Newcastle takeover???

BaZ87 said:
No, that's not exactly what he said. He didn't say "I cannot comment on the process". He said, "we'll be talking about that on a confidential basis when we get to these issues" when asked about human rights and piracy issues. Again, he could just be lying to avoid getting drawn into a line of questioning but his comments clearly suggest that those issues haven't been addressed yet.
Click to expand...
As I keep saying and will carry on saying, the people that matter say it has been given the green light on Friday and that’s who I’m going to believe, it’s likely that he didn’t want to get drawn into any other questions which is why he answered the way he did, we will find out next week.
I don’t mean to be funny but if you had the life sucked out of your club over the last 13 years you would be getting a little excited about a takeover also.
 
So the Piracy will likely be dealt with, as a club owner they won't want piracy reducing subscriber numbers and I suspect if, as has been suggested, the Saudi's are allowing it on their service that'll stop pretty quickly, certainly before the next round of bidding for Middle East rights comes up.

The other stuff, Human Rights abuses, the 'war' in Yemen, if the UK Government are happy to keep selling weapons to them, and if the 'Fit & Proper person' tests don't actually include this, only if the person has a criminal record, have they been barred from company Directorship, that sort of thing, can they really use that to say 'Sorry, you can't own a Premier League football club.'? I don't think they can. They have to abide by the steps and policies they've put in place. If the Saudi Bid and the actual owner of the entity that buys the club passes the tests, then they should be allowed to buy the club.

It could eman a more stringent and wide ranging 'Fit and proper Persons' test in the future, but if they meet all the criteria and pass them, the bid should be allowed.
 
woppy101 said:
I know who I would like, but the first on my list is Rafa back as manager
Click to expand...

There was some talk of Poch, most likely just newspaper inches being filled when his Gardening Leave expired. Rafa would be a good appointment. He apparently didn't sign his new contract when Mike refused to spend any money on the training and academy site which, apparently, is very run down and far from modern. I doubt this would be a concern under new ownership.
 
MissChief said:
So the Piracy will likely be dealt with, as a club owner they won't want piracy reducing subscriber numbers and I suspect if, as has been suggested, the Saudi's are allowing it on their service that'll stop pretty quickly, certainly before the next round of bidding for Middle East rights comes up.

The other stuff, Human Rights abuses, the 'war' in Yemen, if the UK Government are happy to keep selling weapons to them, and if the 'Fit & Proper person' tests don't actually include this, only if the person has a criminal record, have they been barred from company Directorship, that sort of thing, can they really use that to say 'Sorry, you can't own a Premier League football club.'? I don't think they can. They have to abide by the steps and policies they've put in place. If the Saudi Bid and the actual owner of the entity that buys the club passes the tests, then they should be allowed to buy the club.

It could eman a more stringent and wide ranging 'Fit and proper Persons' test in the future, but if they meet all the criteria and pass them, the bid should be allowed.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you have just said
 
woppy101 said:
As I keep saying and will carry on saying, the people that matter say it has been given the green light on Friday and that’s who I’m going to believe, it’s likely that he didn’t want to get drawn into any other questions which is why he answered the way he did, we will find out next week.
I don’t mean to be funny but if you had the life sucked out of your club over the last 13 years you would be getting a little excited about a takeover also.
Click to expand...
You're well within your rights to get excited but you cannot dismiss any and every report that you don't like. I'm not sure which people have said it's been given the green light either but anyway, if it is announced next week then it's pretty likely that Masters was lying. If however it continues to drag on, like the last 10 times it's supposed to have been done then maybe he was telling the truth.
 
MissChief said:
There was some talk of Poch, most likely just newspaper inches being filled when his Gardening Leave expired. Rafa would be a good appointment. He apparently didn't sign his new contract when Mike refused to spend any money on the training and academy site which, apparently, is very run down and far from modern. I doubt this would be a concern under new ownership.
Click to expand...
I would be happy with poch also but would prefer Rafa, mate our players have ice baths in bins and kids paddling pools that’s how ***** our facilities are
 
BaZ87 said:
You're well within your rights to get excited but you cannot dismiss any and every report that you don't like. I'm not sure which people have said it's been given the green light either but anyway, if it is announced next week then it's pretty likely that Masters was lying. If however it continues to drag on, like the last 10 times it's supposed to have been done then maybe he was telling the truth.
Click to expand...
As I said we will find out next week
 
MissChief said:
...only if the person has a criminal record, have they been barred from company Directorship, that sort of thing, can they really use that to say 'Sorry, you can't own a Premier League football club.'?....
Click to expand...
This isn't correct. The fit and proper owners/directors test actually states that you don't need to have a criminal conviction if the board believe you've committed an offence.
 
BaZ87 said:
This isn't correct. The fit and proper owners/directors test actually states that you don't need to have a criminal conviction if the board believe you've committed an offence.
Click to expand...

The F&PP test criteria is very closely guarded. Where did you read/see this?

Looking online there's not much info, only this from 2007 which has likely changed plenty since then:

This is the Premier League's fit and proper person test according to the handbook on their website:

https://resources.premierleague.com...b-810bcd751b6c/2019-20-PL-Handbook-180520.pdf

Section F
 
Last edited:
MissChief said:
The F&PP test criteria is very closely guarded. Where did you read/see this?
Click to expand...
I assume it's on the PL's website, I know the EFL's version is available on the EFL's website. There was an extract in a Times article last month which I mentioned in this thread:
The test now states that an owner or director can be disqualified if “in the reasonable opinion of the board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of [dishonesty], if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction”.
Click to expand...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...remier-league-in-newcastle-takeover-ljdzzgj0f

edit: Page 122, section F1.6

https://resources.premierleague.com...b-810bcd751b6c/2019-20-PL-Handbook-180520.pdf
 
Last edited:
BaZ87 said:
I assume it's on the PL's website, I know the EFL's version is available on the EFL's website. There was an extract in a Times article last month which I mentioned in this thread:


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...remier-league-in-newcastle-takeover-ljdzzgj0f

edit: Page 122, section F1.6

https://resources.premierleague.com...b-810bcd751b6c/2019-20-PL-Handbook-180520.pdf
Click to expand...

But it also states that:

F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;
F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

Has he done anything like that? I suppose the whole Khashoggi incident could be covered by that.
 
Last edited:
There's that, the piracy issue, the Rizt Carlton thing when several billionaires and lower ranking royals were tortured until they signed over their assets. A criminal conviction isn't required if the board believe an offence has taken place that would be a criminal offence here - the piracy issue would be the most obvious offence the PL could use* as they themselves have attempted to take legal action on that issue and have lobbied governments to take action.


*I said could be used, before you get upset with me Woppy.
 
BaZ87 said:
There's that, the piracy issue, the Rizt Carlton thing when several billionaires and lower ranking royals were tortured until they signed over their assets. A criminal conviction isn't required if the board believe an offence has taken place that would be a criminal offence here - the piracy issue would be the most obvious offence the PL could use* as they themselves have attempted to take legal action on that issue and have lobbied governments to take action.


*I said could be used, before you get upset with me Woppy.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I was being sincere with that note at the end because you often misinterpret me explaining something as me wanting the takeover to be blocked.
 
To be a fit and proper person the country where the wealth is coming from should have to have human rights that we would find acceptable. I'm glad my club hasn't been taken over by the owners of Chelsea, City or now Newcastle. All that money has blood soaked in it. It doesn't have to be done that way, clubs can be successful without having money from such sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom