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

[gdm]

I still think it's telling that there's been no comment, official or otherwise, by Staveley since the letter from Masters.

 

You imagine if she's legit that there's a lot of holes in what Masters said to pick at. Such as what happened between March and June (?) when they queried the ownership structure. What happened between that point and PiF withdrawal? Did the consortium provide timely answers and the PL drag their heels with responses and clarifications or the other way round?

 

Find it hard to believe she wouldn't have something to say if this was completely dead in the water having gone to blame the PL so clearly from the off.

 

She doesn't think it's dead basically.

 

May hear from her again thru George Caulkin when he’s back from holiday. He seems to be the journalist she trusts.

[gjohnson]

Fans have done what Staveley has asked. Let's see if she can be fucked to make the next move.

 

I don’t think she even knows what her next move is. The Saudis are out, no question about that. Does she come back with another consortium? By all accounts it took nearly 2 years to get this bid in place

 

She's probably more concerned about whether she's going to get 1.5bn from Barclays than us at the minute

[Joey Linton]

Just read it.  Nowt we didn't already know

 

- Test is confidential

 

- No definitive timescale given

 

- Bid was publicly withdrawn so no need for a final decision

 

Yep. If you won't answer the questions asked, there's no way we can wave the deal through. And to be honest that's right to protect the club.

 

I'm not sure protecting the club is anywhere on their agenda TBH. What did Mike Ashley answer to these questions?

 

They could've answered the questions and put the ball back in the Premier League's court, but chose not to.

[Judge Holden]

Just read it.  Nowt we didn't already know

 

- Test is confidential

 

- No definitive timescale given

 

- Bid was publicly withdrawn so no need for a final decision

 

Yep. If you won't answer the questions asked, there's no way we can wave the deal through. And to be honest that's right to protect the club.

 

I'm not sure protecting the club is anywhere on their agenda TBH. What did Mike Ashley answer to these questions?

 

Richard Masters wasn't running an O&D test on Ashley 13 years ago.

 

Ashley was also never accused of broadcasting the PL to a nation via dodgy satellite box either.

[mrmojorisin75]

I still think it's telling that there's been no comment, official or otherwise, by Staveley since the letter from Masters.

 

You imagine if she's legit that there's a lot of holes in what Masters said to pick at. Such as what happened between March and June (?) when they queried the ownership structure. What happened between that point and PiF withdrawal? Did the consortium provide timely answers and the PL drag their heels with responses and clarifications or the other way round?

 

Find it hard to believe she wouldn't have something to say if this was completely dead in the water having gone to blame the PL so clearly from the off.

 

She doesn't think it's dead basically.

 

May hear from her again thru George Caulkin when he’s back from holiday. He seems to be the journalist she trusts.

Aye perhaps, but she'll say fuck all if there's a chance to resurrect the deal. In the same way she said nothing when Ashley called her shite years back because she intended to come back again. Imo.

[Joey Linton]

I still think it's telling that there's been no comment, official or otherwise, by Staveley since the letter from Masters.

 

You imagine if she's legit that there's a lot of holes in what Masters said to pick at. Such as what happened between March and June (?) when they queried the ownership structure. What happened between that point and PiF withdrawal? Did the consortium provide timely answers and the PL drag their heels with responses and clarifications or the other way round?

 

Find it hard to believe she wouldn't have something to say if this was completely dead in the water having gone to blame the PL so clearly from the off.

 

She doesn't think it's dead basically.

 

May hear from her again thru George Caulkin when he’s back from holiday. He seems to be the journalist she trusts.

 

Perhaps he could ask her some questions too.

[TK-421]

Yeah, think we need/deserve some sort of response from PCP/Reubens now on where this sits, is it ongoing or a dead duck, and are PIF still a possibility or are they gone for good now?

 

Staveley made the call to fans, who responded massively, and the PL have responded with similar answers to both Chi and NUST now. Whether you like their resonses or not, it looks like all were going to get from them.

 

Its back to PCP/RB now.

[gdm]

I still think it's telling that there's been no comment, official or otherwise, by Staveley since the letter from Masters.

 

You imagine if she's legit that there's a lot of holes in what Masters said to pick at. Such as what happened between March and June (?) when they queried the ownership structure. What happened between that point and PiF withdrawal? Did the consortium provide timely answers and the PL drag their heels with responses and clarifications or the other way round?

 

Find it hard to believe she wouldn't have something to say if this was completely dead in the water having gone to blame the PL so clearly from the off.

 

She doesn't think it's dead basically.

 

May hear from her again thru George Caulkin when he’s back from holiday. He seems to be the journalist she trusts.

Aye perhaps, but she'll say fuck all if there's a chance to resurrect the deal. In the same way she said nothing when Ashley called her shite years back because she intended to come back again. Imo.

 

It’s dead. The Premier league ain’t budging. They don’t have to and probably feel very little pressure to do so. Whatever the PL asked them for they felt the best option was to walk away, can’t see anything changing there. Newcastle United will mean very little to the Saudis, when they are ready they’ll buy some other team without half has much scrutiny. I admire anyone who still holds out hope for this deal.

[Consortium of one]

Who knows?  Maybe there is a NDA in place as PCP/RB/PIF restructure the deal to suit the PL.  PCP/RB/PIF have a better chance of closing a deal than BNG, IMO

[Shearergol]

Who knows?  Maybe there is a NDA in place as PCP/RB/PIF restructure the deal to suit the PL.  PCP/RB/PIF have a better chance of closing a deal than BNG, IMO

 

Likelihood in order:

 

1. Ashley staying as owner

2. Me giving Maya Jama the night of her life

3. PIF buying the club

4. BNG actually being a true takeover attempt

[gdm]

Who knows?  Maybe there is a NDA in place as PCP/RB/PIF restructure the deal to suit the PL.  PCP/RB/PIF have a better chance of closing a deal than BNG, IMO

 

You are kidding yourself. What will restructuring it do? The PL will still want the same answers

[gjohnson]

This whole situation is like trying to build a relationship with some lass/lad you met at the Bigg Market, and thought was fit as at the time. Yes you might have a date or two and still really want them, but then you find out that 'his/her dads' family are total lunatics who would make you dig your own grave before shoving you in it, and his/her mams family are so terrified of everything to say anything to anyone so they don't upset the neighbours. End result is they stop talking to you and you've not got a clue why

 

EDIT...and his/her mates...Liver Bird and Cockerell are always whispering in their ear saying..."nah, stick with us and you can do better"

[TRon]

 

Depends how reasonable the questions were, no?

 

Maybe but I don't think PIF will be forthcoming with complete honesty tbh.  They rightly don't want to expose themselves diplomatically on what would be a low level investment for them.

 

Truth be told, my theory is it's been determined that it's not worth the hassle for them to take us over as it would compromise more valuable interests elsewhere.

 

Agree with this pretty much. PIF don't really need to answer to anybody, they can just take their money and invest somewhere else.

 

PL don't need to offer any explanations to us either, their goals align pretty much with the big clubs, and those clubs don't want anyone else threatening their positions.

[Robster]

Who knows?  Maybe there is a NDA in place as PCP/RB/PIF restructure the deal to suit the PL.  PCP/RB/PIF have a better chance of closing a deal than BNG, IMO

You are kidding yourself. What will restructuring it do? The PL will still want the same answers

There is an awful lot of wishful thinking going on.

Until we hear otherwise, as far as I can tell, all the evidence tells us that this deal is dead, the consortium have moved on and Mike Ashley is going to be the owner for a long time.

[Jackie Broon]

"RM outlined the Owners’ & Directors’ Test process, explaining that it was an objective test and not one that was open to subjective opinion. He explained the need to establish if there were links to other legal entities that would own or control the Club. When an impasse was reached in this matter, the consortium was offered a number of routes to progress the matter:

 

– the entity in question accepts they would have Control by completing relevant forms and processes

 

– an independent arbitration on the issue of Control which en"

 

 

It is an objective test, it's very clearly set out and the process in the rules is this:

 

Rule F.4. requires the submission of a declaration if any Person proposes to become a director of a club (including anyone acquiring control of the club):

 

That is then assessed against Rule F.1. which sets out a number of 'disqualifying events'.

