He’s not. He’s a full on gambler. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be sticking with SB and bringing in Jones. If we get relegated it will be third time lucky. He’s stuck around before. He could do so again. He won’t get £250m in the championship. He would however get £150m to £200m. Which is a loss to him of £150m minimum whichever way you look at it. Unless he stacks a premium on promotion which is another gamble. He would sell Wilson, Miggy, ASM AND Dubs for around £120M and some others to plug the 150m loss.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/2/17/saudi-wealth-fund-acquired-3-3bn-in-us-video-game-stock Meanwhile. Oh and if you spend the time to read it. It’s pretty damn clear who’s running the show at PIF.
It’s amazing isn’t it that they can invest in the worlds top organisations, all of which are regulated by trade organisations.... Yet when they come to buy a tinpot football club in the north east of England they get blocked by the incompetent self regulated ****house that is the PL. ****ing stinks!
Positive. Why? Because a claim would be for economic loss which is next to impossible to establish. Equally though, the legal case is Newcastle United Football Club v Premier League. It is not Mike Ashley trying to bring a claim for losses that he has personally suffered. How do you establish current and future losses to a football club given the relative uncertainty? It is all subjective. Newcastle finishing 17th as opposed to 16th involves financial loss of prize money. How do you establish foresight? Did the PL by their actions foresee that their conduct would lead to Newcastle finishing lower or getting relegated? You can't establish that It is a chain of causation that is broken. Ashley is not trying to get money from the PL. He is trying to sell his asset. It's likely a claim for breach of competition law and so is trying to get the test applied fairly to get this done.
Correct. It is only the PL that conveniently chooses to ignore this. Arbitration will resolve this one.
What if arbitration is related to loss of value should the club get relegated? I don't know enough about it, but from what's being said those two data points would be easy to establish - £300m PL club, £180m Championship club (for arguments sake). Is the 'threat' - and Ashley is all about threats - about "you'll owe me £120m for blocking this on unfair grounds should this takeover fail and we get relegated"? That seems like a pretty clear valuation for arbitration, IF they can prove they applied the test unfairly, right? This seems VERY Mike Ashley to me. £300m in any scenario and allows him to give less than two ****s about Newcastle United. Is it possible? I mean, it would also very much explain the club's owner and MD simply not seeming to care what happens to it.
My mind set is like this also. It’s easy to establish his losses. His company owns the company which houses nufc. The value of that company is easy to establish. It is what someone is prepared to pay. PL club deal accepted was £350m. Championship club offer from PIF could be £200m. There’s your £150m loss because the PL didn’t allow the deal. It’s simpleton from me the above I get that. But still easy to establish.
Also you can bet your bottom dollar that Ashley won’t take losing 150m likely if we get relegated and he will want someone to blame. He had a willing buyer at £350m. If we get relegated he may have one at £200m. We question why he has gambled on SB. Maybe it’s because either way he knows he’s getting his £350m. How is another matter.
Re-read what Windy put. It is not Mike Ashley It is NUFC Therefore not about compo Look at the lawyers Therefore not compo
Again, you need to establish foresight. Did the PL foresee that their actions would result in a loss of value. It falls under economic loss.
Yeah but NUFC is Ashley, however you spin it, because it's a private company. Nobody on this board has any idea how the super rich manipulate money, or why. Point being from an investor perspective, nobody is going to pay top dollar right now for a club in peril, makes no business sense. What makes a lot more sense is having two offers, in effect - one for a PL club (already accepted, but blocked) and one for a Champ club (also probably accepted). There is then a difference. The arbitration argument is then "you failed the test, if the club goes down you owe Newcastle United £120m because of the difference in valuation". Yes, look at the lawyers, look at what they do - they prove unlawful actions by league bodies, often to get recompense for those hit by their stupidity.
If they applied the test unfairly, if it led to the deal being stalled, if it then led to the club being in "limbo", if it leads to relegation, then they will be liable for the loss. Surely. Ask Nick. Point is if they'd done it fairly, the club would've been sold for £300m in July.
If's. You need to establish that on the balance of probabilities that they knew it would happen. If isn't enough to satisfy the legal test.
Think of it like this. If we were a properly run club and our position in the league improved since the takeover started would the prem expect us to pay them our increased profit? We are losing money (potentially) down to Mike Ashley's ****wittery, nothing else.
A share holder can sue An owner of a company can sue But the company itself cannot sue for depreciation in its own value
