Newcastle takeover???
- Thread starter Bigpig
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
One more time with feeling. The PL O&D handbook says - if information provided is incomplete etc then the premier league makes a decision on the information they have to hand. The PL have not made a decision they have refused to make decision and so are not following their own process. PL/Masters should be screwed to the wall!
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 641
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Or Woppy101, if Newcastle are to be believed that they rejected the deal a few weeks back and then Master comes out and states 'We have not rejected the deal as no decision was taken, and all board members had a say it that' then somebody is lying. How can all board members have a say on not making a decision, as in reality is a rejection.
You said he is as currupt as they come...that suggests he has previous. You cant throw the "curruption" line around when you're arguing for blood money to buy your club.
I'm not sure Staveley said the League rejected the deal. If I remember correctly, she was actually the first one to come out and say that the PL were insisting that the Saudi state would be a director and that was the sticking point. As for "somebody is lying", if I were to bet on it then I'd say it's more likely that Ashley/Newcastle are lying rather than the PL. The PL were very clear with the first comments on the deal and very quick to correct Newcastles statement.
I'm not sure what you mean in the bolded part. Before you can carry out the owners and directors test, you need to determine who the owners and directors are. The PL, as is their right, determined that the Saudi state would be a shadow director and therefore requested more information before they could carry out the owners and directors test. Staveley, PIF etc denied that the state would be a director. The PL then offered to allow an independent arbitrator to decide on the matter. Staveley, PIF etc refused the offer. At this point the PL could have rejected the deal as they weren't provided with the info they requested but chose to wait until they were provided with the info requested or the offer of arbitration was accepted. Neither happened and PIF withdrew.
If I were to guess I'd say this is Ashley trying to get a bit of compo out of the League for lost earnings. How much he could possibly claim for (and whether it would be successful) is anyones guess but it would be loose change to the League and Masters will be bullet proof in all this. He's only a member of the board, not the single decision maker and even then, the League would have provided him with directors and officers insurance that will cover him against any claims made against him personally.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
Everyone has morals until there's oil money buying their club 
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
I bet they are as not bulletproof as you think, they haven’t even followed there own O&D test
Everyone has morals until there's oil money buying their club
There are a few of them, but not enough for every club:
Pedro Morales
Evo Morales
José Luis Morales
Kevin Mirallas
Luiz Morales
Raul Morales
Raul Meireles
Manu_del_Moral
Toni Moral
Richard Masters will be. As I explained, the PL will have provided him with insurance against any claims made against him, not that there will be any claim made against him anyway.
And what part of the test didn't the PL follow?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
We have repeatedly been told by the PL that the consortium haven’t provided the right answers or enough proof or relevant information for who would be in charge, so rule F.1 applies and should have been informed and inforced within 28days. according to the PL(Leaked to the PL backed Journalists) they have been asking the same question for the last 2 months and haven’t given the right answer so the consortium should have been told they failed, But masters didn’t have the balls to do it because he knows it will end up in court, so he buried his head hoping the consortium walked away.
F1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:
F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:
F.1.1.1.
F.1.1.2.
failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person); or
provided false, misleading or inaccurate information;
Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will:
F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and
F.6.2. give written notice to the relevant Club that the Person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from his office as such.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
The PL wanted to drag it out until it was either dropped by the buyers or settled by appeal one way or the other, so they could make it look like it wasn't their decision whichever way it went. Not sure they expected legal action.
Nothing in what you've quoted states that the League had to block the takeover within 28 days
It states that the League can reject the takeover if they are not provided with the information they require - the League however chose to allow the consortium the opportunity to provide it or challenge their decision on who the owners & directors were. The "28 days notice" is the time frame the League have to inform a director and the relevant club that they've been disqualified from the point they reach their decision and in this case the PL haven't disqualified anybody (yet).