 

Those 'disqualifying events' include rule F.1.1.1. that the person subject to the test has failed to provide all relevant information (including information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed).

 

Rule F.6. states that: Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will: F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons.

 

Rule F.13. states that Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s)

 

 

The PL have abundantly clearly not followed that process. They established in June that an 'entity' that they believed should be included as a director had not been disclosed (a disqualifying event under rule F.1.1.1.). Rule F.6. requires them to have issued a notice of disqualification to the proposed directors "upon becoming aware" that they were liable to be disqualified.

 

The rules give them absolutely no other option, they should have issued a formal decision at that point, which could then have been appealed.

 

[Shearergol]

I wonder if we're finally going to see an attempt from Ashley to sell everyone and walk away with the profits? (I mean transparently for a change)

[SAK]

Finally got a response from my local MP Harriet Harman bit of  meh response:

 

Dear *****,

Thank you for contacting me about the proposed takeover of Newcastle United Football Club. I appreciate the concerns you raise.

As you may know, the CEO of the Premier League, Richard Masters, has written to my colleague Chi Onwurah, MP for Newcastle Central, setting out the Premier League’s response to questions asked about its approach to the planned takeover. Mr Masters said the Premier League had not been able to assess the suitability of the potential owners of the club because the consortium had not provided the required information. He said this was because the consortium disagreed with the Premier League’s determination of who the actual owners of the club would be after the takeover.

Mr Masters further stated that the Premier League would be reviewing the owners’ and directors’ test in the coming months to ensure it remains robust and fair to everyone involved.

I appreciate that many Newcastle United fans will feel disappointed at the withdrawal of the consortium’s bid for the club. I can assure you that I will continue to monitor any further developments on this issue.

Last year the Government promised to set up a fan-led review of football governance, which will include the owners’ and directors’ test. I believe the Government needs to get started on this review as soon as possible, so we can deliver a governance structure for football that is modern, accountable and above all, puts fans at the heart of their clubs.

As part of this review, I believe it will be important to consider who should be able to own a football club, as well as what information needs to be in the public domain regarding ownership, finance and structure.

Above all, I believe the review must be genuinely driven by what fans want and need. It is therefore vital that the Government makes clear what “fan-led” will mean in practice and, crucially, when we can expect change. It is almost ten years since the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee published recommendations on football governance – including for “a strong fit and proper persons test consistently applied” – and these issues are becoming urgent.

Thank you once again for contacting me.

Best wishes

Harriet Harman 

 

 

[gjohnson]

Finally got a response from my local MP Harriet Harman bit of  meh response:

 

Dear *****,

Thank you for contacting me about the proposed takeover of Newcastle United Football Club. I appreciate the concerns you raise.

As you may know, the CEO of the Premier League, Richard Masters, has written to my colleague Chi Onwurah, MP for Newcastle Central, setting out the Premier League’s response to questions asked about its approach to the planned takeover. Mr Masters said the Premier League had not been able to assess the suitability of the potential owners of the club because the consortium had not provided the required information. He said this was because the consortium disagreed with the Premier League’s determination of who the actual owners of the club would be after the takeover.

Mr Masters further stated that the Premier League would be reviewing the owners’ and directors’ test in the coming months to ensure it remains robust and fair to everyone involved.

I appreciate that many Newcastle United fans will feel disappointed at the withdrawal of the consortium’s bid for the club. I can assure you that I will continue to monitor any further developments on this issue.

Last year the Government promised to set up a fan-led review of football governance, which will include the owners’ and directors’ test. I believe the Government needs to get started on this review as soon as possible, so we can deliver a governance structure for football that is modern, accountable and above all, puts fans at the heart of their clubs.

As part of this review, I believe it will be important to consider who should be able to own a football club, as well as what information needs to be in the public domain regarding ownership, finance and structure.

