PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Kimbo]

3 hours ago, Stifler said:

Leak came from Ashley’s team, surprise fucking surprise, always, and forever a cunt.

 

Anyway, does it matter? There wasn’t, and I still think no rules preventing a nation state from owning a club. We already know number 10 were involved with it.

 

 

 

This is what I’ve never understood about the separation argument. There was, and is, no rule against state ownership of clubs, because the member clubs don’t want such a rule, because they may want to benefit from it at some point. It’s portrayed as this ‘gotcha’ as if it’s a reason the takeover shouldn’t have happened.

[Stifler]

2 minutes ago, Kimbo said:

This is what I’ve never understood about the separation argument. There was, and is, no rule against state ownership of clubs, because the member clubs don’t want such a rule, because they may want to benefit from it at some point. It’s portrayed as this ‘gotcha’ as if it’s a reason the takeover shouldn’t have happened.

Exactly.

 

’Got you!’

 

’On what? Doing something that there was no rules against, but the Premier League let you believe there was just to avoid the questions of why there was no rules against it, and to pacify it, and for 3 years you have been praying for this moment because you were gullible enough to fall for it’.

[SAK]

Think that if MBS is regarded as a shadow director then he would have to undergo the owners and directors test. I doubt that would happen as they would have to prove he is involved in the running of NUFC which he isn’t. 
 

Just because MBS is involved in PIFs decision making in relation to investing in NUFC that does mean he’s involved in decisions in relation to us. As an example INEOS execs would have been in involved in their decision to invest in Man U, doesn’t mean the same ones are involved in running Man U or subject to the owners and directors test.

 

 

Edited October 20 by SAK

[Stifler]

4 minutes ago, SAK said:

Think that if MBS is regarded as a shadow director then he would have to undergo the owners and directors test. I doubt that would happen as they would have to prove he is involved in the running of NUFC which he isn’t. 
 

Just because MBS is involved in PIFs decision making in relation to investing in NUFC that does mean he’s involved in decisions in relation to us. As an example INEOS execs would have been in involved in their decision to invest in Man U, doesn’t mean the same ones are involved in running Man U or subject to the owners and directors test.

MBS hasn’t been convicted of any crime, and has had state visits to the U.K. in recent years.

[Jackie Broon]

2 hours ago, SAK said:

Think that if MBS is regarded as a shadow director then he would have to undergo the owners and directors test. I doubt that would happen as they would have to prove he is involved in the running of NUFC which he isn’t. 
 

Just because MBS is involved in PIFs decision making in relation to investing in NUFC that does mean he’s involved in decisions in relation to us. As an example INEOS execs would have been in involved in their decision to invest in Man U, doesn’t mean the same ones are involved in running Man U or subject to the owners and directors test.

 

 

 

 

It wasn't actually MBS who the PL regarded as a director, it was the state of Saudi Arabia. In the letter released in the court case it was actually the state of Saudi Arabia they were saying should be subject to the owners and directors test, not MBS.

 

And it wasn't that there was a rule against states owning clubs, the state of Saudi Arabia refused to make themselves subject to the owners and directors test so there was a stand-off over that.

 

In the end, the PL dropped that subject to unknown "legally binding assurances".

 

It's a non-story as you say because MBS in his role as chairman of PIF is bound to have input into PIF's decision making around Newcastle.

 

 

Edited October 20 by Jackie Broon

[tgarve]

This stinks 

[TheBrownBottle]

8 hours ago, SAK said:

Think that if MBS is regarded as a shadow director then he would have to undergo the owners and directors test. I doubt that would happen as they would have to prove he is involved in the running of NUFC which he isn’t. 
 

Just because MBS is involved in PIFs decision making in relation to investing in NUFC that does mean he’s involved in decisions in relation to us. As an example INEOS execs would have been in involved in their decision to invest in Man U, doesn’t mean the same ones are involved in running Man U or subject to the owners and directors test.

 

 

 

Burden of proof wouldn’t sit with the PL, but with PIF.  You’d struggle to argue that as de facto ruler of KSA and the head of PIF he has no say at all in the direction of the club.  It is his club, effectively. 

7 hours ago, Stifler said:

MBS hasn’t been convicted of any crime, and has had state visits to the U.K. in recent years.

That doesn’t matter - KSA doesn’t have the rule of law for a start, and he’s unlikely to be convicted of anything ever there.

 

The PL FPPT would also be failed if you’d done something which could lead to criminal conviction under another jurisdiction - ie state sponsored piracy of PL football (the PL were never bothered about war crimes in Yemen, human rights abuses in KSA, nor in the murder of journalists)

 

In all honesty seeing NUFC supporters offering any type of supportive statements to one of the most vicious regimes on the planet because they think they’ll buy us some canny footballers is one of the most depressing things about it all. 
 

5 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

It wasn't actually MBS who the PL regarded as a director, it was the state of Saudi Arabia. In the letter released in the court case it was actually the state of Saudi Arabia they were saying should be subject to the owners and directors test, not MBS.

