A report claims the Premier League were stricter on the Saudis due to Portsmouth’s troubles a decade ago, Freddie Woodman could be on the cusp of signing an extension while heading back to Swansea, and Richard Masters claims the takeover delay was due to Saudi reluctance to provide additional information.
Here is the roundup of today’s articles and news from The Newcastle United Blog.
- A report claims Portsmouth ownership debacle negatively affected Newcastle takeover.
- Bruce reiterates his commitment to having a go at the cups.
- Newcastle persist in their attempts to get local midfielder to sign a new deal.
- The Premier League used questionable tactics to delay the takeover process if recent report is accurate.
- Mike Ashley still hasn’t received any indication that American businessman is serious about a Newcastle bid.
- Amanda Staveley’s husband has issued a cryptic tweet about Newcastle takeover.
- A report claims that Newcastle goalkeeper is very close to a second loan move to Championship club.
- Richard Masters sends a letter to local MP answering her questions on Newcastle takeover.
- Mike Ashley is desperate for the Saudis to revive their takeover attempt.
422 comments so far
DubaiMicky
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:13 PM
Comment #1Unashamed repost
FloridaToon, please ignore the limp lettuce’s comment #91. He hasn’t a clue and it’s laughable that it’s so obvious he hasn’t a clue.
It’s got more to do with Saudi pride, it’s basically the Premier League telling a Sovereign State to f… off, you aren’t good enough to join our club, that will have seriously annoyed them.
Did someone say sportswashing? In 1980 Alan Jones won the world championship in a Williams FW07 with Fly Saudia plastered all over his car, that was the 80s, KSA have come so far since then.
lesh
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:14 PM
Comment #2Jib
I’m still waiting or do you need some time to have a rethink?
Mund
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:14 PM
Comment #3No Jail you use the amount of hearts you get as a tool of empowerment within your posts, pathetic just like you old man.
I would say that to your face as well if your ever keen to hear it first hand
Jail for Ashley
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:15 PM
Comment #4Dry your eyes Mund
lochinvar
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:17 PM
Comment #5If Mourihno, Allardyce ( The England manager’s fiasco), Harry Rednapp, anything to do with Man Ure or Liverpool was in the news then Sky would be all over them like a rash, camped outside their doors, on the doorsteps of their offices or stadium.
In addition there would be studio time and face to face interviews with those involved..
Have Sky approached Masters or Hoffman or invited them in for a studio chat ?
Not so sure they have.
Who has told them to keep their distance ?
Just a fan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:17 PM
Comment #6Jail
He is still after fight club
DubaiMicky
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:19 PM
Comment #7Limp Lettuce (from previous), it’s nothing personal, you’re just an argumentative twat with no knowledge.
Just a fan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:19 PM
Comment #8If you go to fight club don’t talk about fight club
Sorry mund I have time on my hands
Where’s Anglo
Jail for Ashley
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:19 PM
Comment #9JaF,
He’s got some serious issues, it’s obvious.
coming home
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:19 PM
Comment #10What a fanny
Mund
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:21 PM
Comment #11No balls jail I’ll call you from now your so full of shit.
The ledge
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:21 PM
Comment #12Ha Ha go on the Bayern
lesh
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:22 PM
Comment #13DubaiM
It’s got more to do with Saudi pride?
Of course it has and the EPL knew exactly what it was doing in requiring information from the House of Saud. Not content with receiving a written assurance of non-interference from way up on high, that’s not good enough for it.
When will the EPL’s new-found apologists acknowledge that?
I honestly wonder what Bowis and his chums make of this? I’m truly surprised that the EPL were allowed to upset the KSA.
FloridaToon
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:22 PM
Comment #14from previous
KV @128
I would say because the Saudi state, or MBS, will have absolutely nothing to do with the running NUFC.
lochinvar
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:23 PM
Comment #15Sportwashing – ha that’s a term penned surely by the Guardian to ft their own political agenda.
Nothing new and a quick look around the world at eco projects, financial deals, corporate negligence, media manipulation and so much more you will find supported or sponsored by brands, political groups and the well meaning.
Usually the perogative of large organsiations where accountability hides behind a cloak of projected respectability.
It’s the King’s clothes time and time time again.
The EPL are stark bollock naked.
Take a close look, but don’t touch and wash your hands.
lesh
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:23 PM
Comment #16DubaiMicky
It’s just as well you are where you are.
Had you been in the UK, you could end up in court for your comment @7.
FloridaToon
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:24 PM
Comment #17also from previous
Jail
while I agree its over, unfortunately, I believe all toon fans deserve more answers especially why it took 4 months to get here.
Mund
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:24 PM
Comment #18Jail you need real friends I feel sorry for you.
Is it because I am younger, better looking and a better sparky seeing as you have turned into a plastic sparky now
coming home
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:25 PM
Comment #19Mund
He is more like a plastic fanny
DubaiMicky
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:25 PM
Comment #20Well lesh, let’s face it, the Saudi Ambassador met him last week and do you really think the takeover wasn’t mentioned?
Pull the other one.
Thing is politics is a dark art, there will be stuff going on in the background.
Someone mentioned we should try to get Blair in, now i despise the guy but if he got it over the line i would still hate him (Despise>Hate)
DubaiMicky
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:26 PM
Comment #21lesh – going to court for speaking the truth?
Who’d have thunked it.
Kevin Vegan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:30 PM
Comment #22Florida
In this instance it sounds like it’s more about who owns the club than who runs it on a day to day basis. Most owners are hands-off.
DubaiMicky
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:32 PM
Comment #23Explained: the Premier League’s letter about Newcastle’s failed takeover
https://theathletic.com/1996879/2020/08/14/newcastle-richard-masters-letter-newcastle-takeover/
By Chris Waugh and Matt Slater 21m ago
It has taken more than four months but, finally, the Premier League has offered an insight into why the Owners’ and Directors’ Test relating to the proposed takeover of Newcastle United failed to reach a conclusion.
The £300 million bid, lodged by a consortium fronted by Amanda Staveley, the financier, but 80 per cent financed by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, was formally withdrawn by the prospective buyers on July 30.
In an interview with The Athletic, Staveley gave her reasons as to why, more than 16 weeks after the governing body began their process, the group stepped back from the process, though as we explained in June, Saudi Arabia’s pirating of Premier League TV rights had long threatened to scupper the bid.
A fortnight on from the deal collapsing, Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, has responded to a letter lodged by Chi Onwurah, MP for Newcastle Central, about the process, which can be read in full here.
The Athletic picks out the key points from Masters’ reply and explains what they mean…
Why does Masters say the takeover failed?
Reading the letter one way, Masters would appear to confirm Staveley’s claim to The Athletic that “the Premier League wanted the country, Saudi, to become a director of the football club”.
However, crucially, he has presented it in another way. While Staveley’s suggestion is that the Premier League wanted Saudi to be a director, Masters insists that the state would have been a de facto director regardless, and that is why the governing body wanted specific individuals or groups to submit to the test as well.
You see, while the narrative for weeks has been that the Premier League did not make a definitive decision either way as to whether to pass or fail the takeover, Masters disputes this point.
“In June, the Premier League board made a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition, in accordance with the Premier League rules,” he writes to Ms Onwurah. “Subsequently, the Premier League then asked each such person or entity to provide the Premier League with additional information, which would then have been used to consider the assessment of any possible disqualifying events.”
However, the consortium disputed the Premier League’s claims that PIF was not a separate entity to the Saudi state. Despite providing guarantees, from what a source close to the consortium had described as being “from the highest possible levels that there would be no state inference in the running of the club”, the Premier League disagreed and insisted upon being provided with additional information.
When the prospective buyers refused, adamant that those individuals or groups would not be directors or so-called “shadow directors” as the Premier League appears to suggest they would be, the process reached an impasse from around late June, beyond which it has never progressed.
Who did the Premier League want submissions from and what information would have been required?
According to Staveley, it was the Saudi state itself. In what form, however, is unclear.
If there were specific individuals, none of the parties have named them, although one leading contender would have been Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince and de facto ruler of Saudi. He is the chairman of the PIF. Majid Al-Qasabi, meanwhile, is also a PIF board member who has defended Saudi’s record on piracy, so he may have been another.
