Guest Cheesy Beans Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Must be some impressive backtracking from NUST on the way. After all, it wasn’t that long ago after their tea party with Masters they were telling us how sincere he was. The club now coming out and specifically accusing him of not acting appropriately. Once again, they stick their finger in the air before making a decision on which side to hop into bed with, after lobbying for membership (£££) on the back of a crisis. You’re a moron. I wouldn't bother with him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Must be some impressive backtracking from NUST on the way. After all, it wasn’t that long ago after their tea party with Masters they were telling us how sincere he was. The club now coming out and specifically accusing him of not acting appropriately. Once again, they stick their finger in the air before making a decision on which side to hop into bed with, after lobbying for membership (£££) on the back of a crisis. NUST have done literally nothing wrong in this. So they weren’t all over the PL after their meeting with them? When the atmosphere was toxic towards the PL, they played a significant part in cooling it down. Turns out the PL have been in the wrong all along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Turns out the PL have been in the wrong all along. Where is your definitive proof for this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif are gone" bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif" are gone bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Getting their £17m deposit back is a reason they would have resubmitted their bid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Am I reading something into this statement by the club? It refers to the club and its "owners" i.e in the plural. Does this mean the club has actually been sold to the consortium? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Turns out the PL have been in the wrong all along. Where is your definitive proof for this? We’ll see, won’t we. If the PL are in the right, this takeover won’t happen. Maybe the club, Staveley, PIF and the Reubens are wrong, but it seems odd that the club’s own supporters trust will call for calm and relaxation against the PL based on one 30-minute telephone call with them. We were literally told by the (soon to be) new owners to ramp the pressure up. They can’t call Alex every 5 minutes and say ‘carry on’, obviously they need to use their own initiative. It’s the same with Rafa - a crisis occurs, they lobby for new membership and promise action and then do a complete U-turn and tell everyone to stop/calm down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif" are gone bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Getting their £17m deposit back is a reason they would have resubmitted their bid. Aye, PIF are completely skint and want their £17m back. So they spent even more money chasing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif" are gone bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Getting their £17m deposit back is a reason they would have resubmitted their bid. based on what nees? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Am I reading something into this statement by the club? It refers to the club and its owners i.e in the plural. Does this mean the club has actually been sold to the consortium? the owners bit did occur to me but that's not realistic man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif" are gone bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Getting their £17m deposit back is a reason they would have resubmitted their bid. Aye, PIF are completely skint and want their £17m back. So they spent even more money chasing it. Yeah, it cost £20m+ to resubmit their bid. Some mackemathetics there. Ofcourse they want their money back, you don't just throw away £17m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif" are gone bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Getting their £17m deposit back is a reason they would have resubmitted their bid. based on what nees? Based on, I don't understand the question? The PL has made a decision and rejected the bid now, that means they are entitled to their deposit back from what I understand or can proceed with an appeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif" are gone bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Getting their £17m deposit back is a reason they would have resubmitted their bid. Aye, PIF are completely skint and want their £17m back. So they spent even more money chasing it. Yeah, it cost £20m+ to resubmit their bid. Some mackemathetics there. Where have you plucked that figure from? Who said that? It’s still cost them hundreds of thousands, possibly into the millions to resubmit the bid. Why would an organisation as wealthy as PIF chase after £17m and risk becoming publicly shamed? It’s not even a guarantee they get the £17m back, depends on the terms of the deal. It’s only a couple of months ago you were telling me I was wrong for claiming the issue with the deal was the make up of PIF. Months on we have statements from the consortium, NUFC and the PL all unanimously agreeing that is the hold up. So forgive me if I have confidence in what I hear and take what you say with a large pinch of salt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif" are gone bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Getting their £17m deposit back is a reason they would have resubmitted their bid. based on what nees? Based on, I don't understand the question? The PL has made a decision and rejected the bid now, that means they are entitled to their deposit back from what I understand or can proceed with an appeal. what are you basing your conclusion on that the reason for the resubmission, if indeed it was that, will get them the £17m back? i've not seen it suggested anywhere at all so was wondering why you think it's the sole reason for it all? the appeal yes, that makes sense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif" are gone bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? Getting their £17m deposit back is a reason they would have resubmitted their bid. based on what nees? Based on, I don't understand the question? The PL has made a decision and rejected the bid now, that means they are entitled to their deposit back from what I understand or can proceed with an appeal. what are you basing your conclusion on that the reason for the resubmission, if indeed it was that, will get them the £17m back? i've not seen it suggested anywhere at all so was wondering why you think it's the sole reason for it all? the appeal yes, that makes sense Because a few journalists have suggested that reason is they resubmitted some documents and that has eventually caused the PL to finally make a decision. They would get the £17m back now from what I understand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Am I reading something into this statement by the club? It refers to the club and its owners i.e in the plural. Does this mean the club has actually been sold to the consortium? the owners bit did occur to me but that's not realistic man Probably means owner and would-be owners Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenC Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif are gone" bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? This is really just a capital investment for PIF, not and emotional one like it is for us. If Staveley rings them up and says, "aal sorted lads, this is back on" then I can't think of any reason that they wouldn't just go ahead and make the investment as they were going to a couple of months ago. Are they still all following us on twitter? That's obviously the biggest tell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 They would get the £17m back now from what I understand. you keep saying this without explaining the basis for it, this is where we started Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 This will be the PL’s ‘we tried’ moment. They can claim they were forced into accepting it upon appeal and look like they were backed into a corner. It’s on, as it always has been, I await @9Shearergol[/member]’s grovelling apology for our exchange a few weeks back. I'm pretty certain our "exchange" was about my insistence that the PL's issue was the piracy problem. Unless that was some other clueless idiot I was debating with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 literally don't see the point in that statement if ashley isn't going to do anything about it, indeed given they apparently have a good relationship it could be staveley et al pushing ashley along the legal with promises of reimbursement for costs or something also this "pif are gone" bollocks, not buying that either...if they can get the deal pushed through my feeling is they'll be back otherwise what have the ongoing talks that pushed the rejection been about if they've left the deal forever? This is really just a capital investment for PIF, not and emotional one like it is for us. If Staveley rings them up and says, "aal sorted lads, this is back on" then I can't think of any reason that they wouldn't just go ahead and make the investment as they were going to a couple of months ago. Are they still all following us on twitter? That's obviously the biggest tell yeah i think losing face will be the only thing preventing them doing anything, if ashley/staveley can sort a route whereby there's no loss of face for them they'll be back like a shot - they obviously had plans to use the club as a vehicle, can't see why that would change Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 They would get the £17m back now from what I understand. you keep saying this without explaining the basis for it, this is where we started Because the PL has rejected the deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 They would get the £17m back now from what I understand. you keep saying this without explaining the basis for it, this is where we started It’s not even necessarily true. If the rejection is due to the fault of the consortium, it’s likely the terms of the deal will state that MA will keep the deposit to cover his legal costs. The only way they’d get it back is if they followed all due processes and take this all the way through to appeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 This will be the PL’s ‘we tried’ moment. They can claim they were forced into accepting it upon appeal and look like they were backed into a corner. It’s on, as it always has been, I await @9Shearergol[/member]’s grovelling apology for our exchange a few weeks back. I'm pretty certain our "exchange" was about my insistence that the PL's issue was the piracy problem. Unless that was some other clueless idiot I was debating with. Which has unanimously been agreed by all parties in the deal to be a load of bollocks. You have also been pretty clear the deal is completely off, which was also part of our conversations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 Must be some impressive backtracking from NUST on the way. After all, it wasn’t that long ago after their tea party with Masters they were telling us how sincere he was. The club now coming out and specifically accusing him of not acting appropriately. Once again, they stick their finger in the air before making a decision on which side to hop into bed with, after lobbying for membership (£££) on the back of a crisis. Suddenly, the club and Mike Ashley's word is gospel ? I think we just need to be patient to see how this plays out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted September 10, 2020 Share Posted September 10, 2020 They would get the £17m back now from what I understand. you keep saying this without explaining the basis for it, this is where we started Because the PL has rejected the deal. just say it's total and utter guesswork man, and not "from what i understand" as if you have some info that supports your conclusion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts