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

Ketsbaia

Ketsbaia

Posted
Posted

The PL are caught between pissing off clubs/Qatar and yet not having a reason to reject. Maybe they actually want government interference, in order to pass the blame onto them?

 

Sorry Liverpool, sorry Spurs, sorry gorilla mitts but they told us to accept it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandy

Wandy

Posted
Posted

The PL are caught between pissing off clubs/Qatar and yet not having a reason to reject. Maybe they actually want government interference, in order to pass the blame onto them?

 

Sorry Liverpool, sorry Spurs, sorry gorilla mitts but they told us to accept it.

 

Works for me.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosenrot

Rosenrot

Posted
Posted

The TV rights is nothing to do with the delay - it’s the make up of PIF and influence of MBS.

 

Which is easily solved and will be solved.

 

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course.

 

Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla?

 

Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on.

 

Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations.

 

Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy.

 

Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please?

 

I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up.

 

Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts?

 

Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time.

 

Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/

 

Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters.

 

 

Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer.

 

So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool.

 

And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time?

 

Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it.

Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment.

 

Who else is left?...

 

Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy?

 

Already been answered countless times - because the PL have concerns he will have control of (or major influence in) the club, which is against their rules as a state cannot own a club.

 

Right, so they want it so they can reject it? So basically they have every right to be asking for this if it's going to be the case (you say it's easily solved)

 

It is easily solved - assurances have been given that MBS will have no control. PL weren’t willing to accept that, but with the pressure now being applied, it is hoped that the PL will reconsider this stance and accept the assurances they have been given.

 

He's the chairman of the public investment fund for fuck sake, stop deluding yourself.

 

Sheik Mansour owns Abu Dhabi United Group, which owns 80% of Manchester City. What’s your point?

 

The Abu Dhabi United Group isn't the investment fund of Abu Dhabi or the UAE.

 

So what? The PL didn’t seem to think Sheik Mansour’s control over Abu Dhabi United Group and therefore Manchester City was relevant to the O&D test so why does MBS’s ultimate control over PIF, and therefore Newcastle United, matter?

 

The situation is the same. It’s inconsistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted

The TV rights is nothing to do with the delay - it’s the make up of PIF and influence of MBS.

 

Which is easily solved and will be solved.

 

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course.

 

Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla?

 

Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on.

 

Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations.

 

Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy.

 

Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please?

 

I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up.

 

Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts?

 

Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time.

 

Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/

 

Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters.

 

 

Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer.

 

So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool.

 

And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time?

 

Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it.

Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment.

 

Who else is left?...

 

Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy?

 

Already been answered countless times - because the PL have concerns he will have control of (or major influence in) the club, which is against their rules as a state cannot own a club.

 

Right, so they want it so they can reject it? So basically they have every right to be asking for this if it's going to be the case (you say it's easily solved)

 

It is easily solved - assurances have been given that MBS will have no control. PL weren’t willing to accept that, but with the pressure now being applied, it is hoped that the PL will reconsider this stance and accept the assurances they have been given.

 

He's the chairman of the public investment fund for fuck sake, stop deluding yourself.

 

Sheik Mansour owns Abu Dhabi United Group, which owns 80% of Manchester City. What’s your point?

 

The Abu Dhabi United Group isn't the investment fund of Abu Dhabi or the UAE.

 

So what? The PL didn’t seem to think Sheik Mansour’s control over Abu Dhabi United Group and therefore Manchester City was relevant to the O&D test so why does MBS’s ultimate control over PIF, and therefore Newcastle United, matter?

 

The situation is the same. It’s inconsistent.

 

Man City and Chelsea's ownership would look pretty questionable in hindsight. Who knows, could be the recent craze for selling to Chinese owners might also come under scrutiny following Huawei and Tik Tik spying potential. Just seems a shame for us that all this scrutiny suddenly started when Amanda and the Reubens decided to use PIF as co-investors for a lesser club in the far north.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
OpenC

OpenC

Posted
Posted

Knowing what's happening with the takeover is entirely unrelated to knowing the difference between their and there, though [emoji38]

 

I have no idea who he is but I don't know that I would have felt any different about that information if he had picked the right word, in all honesty :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ClintonBaptiste

Guest ClintonBaptiste

Posted
Posted

Knowing what's happening with the takeover is entirely unrelated to knowing the difference between their and there, though [emoji38]

 

I have no idea who he is but I don't know that I would have felt any different about that information if he had picked the right word, in all honesty :)

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dads-post-selling-car-caught-18794641.amp?__twitter_impression=true

Link to post
Share on other sites
Twenties Unlaced

Twenties Unlaced

Posted
Posted

Wasn’t it discussed previously that 80%+ ownership gives you more “rights” over other shareholders?

 

Hence why the fact Sheik Mansour technically only owns 78% of Manchester City is relevant?

 

?‍♂️

 

Yes, anything 75+% can give you greater control as it would allow you to pass a special resolution without support from other shareholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueStar

BlueStar

Posted
Posted

This is just the worst, isn't it? Remember people saying they were sick of it, "At least if rhey reject it we'll have some closure"

 

Now we still have Mike, still have Bruce, still have weeks of silence and speculation. Even the silver lining of the deal falling through has been ripped away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitley mag

Whitley mag

Posted
Posted

Country in recession and who knows how many more job losses to come. Whatever the issues are in relation to this deal be it piracy or ownership structure, they are not insurmountable and the PL should be shot to shit for putting millions of pounds worth of investment in this region at risk.

 

The PL’s short sightedness could cost this city for many years to come, this is where the political pressure should be ramping up, its our best angle and hopefully what’s happening now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stifler

Stifler

Posted
Posted

Country in recession and who knows how many more job losses to come. Whatever the issues are in relation to this deal be it piracy or ownership structure, they are not insurmountable and the PL should be shot to shit for putting millions of pounds worth of investment in this region at risk.

 

The PL’s short sightedness could cost this city for many years to come, this is where the political pressure should be ramping up, its our best angle and hopefully what’s happening now.

If the consortium we’re buying West Ham, and the money being spent in our area was going to be on buying the Olympic Stadium off the government, rebuilding it and developing the land around it further than the government would have already pressured the Premier League on it.

As it is, the investment is being driven into an area the government has already wrote off and forgot about long ago. Jobs here don’t matter, keep the region in low skilled, low pay jobs and benefits. The bill is being payed and when that bill becomes too much they will just change the social security system and introduce another poor persons tax like the bedroom tax.

If London is at risk of losing jobs though and this investment could keep people in jobs, then that’s very much being waved through.

The only way the government will intervene is if Saudi Arabia threaten to stop trading.

Link to post
Share on other sites
loki679

loki679

Posted
Posted

 

I'd love someone to explain how this will magically make the PL approve the deal.  :lol:

 

That's also interesting because it would give the PL a way to save a bit of face too.  They didn't bow to pressure from the fans or the politicians, they stood firm and extracted further concessions to make the deal acceptable.

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