Newcastle takeover???

the wopster · 2 Jun 2020 at 17:52

George Caulkin just replied to a tweet, apparently the consortium and the premier league still going back and forth over the piracy issue. Hopefully if it’s still back and forth it’s something that’s solvable.

MissChief · 2 Jun 2020 at 18:05

woppy101 said:
George Caulkin just replied to a tweet, apparently the consortium and the premier league still going back and forth over the piracy issue. Hopefully if it’s still back and forth it’s something that’s solvable.

Likely the Saudis saying they’ll do all they can without actually admitting they’ve allowed it and endorsed it to spite the Qataris and put it on their wholly owned satellite service on purpose.

the wopster · 2 Jun 2020 at 18:13

MissChief said:
Likely the Saudis saying they’ll do all they can without actually admitting they’ve allowed it and endorsed it to spite the Qataris and put it on their wholly owned satellite service on purpose.

It’s not wholly owned though, all Middle East countrys hold a share of Arabsat and a seat at the table, Saudi own 36%, Qatar funny enough own 9%. So if that’s the case all shareholders have to take some responsibility, like shareholders in other business's have to take responsibility when things go wrong Which I’m guessing is what Saudi are saying to the PL sighting Manchester City’s owners.
https://www.arabsat.com/english/about

Back-and-forth isn't a bad thing, surely? Shows a willingness to compromise rather than flat-out refuse.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head about the PL wanting assurances about a Saudi bid for the MENA broadcasting rights

the wopster · 2 Jun 2020 at 18:27

One thing I will add about the Arabsat thing as well, is the Qataris sit on the board of directors being one of the 5 main shareholders,
so the Saudis could possibly be saying back to the PL “wait a minute the country making the complaints about the so-called piracy sits on the board of directors of the company supposedly broadcasting the piracy”

The Board of Directors consists of 9 annually-elected members from Arabsat’s member-countries, as follows:

5 members from the main shareholders;
2 elected members from recommended users with the highest capacity usage; who have paid their financial obligations 100%.
2 elected members from recommended users with the oldest membership record; who have paid their financial obligations 100%.

omnomnom · 2 Jun 2020 at 18:50

woppy101 said:
£1.113m for all advertising in and around SJP and the training ground, that’s up from £385k in 2018 and ZERO before 2017. we earn less now from sponsorship and advertising than we did the day he took over.

The Premier League are rightfully going through the new owners with a fine tooth comb, but I argue that this parasite isn’t fit and proper to own a football club, the test should be carried out periodically on current owners.

If you think Ashleys a parasite then I'd hate to hear your opinion of the new fella.

the wopster · 2 Jun 2020 at 18:53

omnomnom said:
If you think Ashleys a parasite then I'd hate to hear your opinion of the new fella.

Same opinion Manchester City fans have of there owners hopefully, can I ask who you support?

BaZ87 · 2 Jun 2020 at 19:12

woppy101 said:
One thing I will add about the Arabsat thing as well...

Two points, firstly Arabsat were simply the satellite that was broadcasting the illegal service, with beoutQ being the actual illegal service. Secondly, although other Arab states have minority holdings in Arabsat, the main and controlling shareholder is Saudi Arabia. Arabsat also operates from Saudi Arabia.

According to the Guardian report, the WTO haven't simply concluded that the Saudi's didn't shut down beoutQ or block it from being broadcast on Arabsat but they were responsible for setting it up.

the wopster · 2 Jun 2020 at 19:30

BaZ87 said:
Two points, firstly Arabsat were simply the satellite that was broadcasting the illegal service, with beoutQ being the actual illegal service. Secondly, although other Arab states have minority holdings in Arabsat, the main and controlling shareholder is Saudi Arabia. Arabsat also operates from Saudi Arabia.

According to the Guardian report, the WTO haven't simply concluded that the Saudi's didn't shut down beoutQ or block it from being broadcast on Arabsat but they were responsible for setting it up.

That’s fair enough all I was pointing out is what Saudi might be saying about Arabsat that’s all, considering all board members are responsible for a company’s actions and Qatar and the UAE sit on the board so Saudi may be saying “you have to hold them responsible also”. Nobody knows yet.

When is that report from as it was only released today and apparently only the PL got it early so the Guardian won’t have a clue what’s written in it(unless the PL have illegally leaked it).
As I have said a few times, What’s being reported is the Saudis are of the opinion and belief that the PIF is a separate legal entity, so can’t be held accountable for the “supposed” actions of the state

https://twitter.com/TheFootballLaw/status/1267737793259810816

BaZ87 · 2 Jun 2020 at 19:51

I don't know whether Qatar have any board members - it wouldn't change the fact that they would be powerless to do anything either. As for PL leaking documents, you have to remember that the press ended up with copies of both the letter beIN sent the PL and also the letter that the PL sent the US government - somebody is clearly leaking documents so it's very possible that the Guardian do know what written in the WTO report. And it's all good and well being a separate entity but if both are ultimately controlled by one man then there is a clear conflict - this is the question the PL will need answering.

omnomnom · 2 Jun 2020 at 19:55

woppy101 said:
Same opinion Manchester City fans have of there owners hopefully, can I ask who you support?

Liverpool.

Man Citys owners arent saints but i dont believe they are the architects of war in Yemen to be fair or have a "tiger squad" ready to kill critics. This has been done to death but you cant criticise Asley as a person then welcome this lot in. He is a saint in comparison.

the wopster · 2 Jun 2020 at 20:17

BaZ87 said:
I don't know whether Qatar have any board members - it wouldn't change the fact that they would be powerless to do anything either. As for PL leaking documents, you have to remember that the press ended up with copies of both the letter beIN sent the PL and also the letter that the PL sent the US government - somebody is clearly leaking documents so it's very possible that the Guardian do know what written in the WTO report. And it's all good and well being a separate entity but if both are ultimately controlled by one man then there is a clear conflict - this is the question the PL will need answering.

With regards to the PIF the CEO(governor) is considered to be the guy in charge is it not?(that’s a genuine question as everything I can find says the governor and CEO are the same thing) and the CEO(governor) is Yasir Al-Rumayyan not the crown prince Mohammad bin Salman. So if that’s right Saudi and the PIF are controlled by different people. If I have got that wrong I apologise.(governor of the bank of England being the example)

I would guess bein leaked that letter and the letter to the US was released by the PL was it not?

With reference to the board members It states on Arabsat’s website who is on the board, which constitutes 5 of the main shareholders who are, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar and the UAE. So they will have permanent representation on the board.
The Board of Directors consists of 9 annually-elected members from Arabsat’s member-countries, as follows:

5 members from the main shareholders;
2 elected members from recommended users with the highest capacity usage; who have paid their financial obligations 100%.
2 elected members from recommended users with the oldest membership record; who have paid their financial obligations 100%.The Board of Directors consists of 9 annually-elected members from Arabsat’s member-countries, as follows:
- 5 members from the main shareholders;
- 2 elected members from recommended users with the highest capacity usage; who have paid their financial obligations 100%.
- 2 elected members from recommended users with the oldest membership record; who have paid their financial obligations 100%.

the wopster · 2 Jun 2020 at 20:22

omnomnom said:
Liverpool.

Man Citys owners arent saints but i dont believe they are the architects of war in Yemen to be fair or have a "tiger squad" ready to kill critics. This has been done to death but you cant criticise Asley as a person then welcome this lot in. He is a saint in comparison.

We have been through this before but do you really think every millionaire/billionaire got their wealth above board, I’m not defending the Saudis one bit and have said numerous times I would much prefer someone like FSG to takeover Newcastle, but it’s what it is.

omnomnom · 2 Jun 2020 at 20:28

woppy101 said:
We have been through this before but do you really think every millionaire/billionaire got their wealth above board, I’m not defending the Saudis one bit and have said numerous times I would much prefer someone like FSG to takeover Newcastle, but it’s what it is.

Yes we have but youre calling Ashley out when the new owners are a hell of a lot worse. Its a bit hipocritical is what im getting at. You're calling Ashley a parasite because he underpaid the sponsorship of some parts of your club....he isnt partially responsible for 100k deaths in bloody Yemen.

Its been done to death this but you cant take aim at Ashley as a person if you welcome this takeover.

the wopster · 2 Jun 2020 at 20:41

omnomnom said:
Yes we have but youre calling Ashley out when the new owners are a hell of a lot worse. Its a bit hipocritical is what im getting at. You're calling Ashley a parasite because he underpaid the sponsorship of some parts of your club....he isnt partially responsible for 100k deaths in bloody Yemen.

Its been done to death this but you cant take aim at Ashley as a person if you welcome this takeover.

Ashley has asset striped and raped the club over the last 13 years, we make less sponsorship and advertising now than the day he took over, He took out millions and put nothing back in which caused 2 relegations.
Listen I don’t really care if you think I’m hypocritical for wanting rid of Ashley but happy to see the Saudis come in, also remember the UAE are also engaged in Yemen, I don’t see you kicking up a fuss in the Manchester City thread calling them hypocrites, or is that because Newcastle is an easy target?

not that it matters as I have a feeling it will be turned down, then you can focus all your efforts on Manchester City or Manchester United as they have a Strategic partnership with the Saudi state controlled telecommunications company

BaZ87 · 2 Jun 2020 at 22:58

woppy101 said:
...

All it says is 5 board members from the main shareholders - it doesn't specify which states are the main shareholders nor does it say that there is a max from 1 state. It's possible that Qatar may have a board member but far from certain.

As for who controls PIF - the CEO is the guy who runs the fund but the ultimate ruler of every state owned company (and every private owned if we're being honest) is MBS. Anybody that disagrees with him ends up about a foot shorter than they were before disagreeing.

the wopster · 3 Jun 2020 at 07:36

BaZ87 said:
All it says is 5 board members from the main shareholders - it doesn't specify which states are the main shareholders nor does it say that there is a max from 1 state. It's possible that Qatar may have a board member but far from certain.

If it works like any other company, the main shareholders are those that hold the highest shares in the company which are SaudiArabia, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar and the UAE, so you would presume it was one from each then the other 4 take turns from other countries, but can’t be sure. I have looked all over and all I can find is that every board of directors meetings is held in a one of the member country’s which changes every year.

BaZ87 said:
As for who controls PIF - the CEO is the guy who runs the fund but the ultimate ruler of every state owned company (and every private owned if we're being honest) is MBS. Anybody that disagrees with him ends up about a foot shorter than they were before disagreeing.

That genuinely made me laugh and I agree with you. But what I was asking was because Yasir Al-Rumayyan is the CEO(on paper), would Saudi be pushing to the PL that he is charge of the fund not MBS and that why they feel it’s a separate legal entity?

BaZ87 · 3 Jun 2020 at 10:15

woppy101 said:
If it works like any other company....

There's no set procedure. Take Arsenal, for years Usmanov was the 2nd biggest shareholder and was refused a seat on the board. Same story at Liverpool many years ago when David Moores owned the club, Steve Morgan was refused a seat on the board. All that Arabsat say is at least 5 board memebers are main shareholders - what makes somebody a 'main shareholder' though? 1%? 5%? 15%? It also doesn't say that all 5 could come from 1 state either. As I said, it's possible that Qatar have a seat on the board but not certain but what is certain is that they don't have a controlling interest and the ability to make decisions.

woppy101 said:
That genuinely made me laugh and I agree with you. But what I was asking was because Yasir Al-Rumayyan is the CEO(on paper), would Saudi be pushing to the PL that he is charge of the fund not MBS and that why they feel it’s a separate legal entity?

I'm sure Newcastle are trying to argue this but that doesn't mean it's true or the PL will accept it. I know FSG had to clarify their ownership structure a few years back. FSG is quite a complicated group - just because an invester may own x% of Liverpool, it doesn't mean their shareholding in the Red Sox or other businesses owned by FSG is the same or even whether they have any stake at all. It was actually the opposite scenario with Liverpool where they had just listed the 2 top dogs at FSG (MBS in Newcastle's case) as those with a controlling interest in Liverpool and later had to also include Mike Gordon when it was revealed he was the man ultimately responsible for the running of Liverpool within FSG.

the wopster · 3 Jun 2020 at 10:50

BaZ87 said:
There's no set procedure. Take Arsenal, for years Usmanov was the 2nd biggest shareholder and was refused a seat on the board. Same story at Liverpool many years ago when David Moores owned the club, Steve Morgan was refused a seat on the board. All that Arabsat say is at least 5 board memebers are main shareholders - what makes somebody a 'main shareholder' though? 1%? 5%? 15%? It also doesn't say that all 5 could come from 1 state either. As I said, it's possible that Qatar have a seat on the board but not certain but what is certain is that they don't have a controlling interest and the ability to make decisions.

Good explanation, The wording on their website would lead me to believe that the 5 biggest shareholders would hold a seat but that’s just my opinion.

BaZ87 said:
I'm sure Newcastle are trying to argue this but that doesn't mean it's true or the PL will accept it. I know FSG had to clarify their ownership structure a few years back. FSG is quite a complicated group - just because an invester may own x% of Liverpool, it doesn't mean their shareholding in the Red Sox or other businesses owned by FSG is the same or even whether they have any stake at all. It was actually the opposite scenario with Liverpool where they had just listed the 2 top dogs at FSG (MBS in Newcastle's case) as those with a controlling interest in Liverpool and later had to also include Mike Gordon when it was revealed he was the man ultimately responsible for the running of Liverpool within FSG.

MSB hasn’t even been named in any Newcastle company's house updates AFAIK it’s all Yasir Al-Rumayyan.
Genuine question if the premier league won’t accept what the PIF are saying, what’s to stop MBS stepping down from the board for good or reinstating himself a year or so later after the test has been passed?

omnomnom · 3 Jun 2020 at 10:59

woppy101 said:
Ashley has asset striped and raped the club over the last 13 years, we make less sponsorship and advertising now than the day he took over, He took out millions and put nothing back in which caused 2 relegations.
Listen I don’t really care if you think I’m hypocritical for wanting rid of Ashley but happy to see the Saudis come in, also remember the UAE are also engaged in Yemen, I don’t see you kicking up a fuss in the Manchester City thread calling them hypocrites, or is that because Newcastle is an easy target?

not that it matters as I have a feeling it will be turned down, then you can focus all your efforts on Manchester City or Manchester United as they have a Strategic partnership with the Saudi state controlled telecommunications company

You dont care yet you have redponded several times. The fact is one of your new owners is the modern day equivalent of Hitler. Enjoy.

BaZ87 · 3 Jun 2020 at 11:03

His position as chairman only reinforces the fact that he's the ultimate controller @woppy101. Whether he was chairman or not, PIF are still state owned and that state is controlled by 1 man. Park technicalities to one side, if MBS said the takeover wasn't happening then it wouldn't happen. If MBS tells an privately owned Saudi business not to do something, they're not doing anything. That's the realities of the situation. For clarity, that doesn't mean he makes every decision and I'm sure that 99% of investments PIF make he has no say in but he has the ultimate power overall decisions if he wishes.

As for the technicality of stepping down and then reinstating himself - in normal circumstances I would assume all the same tests would then be have to taken again. Football clubs have to declare to the PL all those that have a controlling interest in the clubs and they have to pass the tests. As I said, Liverpool only declared Mike Gordon's role some years after the takeover - I'm sure he had to pass all the PL's tests but obviously it wouldn't have attracted any media attention.