 

And it wasn't that there was a rule against states owning clubs, the state of Saudi Arabia refused to make themselves subject to the owners and directors test so there was a stand-off over that.

 

In the end, the PL dropped that subject to unknown "legally binding assurances".

 

It's a non-story as you say because MBS in his role as chairman of PIF is bound to have input into PIF's decision making around Newcastle.

 

 

 

It was Staveley saying that, tbf.  And she doesn’t exactly have a perfect record of telling the full truth in court cases. 

[Dr Venkman]

54 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

In all honesty seeing NUFC supporters offering any type of supportive statements to one of the most vicious regimes on the planet because they think they’ll buy us some canny footballers is one of the most depressing things about it all.

We’re well past this point, they’ve bought plenty.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Dr Venkman said:

We’re well past this point, they’ve bought plenty.

They have, but Christ we don’t need to pretend that MBS hasn’t been convicted of anything therefore he’s guilty 

[Dr.Spaceman]

I'm not so sure anyone is pretending anything tbh. Everyone knows who MBS and Saudi Arabia are and what they stand for.

[Mahoneys Tache]

13 hours ago, PauloGeordio said:

Anything that helps get us one in January 

They’ll be sending some folk into St Nick’s to get them back to work soon so that might help. 

[Jackie Broon]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It was Staveley saying that, tbf.  And she doesn’t exactly have a perfect record of telling the full truth in court cases. 

 

It wasn't just Staveley, it was in the PL's letter to the club that was released in the High Court decision.

 

It was the state of Saudi Arabia not MBS that they said should be a director.

 

 

Edited October 21 by Jackie Broon

[Heron]

For me, there a lot of football fans out there who pretend to give a shit about what goes on in Saudi Arabia simply because of PIFs acquisition of Newcastle United as opposed to their humanitarian concerns and that is more the point I (personally) was getting at with regards to this particular article.

 

Other than saying some WhatsApp messages suggest MbS has been involved then the article isn't really saying anything at all - and I don't think anyone suspected he 100% wasn't involved anyways.

 

Hence why I think it's simply there to question our ownership/remove them as our owners as opposed to Saudi's morality.

 

That's done so because the likelihood is that the journalist believes a) These types of ownership are ruining football (which is correct) and b) it's likely affecting his/her teams capability to be successful.

 

However, in the UK I don't see many teams questioning the morality of other clubs owners - albeit I understand they're not in the same ball park. Folk are bothered about us because of our potential financial magnitude- which we've actually been stopped from accessing via a cartel of clubs and other lickspittles.

 

So I find it all very disingenuous.

 

Furthermore, to @TheBrownBottles point - in essence, almost each and every one of us are absolutely hypocrites. Not just on this forum but as a society. It's absolutely shocking that kids work in sweatshops making less than a quid for a football top but we then give the big wigs £80. It's absolutely shocking that people aren't brought to justice because they're rich and powerful and it's absolutely shocking what is going on in the PL. Nurses on next to nowt and footballers multi-millionaires. We all know these things but how many of us actually do anything at all about it.

 

The excuse from every man and his dog (myself included) is "well what can I do about it?". No one will ever do owt about it if they don't try - but most don't because it doesn't directly impact them. Hell, even when we had Mike Ashley and it did - most did nowt then - but the media weren't arsed cause we weren't a threat to their clubs...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21 by Heron

[TRon]

Bit late for football to find it's moral bearings about Saudis once you've already opened the gate for the Russians and Abu Dhabi.

[TheBrownBottle]

21 minutes ago, Heron said:

For me, there a lot of football fans out there who pretend to give a shit about what goes on in Saudi Arabia simply because of PIFs acquisition of Newcastle United as opposed to their humanitarian concerns and that is more the point I (personally) was getting at with regards to this particular article.

 

Other than saying some WhatsApp messages suggest MbS has been involved then the article isn't really saying anything at all - and I don't think anyone suspected he 100% wasn't involved anyways.

 

Hence why I think it's simply there to question our ownership/remove them as our owners as opposed to Saudi's morality.

 

That's done so because the likelihood is that the journalist believes a) These types of ownership are ruining football (which is correct) and b) it's likely affecting his/her teams capability to be successful.

 

However, in the UK I don't see many teams questioning the morality of other clubs owners - albeit I understand they're not in the same ball park. Folk are bothered about us because of our potential financial magnitude- which we've actually been stopped from accessing via a cartel of clubs and other lickspittles.

 

So I find it all very disingenuous.

 

Furthermore, to @TheBrownBottles point - in essence, almost each and every one of us are absolutely hypocrites. Not just on this forum but as a society. It's absolutely shocking that kids work in sweatshops making less than a quid for a football top but we then give the big wigs £80. It's absolutely shocking that people aren't brought to justice because they're rich and powerful and it's absolutely shocking what is going on in the PL. Nurses on next to nowt and footballers multi-millionaires. We all know these things but how many of us actually do anything at all about it.