So if that's why you believed the PL didn't follow the O&D test then you'd be wrong.
edit: actually reading that 28 days part again, it may mean that the director is removed within 28 days of the PL's decision. Either way, there's absolutely no mention of the PL having to reject a deal within 28 days.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
They didn’t make a decision to challenge that’s the problem, the cowards at the PL refused to make a decision in the hope that the consortium walked away, which they didn’t walk away BTWNothing in what you've quoted states that the League had to block the takeover within 28 days
It states that the League can reject the takeover if they are not provided with the information they require - the League however chose to allow the consortium the opportunity to provide it or challenge their decision on who the owners & directors were. The "28 days notice" is the time frame the League have to inform a director and the relevant club that they've been disqualified from the point they reach their decision and in this case the PL haven't disqualified anybody (yet).
So if that's why you believed the PL didn't follow the O&D test then you'd be wrong.
edit: actually reading that 28 days part again, it may mean that the director is removed within 28 days of the PL's decision. Either way, there's absolutely no mention of the PL having to reject a deal within 28 days.
https://twitter.com/NUFC360/status/1305539298733830144
Doesn’t matter anyway the PL failed to make a decision and now they are going to get taken to the cleaners because of it
you hope. But if it were that clean cut the FA would be trying to settle already. The alternative option is Ashley is a chancer and he's trying his luck. We can't know which of those alternatives is correct. One to let the lawyers and courts get their teeth into and come to a ruling. Until then speculation is of no use other than getting people's blood pressure up. Relax and see what happens. Until then enjoy watching Joelinton and Lascelles do their thing.
You're losing me now. The PL didn't make a decision to challenge? The PL, and Staveley has confirmed this too, made the decision that the Saudi state would be shadow directors and the PL gave the consortium the opportunity to challenge it! The Saudi's refused the PL's offer to challenge it! Why didn't PIF challenge this decision by the League?
Take a step back and look at this situation without your Newcastle glasses on. The PL have given the consortium every opportunity to complete the O&D test - the PL determined who, in their opinion, were the owners and directors and requested all information on the relevant parties to carry out the test. The consortium refused to provide the information. The PL then said, if you're not happy with our conclusion on who the owners and directors are, you can have it settled independently. The consortium refused the offer too. If I were you I'd start looking at PIF and ask myself why didn't PIF provide the info the League asked for? Or, why didn't PIF accept the League's offer to challenge their view on who the directors were?
As for not walking away. PIF literally released a statement saying they withdrew from the deal. No doubt Staveley's still scrambling around trying to convince them she can get the League to pass the takeover though and it was rumoured from the time of the withdrawal that PIF would come back on board if they were assured the deal would be accepted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
So your saying the PIF didn’t give the information required to the PL (according to the PL), If that’s the case why didn’t the PL use the remit of the O&D test to fail the PIF(failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person); or
provided false, misleading or inaccurate information
, why are they so afraid of making a decision and failing the PIF, they were strung along for 16weeks and told “we’re not going to fail you but we’re not going to pass you” how the **** can that be allowed, why are they trying to get someone independent to make the decision for them? You can’t send something to arbitration without giving a yes or no first(which they refused to do if you believe the PL or which they finally did over a week ago according to the club), If masters and the board can’t make the decision they shouldn’t be in in the job.
Last edited:
They wanted to give the takeover all the chances of going ahead. They gave the consortium two different ways to move forward in fact.
And surely you can see the irony in your afraid/coward comments? What were PIF afraid of? Why didn't they provide the info and why were they afraid to challenge the PL's decision on who the real decisions makers were? After all, they've supposedly provided concrete proof that the state would have no involvement- it should be easy for them to win that arbitration.
And surely you can see the irony in your afraid/coward comments? What were PIF afraid of? Why didn't they provide the info and why were they afraid to challenge the PL's decision on who the real decisions makers were? After all, they've supposedly provided concrete proof that the state would have no involvement- it should be easy for them to win that arbitration.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
What part of the PL didn’t make a decision are you not getting, they even came out and said they still haven’t made a decision when NUFC said they had been rejected what more do you need eh?, they have never wanted the takeover to go through and dragged it out until it offended the PIF so they “pulled out”, they bowed to pressure from bein/Qatar, Liverpool and spurs, which will no doubt come out in the courts, which I now look forward to, bet dick masters is now hurriedly deleting emails from the above mentioned.
so one side of negotation says something publicly to pressure the other side? Wouldn't be the first time. One man's rejection is another man's "we're not agreeing until you do X" if "X" is unacceptable to the first man. It doesn't have to be so black and white.