only one possible outcome, we just don't know what it is, so we as ignorant observers must wrongly assume it's 50/50 until we are given any good reason to say otherwise. And that's not yet.

 

Fair enough. But it's pretty clear that most posters are leaning one way or the other regardless. I'm sort of 60-40 positive based on hearsay, but of course would not be surprised at all if we get screwed again. That's often how things work when a smaller party goes up against a national establishment. 

[SweMag]

15 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

I said Edwards and Jacobs have been more accurate than the likes of Caulkin and Kennedy - which is true. For the above reasons.

No you didn’t. You said the exact things I posted. Check your posts.

 

Funny thing about Luke Edwards:

 

 

[Chris_R]

1 minute ago, TRon said:

 

Fair enough. But it's pretty clear that most posters are leaning one way or the other regardless. I'm sort of 60-40 positive based on hearsay, but of course would not be surprised at all if we get screwed again. That's often how things work when a smaller party goes up against a national establishment. 

 

Yeah fine, if you think you've heard enough to lean one way or the other and can coherently state your case whilst listening to others, that's great. We all want to hear that. 50/50 is the starting point based on complete ignorance, but we've all read enough to be not entirely ignorant. My views move around a bit as new bits drip out, but they're just drips of information so I'll never lean too heavily one way or the other because the overwhelming majority of stuff is staying behind closed doors. And even if I read and heard it all, I'm not a judge. And even if I was a judge, I'm not the judge deciding on this. Ultimately, I know that my opinion - whilst I have one and am happy to discuss it - means virtually nothing.

 

It's the "IT'S DEFINITELY HAPPENING JUST WAIT THE PL CAN'T STOP THIS" crowd, who have absolutely nothing to back up their ramblings and won't even listen to the other side or acknowledge they exist, who are just utterly exhausting. And so very vocal.

[Scoot]

3 minutes ago, SweMag said:

No you didn’t. You said the exact things I posted. Check your posts.

 

Funny thing about Luke Edwards:

 

 

 Yet the great thickos of the forum STILL post tweets from Luke Edwards and Ben Jacobs. Class.

[Awaymag]

25 minutes ago, gdm said:

Suits me. What if I want to post something positive tho?

 

We both know that is unlikely!

 

Last post from me in this thread as per agreement!

[54]

When I last looked in here, things where seeming somewhat positive, a few people had (admittedly dubious) ITK's, and De Marco's tweet? How has it derailed to the standard bullshit? Are people not allowing others to be optimistic again?

[Scoot]

1 minute ago, 54 said:

When I last looked in here, things where seeming somewhat positive, a few people had (admittedly dubious) ITK's, and De Marco's tweet? How has it derailed to the standard bullshit? Are people not allowing others to be optimistic again?

That's correct.

 

Some people love to piss all over positive things in life. They get a kick out of it. Very odd people to live your life in that way.

[gdm]

8 minutes ago, Awaymag said:

 

We both know that is unlikely!

 

Last post from me in this thread as per agreement!

Posted a positive tweet not that long ago 

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, Scoot said:

That's correct.

 

Some people love to piss all over positive things in life. They get a kick out of it. Very odd people to live your life in that way.

 

That’s not what people are doing at all.

[Robster]

5 minutes ago, 54 said:

When I last looked in here, things where seeming somewhat positive, a few people had (admittedly dubious) ITK's, and De Marco's tweet? How has it derailed to the standard bullshit? Are people not allowing others to be optimistic again?

gdm's inability to use the Ignore function.

[gdm]

11 minutes ago, 54 said:

When I last looked in here, things where seeming somewhat positive, a few people had (admittedly dubious) ITK's, and De Marco's tweet? How has it derailed to the standard bullshit? Are people not allowing others to be optimistic again?

People can be optimistic if they want. 
 

I think if you look back all this started because I mentioned Rafa in talks with Everton may mean it’s not as advanced as we think then got attacked for it. I think considering a lot of people had belief Rafa was waiting it out for us it’s pretty relevant & valid to post he’s in talks with Everton 

so we only allowed to post positive pish in here as well now?

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by gdm

[Fantail Breeze]

14 minutes ago, SweMag said:

No you didn’t. You said the exact things I posted. Check your posts.

 

Funny thing about Luke Edwards:

 

 

 

I’m not sure what your point is? Views/reports can change based on what people are told.

 

His initial tweet appears to be his own opinion, his follow up tweet clearly states it is something he has been told.

[Lazarus]

Schrodingers takeover.

[gdm]

2 minutes ago, Robster said:

gdm's inability to use the Ignore function.

people were replying to & quoting me about me mentioning Rafa. Why you not telling them just to ignore me? Why do I have to just ignore their pish ?

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by gdm

[SweMag]

5 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

I’m not sure what your point is? Views/reports can change based on what people are told.

 

His initial tweet appears to be his own opinion, his follow up tweet clearly states it is something he has been told.

[Abacus]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

https://sportslens.com/the-premier-league-appears-confident-of-winning-newcastle-united-litigation-amid-300m-takeover-withdrawal/349245/
 

But of course they’d have to say they’re confident, much like Ashley is.

I tell you what I find interesting about that disclosure re the premier league's position in their accounts.

 

The fact that they made it at all.

 

If you're confident the chances are remote, you don't need to say anything about it.

 

Wasn't it about that time they were asking for financial details of the extent of Newcastle's claim?

 

Because if you know what you're on the hook for, you're supposed to disclose that too.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

2 minutes ago, Abacus said:

I tell you what I find interesting about that disclosure re the premier league's position in their accounts.

 

The fact that they made it at all.

 

If you're confident the chances are remote, you don't need to say anything about it.

 

Wasn't it about that time they were asking for financial details of the extent of Newcastle's claim?

 

Because if you know what you're on the hook for, you're supposed to disclose that too.

IT's not interesting that they made the disclosure, they had to. There is zero chance that the PL auditors were not aware of the claim and they would have made damn sure it was disclosed before signing off the accounts. Chances of winning or losing don't come into it, it's a matter of fact that the litigation is there.

 

The bit on not having any liability can be two fold, wither (a) they believe that there is at least a 50.1% chance of being successful or (b) they believe that if they were to lose the penalty would not be financial - i.e. remedy would be for the takeover to be approved.

 

How the conversation would have gone is

Mr Auditor 'What do you believe the payout would be, and do you have anything to support that'

Masters 'We haven't reached that stage, we are strongly contesting the CAT stream and believe that arbitration is the forum to resolve this. The outcome of arbitration will be that either we were right in how we dealt with it last year (and this is our position) or we have to rerun the tests just on the disclosed directors. There is no financial liability in play here.

Mr Auditor 'Cheers, that will do - stick a line in to that effect and we're good to go'

 

They wouldn't go fishing for a potential liability amount just for the accounts, better to not know. That would have been solicitors chasing it for their own purpose

 

There is nothing more to it than that.

 

 

[FloydianMag]

1 hour ago, SweMag said:

You do realise that’s from April?

And?

[manorpark]

1 hour ago, gdm said:

Nothing but a troll who only posts in two threads 

 

Says the Newcastle Online TROLL !!

 

As discussed many times previously on here, there are (in the current state of NUFC) only two threads of any relevance.

 

That will change, but at present that is how it absolutely is.

[Nobody]

Closing this for a bit again as discussion hasn't been take over relevant for a while now.