Above all, I believe the review must be genuinely driven by what fans want and need. It is therefore vital that the Government makes clear what “fan-led” will mean in practice and, crucially, when we can expect change. It is almost ten years since the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee published recommendations on football governance – including for “a strong fit and proper persons test consistently applied” – and these issues are becoming urgent.

Thank you once again for contacting me.

Best wishes

Harriet Harman

 

So standard reply from the generic MP who hasn't got a clue about about what they've actually been asked. Might have well just put "F**k you, leave me alone" in the response

[Raconteur]

"RM outlined the Owners’ & Directors’ Test process, explaining that it was an objective test and not one that was open to subjective opinion. He explained the need to establish if there were links to other legal entities that would own or control the Club. When an impasse was reached in this matter, the consortium was offered a number of routes to progress the matter:

 

– the entity in question accepts they would have Control by completing relevant forms and processes

 

– an independent arbitration on the issue of Control which en"

 

 

It is an objective test, it's very clearly set out and the process in the rules is this:

 

Rule F.4. requires the submission of a declaration if any Person proposes to become a director of a club (including anyone acquiring control of the club):

 

That is then assessed against Rule F.1. which sets out a number of 'disqualifying events'.

 

Those 'disqualifying events' include rule F.1.1.1. that the person subject to the test has failed to provide all relevant information (including information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed).

 

Rule F.6. states that: Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will: F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons.

 

Rule F.13. states that Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s)

 

 

The PL have abundantly clearly not followed that process. They established in June that an 'entity' that they believed should be included as a director had not been disclosed (a disqualifying event under rule F.1.1.1.). Rule F.6. requires them to have issued a notice of disqualification to the proposed directors "upon becoming aware" that they were liable to be disqualified.

 

The rules give them absolutely no other option, they should have issued a formal decision at that point, which could then have been appealed.

 

 

You argue a sound case, but the PL response is that your reading of F.1.1.1 is too much a strict letter reading, that the PL acknowledged that PIF disclosed its would-be directors but were fuzzy on what “control” meant in the rules - and because the PL is such a helpful bunch, they gave them an opportunity to correct their papers rather than reject it outright.

 

Yes, the rules say they should have been rejected, but I don’t know the argument “Be damned with ‘helpful’, they should have failed us” is going to beat the above PR line.

[gdm]

Actually really annoying me the way the chronicle and others have ran with the ‘door still open’ headlines. That was never in question from the PL side of it coz they didn’t give a decision one way or another. It creates false hope amongst the fanbase. I’ll be amazed if PIF come back to the table, fact is they don’t need to buy Newcastle half as much as we need them to.

Ben Jacobs today saying PIF are now looking to France and are linked to buying Marseille

[Dokko]

Even I gave up over a week ago. It’s over, PIF aren’t coming back and Staveley can’t do it on her own unless she wins that court case. Ashley will be here for another season at least. Once it gets underway the threat of relegation means no one will want to take a punt on it until it’s confirmed.

 

I don’t understand the grief she’s been getting on here mind. I was very suspect of her last time round, and was saw what was going to happen earlier on, however she’s done everything she can this time round and I’m actually more pissed for her than anyone out of this. I wish her well in whatever she does next, but I’m not sure round 3 is right for any of us.

[Dokko]

Actually really annoying me the way the chronicle and others have ran with the ‘door still open’ headlines. That was never in question from the PL side of it coz they didn’t give a decision one way or another. It creates false hope amongst the fanbase. I’ll be amazed if PIF come back to the table, fact is they don’t need to buy Newcastle half as much as we need them to.

Ben Jacobs today saying PIF are now looking to France and are linked to buying Marseille

 

They’ll get Marseille right up in the faces of PSG. Hope they dominate them for decades to come.

[Shearergol]

Even I gave up over a week ago. It’s over, PIF aren’t coming back and Staveley can’t do it on her own unless she wins that court case. Ashley will be here for another season at least. Once it gets underway the threat of relegation means no one will want to take a punt on it until it’s confirmed.

 

I don’t understand the grief she’s been getting on here mind. I was very suspect of her last time round, and was saw what was going to happen earlier on, however she’s done everything she can this time round and I’m actually more pissed for her than anyone out of this. I wish her well in whatever she does next, but I’m not sure round 3 is right for any of us.

 

Ashley's here forever, unless he bankrupts the club.

[Jackie Broon]

"RM outlined the Owners’ & Directors’ Test process, explaining that it was an objective test and not one that was open to subjective opinion. He explained the need to establish if there were links to other legal entities that would own or control the Club. When an impasse was reached in this matter, the consortium was offered a number of routes to progress the matter:

 

– the entity in question accepts they would have Control by completing relevant forms and processes

 

– an independent arbitration on the issue of Control which en"

 

 

It is an objective test, it's very clearly set out and the process in the rules is this:

 

Rule F.4. requires the submission of a declaration if any Person proposes to become a director of a club (including anyone acquiring control of the club):

 

That is then assessed against Rule F.1. which sets out a number of 'disqualifying events'.

 

Those 'disqualifying events' include rule F.1.1.1. that the person subject to the test has failed to provide all relevant information (including information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed).

 

Rule F.6. states that: Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will: F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons.

 

Rule F.13. states that Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s)

 

 

The PL have abundantly clearly not followed that process. They established in June that an 'entity' that they believed should be included as a director had not been disclosed (a disqualifying event under rule F.1.1.1.). Rule F.6. requires them to have issued a notice of disqualification to the proposed directors "upon becoming aware" that they were liable to be disqualified.

 

The rules give them absolutely no other option, they should have issued a formal decision at that point, which could then have been appealed.

 

 

You argue a sound case, but the PL response is that your reading of F.1.1.1 is too much a strict letter reading, that the PL acknowledged that PIF disclosed its would-be directors but were fuzzy on what “control” meant in the rules - and because the PL is such a helpful bunch, they gave them an opportunity to correct their papers rather than reject it outright.

 

Yes, the rules say they should have been rejected, but I don’t know the argument “Be damned with ‘helpful’, they should have failed us” is going to beat the above PR line.

 

Although the PL may helpfully allow proposed directors to submit additional information (although, by the letter, their rules don't actually allow for that) the PL have said that an impasse was reached in June, they clearly should have issued a formal notice of disqualification at that point.

[TRon]

"RM outlined the Owners’ & Directors’ Test process, explaining that it was an objective test and not one that was open to subjective opinion. He explained the need to establish if there were links to other legal entities that would own or control the Club. When an impasse was reached in this matter, the consortium was offered a number of routes to progress the matter:

 

– the entity in question accepts they would have Control by completing relevant forms and processes

 

– an independent arbitration on the issue of Control which en"

 

 

It is an objective test, it's very clearly set out and the process in the rules is this:

 

Rule F.4. requires the submission of a declaration if any Person proposes to become a director of a club (including anyone acquiring control of the club):

 

That is then assessed against Rule F.1. which sets out a number of 'disqualifying events'.

 

Those 'disqualifying events' include rule F.1.1.1. that the person subject to the test has failed to provide all relevant information (including information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed).

 

Rule F.6. states that: Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will: F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons.

 

Rule F.13. states that Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s)

 

 

The PL have abundantly clearly not followed that process. They established in June that an 'entity' that they believed should be included as a director had not been disclosed (a disqualifying event under rule F.1.1.1.). Rule F.6. requires them to have issued a notice of disqualification to the proposed directors "upon becoming aware" that they were liable to be disqualified.

 

The rules give them absolutely no other option, they should have issued a formal decision at that point, which could then have been appealed.

 

 

Everything you say makes sense, but of course the PL also left themselves with enough wiggle room that they could just keep on dragging the process out with enough faith in their position that it wouldn't come back to burn them. Might have been a bit of a gamble on their part, but they knew they would have the backing of the rest of the league, and that was the main thing. They correctly guessed that by putting in the arbitration clause with no guarantees of success if that went in favour of PIF, the Saudis would just decide to walk away rather than wait another 12 months of being messed about. It must have been what they were banking on ultimately.