Jump to content

Newcastle United: Club Sold To PCP - Official


The Mighty Hog
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Kitman said:

All worthwhile considering Qatar’s great footballing tradition, burgeoning population and global reach. Eh Sepp?

 

It's the true homeland of football. #Bringingthegamehome #Aircon #Business #FishEnergy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, the chairman we tried to oust for bias was the one that advised the PL just before the 'no owner accused of piracy' bit was added to the O&D Test.  I can see why that might make you think they'd be biased against the Saudi case. What with the Saudis being the only potential owners to be accused of piracy, and all that.

 

Funny to see Ashley wanting transparency, and fighting for what the club and the area deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Arbitration doesn't appear to be going too well at the moment.

https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/club-update-05032021/

That was a pre-arbitration argument tbf

Although this news blows out of the water Luke Edward's story about the takeover being on hold until relegation is sorted either way :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worrying thing is that the EPL won the argument especially on the ground that the arbitration for now is just about the question if KSA has to be seen as a director. Whatever the result is going to be it will probably lead to new issues arising.

Timely manner my arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this even really matter? I mean, if it turns out that the takeover could have gone through, that doesn't mean it's suddenly back on the table, does it? I guess I can see an argument that we wouldn't be pursuing this if we hadn't had indications that the takeover would still be an option, but I can also see the argument that Ashley will want to extract some kind of settlement or compensation with or without the Saudis coming back into the picture.

Edited by Rayvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand it correctly, the arbitration process is a senior legal representative from the EPL making their case, a senior legal representative from NUFC making their case. and a senior "impartial" legal figure making a final judgement.

 

Except the impartial arbitrator is a bloke who was previously paid by the EPL and advised them that they should update their O&D test to exclude any nations that pirate premier league games...

 

On what planet is this going to be an impartial process? Surely the case is effectively decided in favour of the EPL before it even starts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’ll be lawyers from both sides arguing the case and a panel who decide the outcome. The guy we have a problem with is chairman of the panel but there’s no way he should be involved given his past.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

It’ll be lawyers from both sides arguing the case and a panel who decide the outcome. The guy we have a problem with is chairman of the panel but there’s no way he should be involved given his past.

It is a rather strange judgment imho. I could sort of understand the technical point that the arbitration is about something else than Beloff advised the EPL about snd that he hasn’t been involved with the EPL for some years, but how you can argue that discussing those matters with just one side isn’t raising justifiable suspicion is beyond me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

It’ll be lawyers from both sides arguing the case and a panel who decide the outcome. The guy we have a problem with is chairman of the panel but there’s no way he should be involved given his past.

Yeah it’s a weird one, his prior involvement with the law firm on the PL side as well as the messages to only that law firm are iffy too, especially as it was clearly enough for even the law firm on the PL side to become uncomfortable enough to say they should loop in NUFCs team. The process has been ropey from the start so I suppose it wasn’t going to get better. Like one of our points is even just simply make it more public and transparent, which the PL is fighting, what problem could that possibly even cause them if there’s no issue here?
 

5 minutes ago, NJS said:

I still don't understand how the PL can dictate to a region who has TV rights covering nations who are virtually at war. 

This is a big one for me, I’ve never understood this from the start. I know it’s how the deal was packaged but why was it ever structured in a way like this? It would be like giving Russia some type of control over broadcasting the NFL in the US, I wouldn’t say it’s unreasonable to expect the US wouldn’t tolerate that. I get the response to pirate it is a bit petty, as the correct approach was likely to just block it, but it’s a really odd position to put the countries in. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know bugger all about the law, but I'm sure I've heard it was the case that if a solicitor gives advice to someone on one side of an argument, they have to recuse themselves from further involvement on the basis of a conflict of interest. Maybe it's more of an Americanism in terms of the law, but then again I'm sure they follow English common law. Granted I know about this from hearing that rich US couples race each other to get advice from the best divorce lawyers so the other can't hire them, so admittedly not the most highbrowed or relevant of sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

This was followed by a further email on 28 October at 12.41 to this effect:

"It does occur to me that with EFLs permission I could respond by saying that my advice did not iscuss (sic) the meaning of the defiitionsin hre (sic) rules of person''dire tor'or control'. (sic) The cklub (sic) would have to-asnd (sic) might not-take my word for it,amnd (sic) would say that without the advice they could not be confident that this was so"

 

Beloff must either have very clumsy fingers or been drunk when he sent this email.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Polarboy said:

I know bugger all about the law, but I'm sure I've heard it was the case that if a solicitor gives advice to someone on one side of an argument, they have to recuse themselves from further involvement on the basis of a conflict of interest. Maybe it's more of an Americanism in terms of the law, but then again I'm sure they follow English common law. Granted I know about this from hearing that rich US couples race each other to get advice from the best divorce lawyers so the other can't hire them, so admittedly not the most highbrowed or relevant of sources.

You’ve been watching The Sopranos again haven’t you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

You’ve been watching The Sopranos again haven’t you?

😄 Hopefully it's that and not some vapid soap or reality show that I've absorbed by osmosis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tom changed the title to Newcastle United: Club Sold To PCP - Official

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.