RS Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 If true that the O&D test has changed,then I'm sorry but that's really really bad news for us. I always thought it would change but as our takeover started under the old test, then that would be applied. Not necessarily. I'm only speculating here but the reportings of PIF leaving the table were only ever reportings. The conversations have clearly still be ongoing related to this deal rather than another one in the offing. If the PL were to introduce changes to the test, they could not be enforced within the deal from last year, they could (surely) only be for any future dealings. It was a formal statement of withdrawal. Perhaps if they hadn’t withdrew they couldn’t change the test. Also though if they did meet the terms of the original test and the PL stalled. It would suggest the club is in a decent position to undertake legal proceedings for whatever reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 If true that the O&D test has changed,then I'm sorry but that's really really bad news for us. I always thought it would change but as our takeover started under the old test, then that would be applied. Not necessarily. I'm only speculating here but the reportings of PIF leaving the table were only ever reportings. The conversations have clearly still be ongoing related to this deal rather than another one in the offing. If the PL were to introduce changes to the test, they could not be enforced within the deal from last year, they could (surely) only be for any future dealings. It was a formal statement of withdrawal. Perhaps if they hadn’t withdrew they couldn’t change the test. Also though if they did meet the terms of the original test and the PL stalled. It would suggest the club is in a decent position to undertake legal proceedings for whatever reason. It was not a formal withdrawal, it was a public statement, there is nothing formal about that. They can say whatever they want in a public statement, it doesn't have to be true and it doesn't formally change anything. The process of formally withdrawing their offer would have been done behind closed doors, if it was. The only elements of withdrawing from the deal that would be public would be discharging charges and dissolving the holding companies on Companies House, and none of that has been done. Also, the O&D test is set out in the PL Handbook, which is published before the start of each season. I doubt they would / could change the test without publishing the changes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Any changes would have no barring on arbitration or any legal case that is focused on something that happened before those changes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Articles like this boil my piss. More examples of why the so called top 6 want to keep the rest in their place. This takeover can’t happen soon enough, with the current ownership we’re wide open to stuff like this. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9123817/Chelsea-plot-poach-North-East-talent.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 TBF I would blame Newcastle United for this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 This is fine tho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 On the face of it that looks horrific Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 If true that the O&D test has changed,then I'm sorry but that's really really bad news for us. I always thought it would change but as our takeover started under the old test, then that would be applied. Not necessarily. I'm only speculating here but the reportings of PIF leaving the table were only ever reportings. It was a formal statement of withdrawal. Perhaps if they hadn’t withdrew they couldn’t change the test. Also though if they did meet the terms of the original test and the PL stalled. It would suggest the club is in a decent position to undertake legal proceedings It was not a formal withdrawal, it was a public statement, there is nothing formal about that. They can say whatever they want in a public statement, it doesn't have to be true and it doesn't formally change anything. The process of formally withdrawing their offer would have been done behind closed doors, if it was. The only elements of withdrawing from the deal that would be public would be discharging charges and dissolving the holding companies on Companies House, and none of that has been done. Also, the O&D test is set out in the PL Handbook, which is published before the start of each season. I doubt they would / could change the test without publishing the changes They issued a formal statement, as I stated. In the post above. Formal as in officially sanctioned. If they haven’t withdrawn the offer surely there would have been progress by now without all the legal manoeuvring? Also, if the offer has been withdrawn (obviously it has) and the PL then change the O&D test PIF will need to comply with the changes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Any changes would have no barring on arbitration or any legal case that is focused on something that happened before those changes. Exactly, any legal proceedings would review the conduct of all parties in relation to the rules/regulations at that time, no moving the goalposts after. If we for some reason have to submit a new O&D request then that's a different matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 This is fine tho Werent Man Utd bought the same way? Hence their £1bn debt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 This is fine tho The money borrowed was from Michael Dell's investment firm. I know the mackems have seemingly found a buyer now, but it's just further proof SunDELLand was never a thing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 If true that the O&D test has changed,then I'm sorry but that's really really bad news