They're determined to stop Newcastle... there's people out there that think it's not the case, but it definitely is..I mean it's not just Newcastle it's basically the Americans trying to stop the Gulf nations trying to buy the same product they're buying.... that's the bigger picture and nufc are just the Elephant in the room.
It’s a good job out takeover has already happened then. Looks like a takeover of our magnitude won’t happen again.
I'm assuming this is for the owners and directors test, but it's ****housery. We've seen Abromovich dealt with, but we're in bed with Saudi.
A) Full Sale: The most straightforward option would be for the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund (PIF) to sell its majority stake in Newcastle United. This would remove the state-control element entirely. However, finding a buyer willing to meet their valuation could be challenging. B) Reduce Ownership Below Threshold: They could sell off a portion of their shares to reduce their ownership below the majority threshold, ensuring no single state-linked entity holds control. This might be more palatable to the PIF, allowing them to retain some influence and financial interest. C) Independent Management Structure: The PIF could establish a truly independent board and management structure with decision-making authority separate from the Saudi state. This would need to be demonstrably robust and transparent to satisfy regulators. D) Remove Key Individuals: If individuals with direct ties to the Saudi government (like Yasir Al-Rumayyan) hold key positions within the club, removing them could help distance the club from state influence. E) Dispute the Definition: Newcastle's owners could legally challenge the definition of "state-controlled club" within the bill, arguing that the PIF operates independently of the Saudi government. The success of this would depend on the specific legal wording and interpretation. F) Challenge the Legislation: They could potentially challenge the legality of the legislation itself, perhaps on grounds of discrimination or interference with property rights. This would be a long and complex process with uncertain outcomes. G) Engage with Regulators: The owners could engage in discussions with the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) to seek clarification on the requirements and potentially negotiate alternative solutions. H) Lobby for Amendments: They could lobby for amendments to the bill during the legislative process, seeking to soften the restrictions or introduce exemptions.
E and F, but I do wonder if A might come into play if the Saudis get sick of the hassle. It's never ending and they must feel unwelcome. H is a waste of time they'll never win a vote.
E through H of these scenarios would be able to hold up the process, probably for years in which time we would be able to act as per usual
I don’t think it’s needed for us. We have already legally proved it was seperate. It’s how the takeover happened in the first place.
It states "... and any affected club will need to satisfy..." so clearly they want to put us through the review process all over again. This time with even greater scrutiny, to actively seek out any slightest hint of state owenership.
The problem they've got is there's no reason why a club shouldn't be state owned. It's a fanciful attempt to get something approved in the regulations, but once again demonstrates that they tried to stop the takeover and it would be foolish to think they stopped when it went through. These are greedy men protecting their money and they won't just roll over. It's difficult for Newcastle became the mass majority in this country will always side with the anti Saudi arguments because they simply want Newcastle stopped.
I just think it’s all a load of bollocks. They are creating rules as they go which will affect teams already in situ. Are we concerned. What happens if they deem us owned by a state? It’s not like they can force them to sell us? Do we get kicked out of the league?
At the very least it makes the seas rough for what is a very small investment for the PIF. It's never going to stop either. One thing I have learned is that things will never end well for this City and club.
Indeed. Where are the rules about the extreme debt ratios the likes of Manure carry? Even if they can prove they can cover the debts, why is that deemed a healthier / fairer scenario in terms financial fair play vs being owned by a state?
Anyone that has any brains whatsoever knows what's going on and it's certainly not got anything to do with making anything fair. The PL use words like 'fair' and 'competitive balance', but the reality is a rigged competition in which 6 clubs are to win everything forever and any club that tries to compete financially will be punished. Or in this case anyone with more money than the rest can't even buy a club.
Do we really think they will go back and re-assess when it’s been legally proven already that we are not owned by a state?
I’m not sure. An I right in saying that the detail you linked is from the Independent regulator or is it the PL?
All mainstream media cares about is pep and Amorin at the moment. Every media outlet is made of of big 6 arse lickers with a strong emotional bias.
