Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Newcastle Utd (and Viz)

roydo said:
I didnt say he was an authority, just that he knew more than most about buying and selling football clubs. He called this Saudi deal as BS months ago.
Click to expand...
No, sorry I wasn’t suggesting you thought him an authority. Just there are an awful lot of people who only know he is an ex football club owner / chairman and assume that he must have some wisdom that ordinary fans do not.
 
Daveysgingerlovechild said:
What an utterly illogical article: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ting-at-saudi-arabia-failure-to-buy-newcastle

Arguing the North East natives were, in part, desperate for some other promised investment in the face of a region due to be plunged into a covid-19 and Brexit related depression. The majority of the region voted for Brexit for a start, ffs. Not convinced the average fan thinks of wider regeneration either.
Click to expand...

Tbf to Conn he's a very thorough and first class investigative journalist and has uncovered and exposed serious wrongs both at club level and higher. I find him a bit of an idealist and not always a realist, he finds it shocking the prem acts the way it does, which it is as far as their ridiculously unsuitable director's fit for purpose test goes, but it's not new or surprising. The Saudi's outrageous human rights violations were never going to be the reason for the bids failure, for all the condemnation and disgust, others had tried and tested this and found no obstacle there.

I felt he was also rather naive on FFP highlighting it's worthinesss as a mechanism to stop further Burys and Boltons, a task it rather spectacularly failed to do, while rather dismissing it's principal aim, which was always to protect the wealthy cartel of elite European clubs while funding Michel Platini's bank account.
 
Last edited:
catcherintherye said:
I've seen that suggested a lot.

I have to say, in my experience of business, I've never known a buyer to pull out of a deal, citing economic factors and lack of return on investment as a negotiating position to put pressure on a regulator.

If you really wanted to put pressure on the regulator you dont walk away, and publicly say you need a decision by x date.

What they are doing is the reaction of a group that realise the money they had hoped to pull out of the company wasnt going to be there, so the interest dies down.

Wraith has lied throughout this whole thing, so I doubt he stops now.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

If they wanted to stir the pot, they tell the fanbase they’re considering walking away due to the extended decision making process, whilst simultaneously threatening the PL with court action.

But no, they wandered off, as the simple facts are, that they were never going to be approved whilst they continued to block BeIN from their market, making piracy the only way of seeing the PL. They've therefore chosen their geopolitical issue with Qatar as being more important to them than spewing some dosh on Newcastle, in what is now a potentially declining PL market.

I thought it was odd when they reinstated the BeIN ban about a week before they formally withdrew, they’d patently decided that bending to Qatar was not a price worth paying.
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
The deluded Teds have convinced themselves that the Saudis haven’t formally withdrawn their bid and it still sits with the PL to pass or fail.

This obvs conveniently ignores the fact that their partners and Ashley have commented on the actual withdrawal, oh and the PM like, but it’s all just a clever piece of trickery though apparently.

They have to stick to this narrative, otherwise they’ll have to face the fact that the Saudis have legged it and all of their shouts of corruption and crying will be for nothing, as there’s currently no willing buyer.
Click to expand...

After seeing some of the geordie dangers on here, I think their dads should've formally withdrew.
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
Exactly.

If they wanted to stir the pot, they tell the fanbase they’re considering walking away due to the extended decision making process, whilst simultaneously threatening the PL with court action.

But no, they wandered off, as the simple facts are, that they were never going to be approved whilst they continued to block BeIN from their market, making piracy the only way of seeing the PL. They've therefore chosen their geopolitical issue with Qatar as being more important to them than spewing some dosh on Newcastle, in what is now a potentially declining PL market.

I thought it was odd when they reinstated the BeIN ban about a week before they formally withdrew, they’d patently decided that bending to Qatar was not a price worth paying.
Click to expand...

I think it goes further than that to be honest. I think they deliberately did something that would have normally got them rejected. That was the aim. From that moment they were looking to walk away and hoping someone would take the decision for them (as I stated at the time).
 

Foot Long Hot Dog said:
The deluded Teds have convinced themselves that the Saudis haven’t formally withdrawn their bid and it still sits with the PL to pass or fail.

This obvs conveniently ignores the fact that their partners and Ashley have commented on the actual withdrawal, oh and the PM like, but it’s all just a clever piece of trickery though apparently.

They have to stick to this narrative, otherwise they’ll have to face the fact that the Saudis have legged it and all of their shouts of corruption and crying will be for nothing, as there’s currently no willing buyer.
Click to expand...

Its utter delusion. There is no takeover for the PL to rule on. Theyve gone.
 
Chris O'Connor said:
Tbf to Conn he's a very thorough and first class investigative journalist and has uncovered and exposed serious wrongs both at club level and higher. I find him a bit of an idealist and not always a realist, he finds it shocking the prem acts the way it does, which it is as far as their ridiculously unsuitable director's fit for purpose test goes, but it's not new or surprising. The Saudi's outrageous human rights violations were never going to be the reason for the bids failure, for all the condemnation and disgust, others had tried and tested this and found no obstacle there.

I felt he was also rather naive on FFP highlighting it's worthinesss as a mechanism to stop further Burys and Boltons, a task it rather spectacularly failed to do, while rather dismissing it's principal aim, which was always to protect the wealthy cartel of elite European clubs while funding Michel Platini's bank account.
Click to expand...

I actually think the PL thought of the human rights stuff more than people think (not enough mind) and probably not how people think.

Firstly it's just a massive hit on the product to be associated with Saudi. Whichever way you look at it. Secondly, and increasingly, as they take US sponsorship money, if the US turn and want to litigate you could find yourself exposed. It's an unnecessary risk.
 
catcherintherye said:
I actually think the PL thought of the human rights stuff more than people think (not enough mind) and probably not how people think.

Firstly it's just a massive hit on the product to be associated with Saudi. Whichever way you look at it. Secondly, and increasingly, as they take US sponsorship money, if the US turn and want to litigate you could find yourself exposed. It's an unnecessary risk.
Click to expand...

I think it's absolutely true that they would have found the bid being withdrawn a huge relief, the bidders somewhat implausibly maintained that the PIF was a completely separate entity to the Saudi government and the president of PIf or whatever his position was called just an ordinary Saudi businessman unconnected with the regime itself and not under the influence if anyone from the regime. While we all know the actuality would be quite different and the influence clear enough, actually proving this beyond just the balance of probabilities in a legal court case would have been difficult and the Saudi's would have a top legal team defending.

It would inevitably have embroiled the prem and the bidders in a long legal case which neither wanted. I think the TV rights issue couldn't easily be used because the connection would have to be proved in court and the alternative of letting the bid through was equally unpalatable because of the moral repugnation and stigma of letting such a bid from such a source through, an outcome they also wanted to avoid. Hence the stalemate and long drawn out 'no decision'.

If the connection between the PiF and the state was so clear that they could just dismiss the bidder's alleged 'no connection' as false, without proving the connection in court, then they would have used the TV rights issue as the lever to halt the deal, as it's far easier given the nasty owners with massively dubious records they've let through previously. Any attempt to bar them on moral grounds would have inevitably been met with a legal challenge citing blatant hypocrisy. The TV rights issue was a clear breach of the connection was legally beyond LEGAL despite.

Withdrawing was the best all round for all sides really.
 
Last edited:
catcherintherye said:
I actually think the PL thought of the human rights stuff more than people think (not enough mind) and probably not how people think.

Firstly it's just a massive hit on the product to be associated with Saudi. Whichever way you look at it. Secondly, and increasingly, as they take US sponsorship money, if the US turn and want to litigate you could find yourself exposed. It's an unnecessary risk.
Click to expand...

Mikey_Fitzgerald said:
www.theguardian.com

Why north-east is up in arms at collapse of Saudi Arabia bid to buy Newcastle | David Conn

With such a united front of popular support for the takeover, however surprising to those with a passing interest, it is more instructive to understand than condemn
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
“People can also make their peace with Saudi ownership because the UK itself is at peace and in alliance with the regime, and only last month resumed arms sales to it after an official review concluded there were only “isolated incidents” of airstrikes on Yemen that breached humanitarian law.”


A “product associated with Saudi” is a piece of p1ss in comparison to a state (UK, and the US) arming the Saudis to the teeth.

The PL would look pretty ridiculous suggesting human rights abuses by the Saudis was a factor when the country it operates in is knowingly facilitating them.
 


Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top