 

The excuse from every man and his dog (myself included) is "well what can I do about it?". No one will ever do owt about it if they don't try - but most don't because it doesn't directly impact them. Hell, even when we had Mike Ashley and it did - most did nowt then - but the media weren't arsed cause we weren't a threat to their clubs...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honestly I agree with everything you’ve said - and I’m part of the same hypocrisy.  I just stop dead at defences of the owners.  They’re rank human beings, and they haven’t bought the club for altruistic reasons.  We get to be beneficiaries; but I can’t abide folks thinking they need to defend the indefensible 

[Groundhog63]

16 minutes ago, TRon said:

Bit late for football to find it's moral bearings about Saudis once you've already opened the gate for the Russians and Abu Dhabi.

 

Not to mention a certain middle East, apartheid state, engaged in a genocide participating in European competitions

[Ben]

FIFA don't seem to bothered about it.

 

Gianni Infantino, FIFA President, said: “We are delighted to welcome Aramco to FIFA’s family of global partners. This partnership will assist FIFA to successfully deliver its flagship tournaments over the next four years and, as is the case with all our commercial agreements, enable us to provide enhanced support to our 211 FIFA member associations across the globe. Aramco has a strong track record of supporting world-class events, but also a focus on developing grassroots sport initiatives. We look forward to collaborating with them on a variety of initiatives over the coming years.”

Aramco also intends to work with FIFA to drive innovation, identifying opportunities to deploy the Company’s expertise and technologies in the delivery of football events globally. This includes initiatives that aim to provide new and innovative ways for football fans to engage with FIFA’s events.

[Whitley mag]

All Staveley’s texts confirm to me is that Ashley was a cunt, who as we all know tried to move the goal posts on price and could easily have lost the deal due to his greed.

[PauloGeordio]

Couldn’t sleep worrying about this. Thank fook! 

[Menace]

Why would you worry? The UK has been basically open for business to the Saudis for decades

[PauloGeordio]

Just now, Menace said:

Why would you worry? The UK has been basically open for business to the Saudis for decades

I didn’t worry 

[mattypnufc]

16 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

Couldn’t sleep worrying about this. Thank fook! 

Same or similar story tends to emerge every other month.  Boring. 

[Rod]

6 hours ago, Heron said:

For me, there a lot of football fans out there who pretend to give a shit about what goes on in Saudi Arabia simply because of PIFs acquisition of Newcastle United as opposed to their humanitarian concerns and that is more the point I (personally) was getting at with regards to this particular article.

 

Other than saying some WhatsApp messages suggest MbS has been involved then the article isn't really saying anything at all - and I don't think anyone suspected he 100% wasn't involved anyways.

 

Hence why I think it's simply there to question our ownership/remove them as our owners as opposed to Saudi's morality.

 

That's done so because the likelihood is that the journalist believes a) These types of ownership are ruining football (which is correct) and b) it's likely affecting his/her teams capability to be successful.

 

However, in the UK I don't see many teams questioning the morality of other clubs owners - albeit I understand they're not in the same ball park. Folk are bothered about us because of our potential financial magnitude- which we've actually been stopped from accessing via a cartel of clubs and other lickspittles.

 

So I find it all very disingenuous.

 

Furthermore, to @TheBrownBottles point - in essence, almost each and every one of us are absolutely hypocrites. Not just on this forum but as a society. It's absolutely shocking that kids work in sweatshops making less than a quid for a football top but we then give the big wigs £80. It's absolutely shocking that people aren't brought to justice because they're rich and powerful and it's absolutely shocking what is going on in the PL. Nurses on next to nowt and footballers multi-millionaires. We all know these things but how many of us actually do anything at all about it.

 

The excuse from every man and his dog (myself included) is "well what can I do about it?". No one will ever do owt about it if they don't try - but most don't because it doesn't directly impact them. Hell, even when we had Mike Ashley and it did - most did nowt then - but the media weren't arsed cause we weren't a threat to their clubs...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brilliant post!

[PauloGeordio]

4 minutes ago, mattypnufc said:

Same or similar story tends to emerge every other month.  Boring. 

The Saudis are here for as long as they choose to be (or unless global politics does a complete 180!) 

 

 

Edited October 21 by PauloGeordio

[Guest]

https://apple.news/AYqiMA4kWRnysw33A6Xeciw
 

Sorry to say but Miguel Delaney is back at it. His hate for us is hilarious when you also consider that such awful “state ownership” has meant we’re being ran like a relatively normal football club. 
 

The kicker being this snippet of utter nonsense in the final paragraph:

 

“Newcastle haven’t created as many headlines as any of that. There is even the feeling within the game that the Saudi state is ultimately eyeing a bigger club. Rumours abound about both Liverpool and Chelsea. Barcelona’s financial troubles are even seen as potentially bringing an end to the club’s full member ownership and forcing the sale of a partial stake.”

 

 

Edited October 22 by Jack27