for us. I always thought it would change but as our takeover started under the old test, then that would be applied. Not necessarily. I'm only speculating here but the reportings of PIF leaving the table were only ever reportings. It was a formal statement of withdrawal. Perhaps if they hadn’t withdrew they couldn’t change the test. Also though if they did meet the terms of the original test and the PL stalled. It would suggest the club is in a decent position to undertake legal proceedings It was not a formal withdrawal, it was a public statement, there is nothing formal about that. They can say whatever they want in a public statement, it doesn't have to be true and it doesn't formally change anything. The process of formally withdrawing their offer would have been done behind closed doors, if it was. The only elements of withdrawing from the deal that would be public would be discharging charges and dissolving the holding companies on Companies House, and none of that has been done. Also, the O&D test is set out in the PL Handbook, which is published before the start of each season. I doubt they would / could change the test without publishing the changes They issued a formal statement, as I stated. In the post above. Formal as in officially sanctioned. If they haven’t withdrawn the offer surely there would have been progress by now without all the legal manoeuvring? Also, if the offer has been withdrawn (obviously it has) and the PL then change the O&D test PIF will need to comply with the changes It was widely reported at the time it was the clubs role to withdraw from the test, and again it was widely reported they did not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 This is fine tho The money borrowed was from Michael Dell's investment firm. I know the mackems have seemingly found a buyer now, but it's just further proof SunDELLand was never a thing! More likely it was a thing but got wind they could get involved with a PL club for similar outlays and commitments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 TBF I would blame Newcastle United for this Yeah that’s foul. And as you say, completely on us. Chelsea can be as cheeky as they want to secure new talent but we absolutely should have secured all the local junior clubs on these sort of deals. Horrendous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 TBF I would blame Newcastle United for this Yeah that’s foul. And as you say, completely on us. Chelsea can be as cheeky as they want to secure new talent but we absolutely should have secured all the local junior clubs on these sort of deals. Horrendous. Hence why a takeover is crucial, the current ownership couldn’t give a shit about this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Amazing isn't it how fast the Burnley sale was passed through by the EPL. Could it be because the buyers are American. Seems to me the Yanks either are or on the verge of controlling the EPL. I think that's at least 5 clubs owned by American consortiums! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chicken little Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Could it be because the buyers are American. maybe. could also be that they weren't pirating the league's intellectual property from one of its major partners. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 TBF I would blame Newcastle United for this Yeah that’s foul. And as you say, completely on us. Chelsea can be as cheeky as they want to secure new talent but we absolutely should have secured all the local junior clubs on these sort of deals. Horrendous. Hence why a takeover is crucial, the current ownership couldn’t give a shit about this. Preaching to the converted mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Could it be because the buyers are American. maybe. could also be that they weren't pirating the league's intellectual property from one of its major partners. Essentially it's this, which people are happy to ignore for some reason. No no no , it's because we're Newcastle and the world hates us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Could it be because the buyers are American. maybe. could also be that they weren't pirating the league's intellectual property from one of its major partners. Yeah, this elephant in the room needs to be addressed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Wasn’t the BeOutQ, or whatever it was, stopped prior to the takeover going to the PL? And measures taken by the Saudis to prosecute those involved? Might be wrong though- it’s a while ago now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 Could it be because the buyers are American. maybe. could also be that they weren't pirating the league's intellectual property from one of its major partners. Yeah, this elephant in the room needs to be addressed. I said a couple of days ago it’s pretty obvious the piracy issue is the main reason it didn’t go thru. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 If the piracy issue is as big a issue as everyone is saying (it probably is to be honest), then surely the fact Saudi Arabia and Qatar have ended their diplomatic feud which includes Bein sports being switched back on in Saudi in the near future and Bein being compensated by Saudi Arabia for the piracy, surely that's a big thing for this takeover? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted January 8, 2021 Share Posted January 8, 2021 If the piracy issue is as big a issue as everyone is saying (it probably is to be honest), then surely the fact Saudi Arabia and Qatar have ended their diplomatic feud which includes Bein sports being switched back on in Saudi in the near future and Bein being compensated by Saudi Arabia for the piracy, surely that's a big thing for this takeover? Maybe not a big thing - but it appears to be one of the obstacles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts