TheInfiniteOdyssey Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 The PL could make all this issue go away simply by opening up and publishing their actual reasons for delay. They would be judged less harshly if they just admitted it was because of other clubs, piracy, or human rights. The silence just makes them look at worst corrupt, and at best cowardly to newcastle fans maybe but to anybody else not really Not so sure, obviously not on the former but definitely on the latter. I was listening to the Independent's football podcast and even Miguel Delaney (one of the most vocal critics on the deal) agreed that the Premier League should offer some kind of statement. There does seem to be broad agreement in the media that the Premier League needs to communicate something Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenC Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 I would judge them a fuckton more harshly if they admitted that another PL club had any bearing on what's happened (or not happened) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjohnson Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 The PL could make all this issue go away simply by opening up and publishing their actual reasons for delay. They would be judged less harshly if they just admitted it was because of other clubs, piracy, or human rights. The silence just makes them look at worst corrupt, and at best cowardly to newcastle fans maybe but to anybody else not really Well to anyone who can detch the emotion involved in football. Any sensible 'top 6' fan would probably privately admit they'd be terrified of losing their place at the top table to a club that could outspend them in wages and transfer fees. Probably why Tottenham and Liverpool were most vocal allegedly, as they'd be the most likely to be displaced Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 PL : " Just tell us that MBS is the real owner / director ' PL : " Just tell us , we already know anyway " PL : " Just tell us and it'll be alright " PIF : " Oh ok , MBS is the real owner / director " PL : " Takeover refused " ! PIF : " But you said you knew and it'd be alright " ! ? PL : " We didn't know till you told us " ! PL : " Takeover refused " Very good, but what the PL seems to have completely overlooked in all this is even if the PL accepted MBS as a director of PIF, as the Crown Prince, does he really have the inclination to get involved in the politics of running a football club, when he has a massive country to run. Anyway why doesn't PIF set up a limited company in Al Rumayan's name and make him the owner/managing director/Chairman of that company and have that company buy us, in much the same way Sheikh Mansoor did with Man City. That would sever any direct link to the SA government and MBS. Everyone knows that the club belongs to Mansoor, and if he told them to sell the club to a third party and place the money into his bank account it would be done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 The PL could make all this issue go away simply by opening up and publishing their actual reasons for delay. They would be judged less harshly if they just admitted it was because of other clubs, piracy, or human rights. The silence just makes them look at worst corrupt, and at best cowardly to newcastle fans maybe but to anybody else not really Well Newcastle fans are the ones that matter here in a Newcastle takeover. Who cares about anybody else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Then point me to the provision that relates to this? F4. relates to any person proposing to become a director of a club, there is no other provisions that would apply as far as I can see. Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant. That is the test itself, there is no separate rule for those two circumstances. F4 applies to all new directors, including new owners. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but please could you point me to the separate section of the rules you are say relates to new owners? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiesteve710 Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 PL : " Just tell us that MBS is the real owner / director ' PL : " Just tell us , we already know anyway " PL : " Just tell us and it'll be alright " PIF : " Oh ok , MBS is the real owner / director " PL : " Takeover refused " ! PIF : " But you said you knew and it'd be alright " ! ? PL : " We didn't know till you told us " ! PL : " Takeover refused " Very good, but what the PL seems to have completely overlooked in all this is even if the PL accepted MBS as a director of PIF, as the Crown Prince, does he really have the inclination to get involved in the politics of running a football club, when he has a massive country to run. Anyway why doesn't PIF set up a limited company in Al Rumayan's name and make him the owner/managing director/Chairman of that company and have that company buy us, in much the same way Sheikh Mansoor did with Man City. That would sever any direct link to the SA government and MBS. Everyone knows that the club belongs to Mansoor, and if he told them to sell the club to a third party and place the money into his bank account it would be done. If they're contending that MBS ultimately controls PIF then PIF establishing another company in someone else's name only wouldn't solve the matter if that company is controlled by PIF as PL would argue that MBS still controls that company via PIF. The Mansoor comparison is an interesting one and one that I'm sure the PL are not finding very helpful at the moment!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Looks like they are Masters at avoiding accountability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Then point me to the provision that relates to this? F4. relates to any person proposing to become a director of a club, there is no other provisions that would apply as far as I can see. Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant. That is the test itself, there is no separate rule for those two circumstances. F4 applies to all new directors, including new owners. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but please could you point me to the separate section of the rules you are say relates to new owners? I see what you mean, however I feel the problem is that the league are disagreeing as to who the owners are and who they should be testing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Then point me to the provision that relates to this? F4. relates to any person proposing to become a director of a club, there is no other provisions that would apply as far as I can see. Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant. That is the test itself, there is no separate rule for those two circumstances. F4 applies to all new directors, including new owners. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but please could you point me to the separate section of the rules you are say relates to new owners? I see what you mean, however I feel the problem is that the league are disagreeing as to who the owners are and who they should be testing. Yes, but then there is a provision for the PL to disqualify the proposed directors/owners on that basis (F.1.1.1). My point is that it is unreasonable for the PL to refuse to make a decision when an impasse has been reached and they've been requested to, more so when their rules explicitly state that a decision will be made within five working days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpinho Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 What is the deal with mansour? Google suggests he bought them - someone said above he isn't even a director!? That can't be right surely and that he didn't even go through the pl's tests? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis. You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process. So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it I think if pushed by Staveley et al, then they would fail it on that basis. I can’t see why they wouldn’t do that unless they have not as yet been put in that position. If it really has got to the stage that PIF were awaiting a decision then yes it’s not good that it hasn’t come yet. I just keep picking holes in what Staveley has said and it don’t make sense to me. Seems fishy imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 What is the deal with mansour? Google suggests he bought them - someone said above he isn't even a director!? That can't be right surely and that he didn't even go through the pl's tests? The PL tests were not applied with such rigour back then I am guessing, perhaps because there wasn't really a clique of nationally approved top clubs. Liverpool were struggling so the door had to be left open for them to be taken over by a state backed owner if one came along. Also I would reckon CL money has probably widened the gap since City took over, so the current PL top clubs won't want anyone else joining the party. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Fairly certain I read that the PIF's compromise (reluctantly) to requesting the KSA be named as a Director of the club was to name the entire PIF and subject the entire organization to the test. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 What is the deal with mansour? Google suggests he bought them - someone said above he isn't even a director!? That can't be right surely and that he didn't even go through the pl's tests? The PL tests were not applied with such rigour back then I am guessing, perhaps because there wasn't really a clique of nationally approved top clubs. Liverpool were struggling so the door had to be left open for them to be taken over by a state backed owner if one came along. Also I would reckon CL money has probably widened the gap since City took over, so the current PL top clubs won't want anyone else joining the party. Mansoor set up a company and installed a minion as the owner of the company and then transferred ownership of man city to that company so he isn't even a director of that company. Can't understand why Amanda didn't do the same here with PIF, although that's probably what they intended doing once they had bought Newcastle. However, the PL have put a roadblock on that by not allowing the purchase to proceed to that stage, if indeed that was the intention. I mean Mansoor is the deputy Prime Minister of the UAE, as is MBS in the KSA so there is no real difference between them as far as I can see. One is allowed to buy a PL club, but to then effectively sever all ties to that club while, PIF are not allowed to do the same. Perhaps that would be the answer. Set up a company with Amanda/Reuben Bros as the joint owners and tell the PL if the sale is allowed the club will be transferred to that company and put under the sole ownership of that company, with PIF representation on the board, and all 3 parties only having joint voting rights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 What is the deal with mansour? Google suggests he bought them - someone said above he isn't even a director!? That can't be right surely and that he didn't even go through the pl's tests? The PL tests were not applied with such rigour back then I am guessing, perhaps because there wasn't really a clique of nationally approved top clubs. Liverpool were struggling so the door had to be left open for them to be taken over by a state backed owner if one came along. Also I would reckon CL money has probably widened the gap since City took over, so the current PL top clubs won't want anyone else joining the party. Mansoor set up a company and installed a minion as the owner of the company and then transferred ownership of man city to that company so he isn't even a director of that company. Can't understand why Amanda didn't do the same here with PIF, although that's probably what they intended doing once they had bought Newcastle. However, the PL have put a roadblock on that by not allowing the purchase to proceed to that stage, if indeed that was the intention. I mean Mansoor is the deputy Prime Minister of the UAE, as is MBS in the KSA so there is no real difference between them as far as I can see. One is allowed to buy a PL club, but to then effectively sever all ties to that club while, PIF are not allowed to do the same. Perhaps that would be the answer. Set up a company with Amanda/Reuben Bros as the joint owners and tell the PL if the sale is allowed the club will be transferred to that company and put under the sole ownership of that company, with PIF representation on the board, and all 3 parties only having joint voting rights. I think mansours involvement was a personal one, nothing to do with the state. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInfiniteOdyssey Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Listening to the Ornstein podcast with Caulkin being a guest, he mentioned that someone "very, very high up in the first-team level" (Lascelles or Ritchie I reckon) said that Ashley is totally done with the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 in the middle of a pandemic when retail is struggling ashley would and should absolutely be chomping at the bit to get rid, build any kind of cash reserve for him and his business and even look to buy up competition on the cheap for the rebound. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 in the middle of a pandemic when retail is struggling ashley would and should absolutely be chomping at the bit to get rid, build any kind of cash reserve for him and his business and even look to buy up competition on the cheap for the rebound. DW sports has gone in to administration, he’ll be foaming he isn’t in position financially to take it on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Fairly certain I read that the PIF's compromise (reluctantly) to requesting the KSA be named as a Director of the club was to name the entire PIF and subject the entire organization to the test. They are the directors but not the owners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 In Ashley’s mind the deal was done, he no longer considered himself the owner and wanted nothing more to do with the club. Every penny he now has to spend on the club will need to be prised out of his hands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ7 Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 In Ashley’s mind the deal was done, he no longer considered himself the owner and wanted nothing more to do with the club. Every penny he now has to spend on the club will need to be prised out of his hands. He doesn't even spend any money on the club as its self-sufficient. The club spends what it makes and he just owns it. The only time he's put money in over recent years was when we got relegated and he added it to the debt to him. Tbh, I'm quite happy with the club being self-sufficient, its the fact he doesn't allow it to grow, never mind reach its potential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjb Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53654387 On BBC sport website now. Have Sky said anything yet? This will gather momentum, even more so if the numbers keep growing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 I’ve just emailed channel 4 dispatch team about possible corruption and lack of transparency at the epl The contact is [email protected], if anybody else fancy’s sending them an email. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlies Posted August 4, 2020 Share Posted August 4, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts