We are told that four interested parties are willing to bid around £300M for Newcastle United in a potential acquisition.
The consortium leading the race is said to be the one led by Peter Kenyon, and his backers reported to include the Rockefeller Capital Management group based in New York City.
Presumably, the groups are trying to acquire Newcastle as quickly as possible so they can influence the January transfer market.
Another way of saying that is they will want to provide Rafa with some decent money so he can strengthen the squad next month.
The next step that we will or will not hear about is when a consortium is satisfied with what they have found out in the due diligence phase, and they gain exclusivity.
Mike Ashley – Newcastle owner
The due diligence is to check everything about the club including the finances and any legal problems the club may have.
The exclusivity phase is when they can agree to the fine details of a takeover with Mike Ashley without interference from other competing groups.
One difficulty in the takeover could be what to do about the allegations made against Newcastle United in April of last year by the government.
The club was charged with systematically abusing the tax system, with all payments to player agents the subject of potential criminal proceedings.
This case has yet to be settled, and there will be questions about which party pays the fines if there are any.
With Christmas coming and very little real business possible in the last two weeks of this year, this is a vital time in a potential takeover.
Peter Kenyon has done an excellent job in keeping under the radar screen, and it was Mike Ashley himself who announced that four groups were interested in buying the club last Monday night.
We think that was to an attempt to bring other potential buyers into the bidding.
And then the Premier League will have to carry out their fit and proper person audits of Peter Kenyon and the Rockefeller Capital Management group – who are presumably funding the bid.
It’s difficult to know what and when things will happen because usually an acquisition is carried out with secrecy and speed.
But it seems Ashley has until the end of January to sell the club before the Magpie Group starts up their demonstrations and protests against Ashley.
Let’s hope those will not be necessary and Newcastle can be sold well before then.
Comments welcome.
19 comments so far
Bambams
Dec 10, 2018 at 11:57 AM
Comment #1Ref watch !!!!!
Have I missed something here, discussed the first goal for Wolves and if onside ?????
Was there something on earlier ?
Jib
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:00 PM
Comment #2According to some media the delay now
is FA paperwork which normally should
take 2 weeks but because of the holidays
will double. Which should take us nicely
to mid window.
Plenty of time especially if the ground work
has been done.
Jib
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:01 PM
Comment #3Bambams
It’s midday ffs
They’ve been talking all morning
Lovem or Hatem
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:10 PM
Comment #4@ Jib thanks for the links earlier
Any links from the media for the FA delay?
Bambams
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:11 PM
Comment #5Just seen it (recorded SSN all morning) Dermot Gallagher laughed as Campbell stated Yedders fouled first….
Involuntary reaction when he knows Campbell is right but he refuses to change his mind.
‘re our penalty…. I still think Boly knows Perez is there and it’s a foul and a penalty.
I just know had Shelv been playing and he did that it would be two pens and a 20 month ban.
Chancel be a fine thing
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:19 PM
Comment #6Mike Dean, would be in the champions league places with all the matches he’s won.
Chancel be a fine thing
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:21 PM
Comment #7With Shelvey’s, the elbow would have also been deemed racist.
Chancel be a fine thing
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:23 PM
Comment #8Jib, Who is saying about the fa paperwork? Could be that blackcloud was first again if proved correct.
Jib
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:25 PM
Comment #9https://www.nufc.com/
Update:
Takeover latest That uncertainty is claimed to be due to confidentiality clauses, but there remains a suspicion that claims of other interested parties are exaggerated in order to pressure the main bidder into action.
It’s understood that financial consultants working for Kenyon travelled to Tyneside earlier this week and have visited SJP in order as part of their own valuation.
It’s quite a way down the page
just before the Everton report
jonnyshaw85
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:31 PM
Comment #10The question of the Yedlin incident is not whether he was being fouled first but whether his foul warranted a red card or not.
Yes i totally agree that Yedlin was fouled first, but when looking at the incident (if there is an appeal of course), the FA cannot say it isn’t a red card or foul because he was being fouled first. Just because he is fouled first, it doesn’t give Yedlin the right to foul back because with that theory, Yedlin could have punched him in retaliation, the FA wouldn’t say it’s ok because he was fouled first.
Therefore, unfortunately, the argument would need to be whether Yedlin’s foul should have been a red – which I don’t think it should have been.
martoon
Dec 10, 2018 at 12:40 PM
Comment #11Jib @9 – I’d guess that article was written a few days ago because they tend to list articles in chronological order. Interesting about the people visiting SJP – I hadn’t seen that anywhere else – I wonder where they got that from?
Charlie in the Gallowgate
Dec 10, 2018 at 1:37 PM
Comment #12From my view on the Gallowgate – I sit directly in line of the incident Yedlin had every right to foul him as he was being pulled down by the shirt which made him stumble as he tried to get between the ball and man – what was he meant to do let the guy go on and maybe score.
Was he last man – not sure as Lascalles was coming across to cover – not sure if he would of got there tho
Do the linesmen actually do anything as he could clearly see the shirt pull
On their goals someone mentioned off-side – have not seen the goals on screen but in real time sitting in Gallowgate both looked a tad close to being off-side
mactoon
Dec 10, 2018 at 2:18 PM
Comment #13A couple of points:
You won’t hear anything about a buyer’s findings during due diligence as they will have to sign a non disclosure agreement in order to gain access to the virtual data room containing the accounts.
With regards to the HMRC case, the club has received a claim from HMRC and “an accrual has been made in the club’s financial statements”. This is a best estimate and has been appealed so there won’t be an agreement anytime soon. So if it’s still outstanding I suspect the club will either have to settle the claim before selling or transfer the debt with the club?. It depends what the two parties agree to in the sale agreements but I doubt it would hold the sale up.
The Premier League owner tests take 2-3 weeks anyway so I don’t see anything happening before the January transfer window opening.
babeandbp
Dec 10, 2018 at 2:42 PM
Comment #14I hope they’re all better negotiators than Teresa f’kin May!!!
ToonKid
Dec 10, 2018 at 2:44 PM
Comment #15A new owner and directors were lodged with Companies House as of Friday the 7th of December.
mactoon
Dec 10, 2018 at 7:26 PM
Comment #16Lodged with what company?
I cannot see any changes in NEWCASTLE UNITED FOOTBALL COMPANY LIMITED Company number 00031014
What are you referring to?
Please post a link
mactoon
Dec 10, 2018 at 7:32 PM
Comment #17Are you saying Newcastle United has a new owner and directors?
Please clarify
mactoon
Dec 10, 2018 at 7:42 PM
Comment #18It says the latest entry is documents relating to alteration of articles of association will be available will be available in 5 days
mactoon
Dec 11, 2018 at 11:02 AM
Comment #19@ToonKid Comment 15
No new owner or directors as far as I can see.
The changes posted amend the number of directors to the following:
“The minimum number of Directors shall be one and the maximum number of Directors shall be ten”. It then goes on to set out what a Director can do, including ‘granting retirement pensions’ and ‘allowances on death’, to ‘borrow money without limit’, it then goes on to say what would happen ‘on the winding-up of the company’.