Wallsendmag Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Anyone think the PL might be getting twitchy. If their stalling and refusal to make a decision on the ODT results in Newcastle going down and they are found to have acted improperly then it could end up in a hell of a lawsuit Surely they could just say there was nothing to stop us sacking the useless clown and appointing a competent manager regardless? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Nah there’s no stalling anymore. We will likely hear one way or another soon imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Honestly don't think the PL give a shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Nah there’s no stalling anymore. We will likely hear one way or another soon imo. If that’s the case Bruce will be gone soon anyway or it’ll not matter anyway as the club will be fucked anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Anyone think the PL might be getting twitchy. If their stalling and refusal to make a decision on the ODT results in Newcastle going down and they are found to have acted improperly then it could end up in a hell of a lawsuit The decision to employ an incompetent manager lies with Ashley, not the PL. Can't pin that one on them unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Anyone think the PL might be getting twitchy. If their stalling and refusal to make a decision on the ODT results in Newcastle going down and they are found to have acted improperly then it could end up in a hell of a lawsuit The decision to employ an incompetent manager lies with Ashley, not the PL. Can't pin that one on them unfortunately. I get that but he wants to sell and they won’t allow it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Nah there’s no stalling anymore. We will likely hear one way or another soon imo. If that’s the case Bruce will be gone soon anyway or it’ll not matter anyway as the club will be fucked anyway If we get sold, our best info says Bruce will be gone quickly. If we don’t get sold, and the league position is in contention, then Ma will likely sack him (too late) and who tf knows will replace him. You get the feeling we’re at the crossroads of prosperity and doom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Wonder what the outcome of those meetings were Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Wonder what the outcome of those meetings were Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 That’s the issue we are led to believe why this all stalled. The Premier League are trying to link PIF with those governmental officials that supported the piracy (state sponsored acts) off their product and PIF argue they are a separate entity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Didn’t PIF provide what they thought was proof from government officials that PIF was a separate entity. Maybe it had something to do with that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? That’s the issue we are led to believe why this all stalled. The Premier League are trying to link PIF with those governmental officials that supported the piracy (state sponsored acts) off their product and PIF argue they are a separate entity PIF stated they had provided the proof that they were a separate entity, and it is this aspect that I feel De Marco will be able to prove (again) in the Legal Action (not the arbitration) should it end up in court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 The Public Investment Fund (PIF) was established in 1971 as the sovereign wealth fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The fund’s objective is to provide financial support for projects and investments aligned with the strategic expansion of the Kingdom’s economy through the expansion and creation of new sectors. Does not sound unlinked to me.... But I trust in De Marco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Probably could have but its still got nothing to do with PIF. Separate legal entity which is what do marco is trying to prove. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 It’s as unlinked as Man City’s ownership is to their government Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 It’s as unlinked as Man City’s ownership is to their government They changed the rules after that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 It’s as unlinked as Man City’s ownership is to their government They changed the rules after that Then citeh owners should be forced to sell. It states that the test is applied to every club every season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts