It makes no odds to us what happens there... PIF don't want to buy the club...or can't buy it because the premier league set a bear trap to link the piracy to buyers so they could fail it... Ultimately we've had our little tantrums and it's proved to make no difference whatsoever.... The premier league are untouchable.
I doubt he can. As if his asset has devalued it’ll be solely due to COVID 19 which is a force majeure.
I’m confused, why hasn’t Henry Mauriss simply swooped in and snapped up the club he was “desperate” to buy for £350m? Mike should be delighted and 100% committed to a deal that’s gonna make him £50m richer. This is correct isn’t it? It was in the Telegraph after all.
There's no buyer coming in for nufc for years or at least till covid is sorted out and things has recovered if they ever do up here... Remember it's not just covid it's post brexit... The North East is so ****ed and the makems voted for it
Not necessarily. It depends upon the wording of the relevant clause in the contract. Where no relevant event is specifically mentioned, it is a question of interpretation of the clause whether the parties intended such an event to be covered. So he could have grounds to sue if the PL failed to act in a proper and reasonable manner when carrying out the test. I don’t know and neither do you.
Luke Edwards has already been semi-backtracking, suggesting Mauriss may be getting cold feet about taking over during the wave of animosity left by the PIF consortium takeover failure.
What contract? There’s currently no willing buyer. They’ve withdrawn and seemingly lost their £17m deposit. Their previous contract is of no relevance in the context raised by the other poster.
There was a willing buyer. There was a binding contract. If the PL caused that deal to fall through causing a member club to sustain a loss and failed to act in a proper and reasonable manner when conducting their test then that member club could have grounds to claim compensation.
If the Saudi's pulled out due to Covid as claimed it's force majeure and so no grounds to sue if the contract specifically includes a clause for this. If the Saudi's pulled out due to the PL's failure/ unwillingness to make a decision then that is a potential legal claim for compensation in tort. It's restraint of trade from Mike Ashley's point of view.
Only the Saudis clearly cited global economic uncertainty and the fact that this had made the venture no longer commercially viable. It’s a matter of record. So how can he claim the deal failed solely due to the time taken for the PL to do their due diligence? He’s also £17m in pocket as it stands. Unless there’s been some formal communication with the PL before the withdrawal that demanded a date for completion of the process was set, by either the Saudis or Ashley. I can’t see how that has a hope in hell personally. If they’d have remained willing buyers, the sensible course of action would surely to have threatened legal action due to the lack of decision, to bring the issue to a conclusion?
See post 22091 They also made reference to the time taken. "Ultimately, during the unforeseeably prolonged process, the commercial agreement between the Investment Group and the club's owners expired and our investment thesis could not be sustained, particularly with no clarity as to the circumstances under which the next season will start and the new norms that will arise for matches, training and other activities." Also see post 22091. MA may have £17M but he hasn’t got £300M and now may not get £300M less £17M on sale. The global economic uncertainty existed when the parties appear to have exchanged contracts so MA would argue not really relevant. That leaves the time the PL have taken. Not saying a claim would succeed but he appears to have an argument. Also I would have expected the matter to proceed as you suggest in your last sentence but, like you, I don’t know exactly what has been going on.