PIF countered that they were independent of the Saudi state and they instead wanted at least two representatives of their own choosing on the board. Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of the PIF, is understood to have been their principal nominee.
Why didn’t those people/groups submit? Did they have something to hide?
Some observers would argue yes, particularly those sympathetic to beIN Sports’ three-year-long attempts to shutdown beoutQ, a highly-advanced piracy operation which the World Trade Organization (WTO) declared in June has its origins in Saudi.
They would argue that, had the likes of Prince Mohammed been named as a prospective director, then the Premier League would have had grounds to fail the takeover due to allegations that the Saudi state facilitated, or at the very least failed to shutdown, pirating operations.
Staveley, on the other hand, counters that “it would be impossible for a state to become a director” and that such a “ridiculous, unprecedented” move from the Premier League made passing the test unfeasible.
So why didn’t they go to a tribunal that the Premier League offered?
This is arguably the most interesting line in the entire letter, Masters confirming that the Premier League “offered the consortium the ability to have the matter determined by an independent arbitral tribunal” if it wanted to challenge the board’s determination on the identity of the prospective directors.
But the consortium rejected that request, understood to have been made last month, and also opted against providing the additional information on specific individuals or groups that the Premier League requested. Instead, they — or, as Masters seems keen to clarify, “PIF specifically”, given that it was a Saudi-led decision — voluntarily withdrew from the process.
Some observers have questioned why the consortium would opt against independent arbitration, but sources close to the bid insist that avenue was already open to them and did not need to be offered by the Premier League. Had their bid failed the test, then Premier League rules allow for independent arbitration regardless.
Their argument is that they did not want to go to arbitration to determine merely part of the test; they wanted to go to arbitration if they failed the test, a decision which the Premier League never actually reached to trigger that possibility.
And, because the process had dragged on for 16 weeks and the Premier League had failed to provide the prospective buyers with a timeline for when the test would be concluded, they opted to withdraw.
You say piracy was a big issue but Masters says the test never got to the stage where the Premier League were required to rule on aspects such as intellectual property rights or Saudi Arabia’s human rights record. Were they still a factor?
Yes and no.
Yes, intellectual property rights were a factor, but the moral questions surrounding Saudi were not. Despite Amnesty International and Hatice Cengiz, the fiancée of Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, repeatedly raising the state’s appalling human rights record throughout the process, that is not something which the Premier League’s test covers.
Piracy, though, was repeatedly cited, paticularly by beIN Sports, as being a difficult problem for the bid to overcome and it would have been, though Masters implies it never actually reached that stage.
He writes that “the PIF announced its withdrawal from the process before the board was required to come to any conclusions on this aspect of the test” when asked directly by Ms Onwurah about intellectual property infringements.
Interestingly, he also notes that, “broadcast revenues are the principal source of income for a majority of our clubs, including Newcastle United”. In the club’s latest set of accounts, for 2018-19, 70.2 per cent (£123.9 million) of Newcastle’s total revenue of £176.4 million came from media rights, highlighting just how vital broadcast income is to top-flight clubs and therefore why the Premier League opposes piracy so vigorously.
Essentially, had the prospective buyers agreed to the Premier League’s demand that the Saudi state was a de facto director and therefore should have submitted to the test, then piracy would almost certainly have become an issue.
But couldn’t they have submitted themselves and vowed to reform?
Possibly, although it would have taken some serious mediation.
The problem PIF has is that the Premier League has, on nine separate occasions, tried to start legal proceedings against beoutQ in Saudi, as per the global rules on intellectual property rights, and has been unable to get any of them to court. And beIN, a Qatar-based broadcaster, has not had any more luck, with the company claiming it has had to shed jobs because of the economic impact of piracy.
With the Saudi judicial route proving impossible to navigate, Qatar has been forced to effectively sue Saudi on beIN’s behalf and, in June, it won a landmark case at the WTO.
Had Saudi responded to that as the Premier League wanted them to, then the piracy issue may not have proven so insurmountable.
Instead, the Saudi government claimed victory in the WTO ruling, although it did then pledge to shut down 231 piracy platforms. However, bizarrely, a few weeks later, beIN was banned from broadcasting in Saudi, meaning there is no longer any legal way to watch the Premier League in a country whose investment fund is attempting to buy an English top-flight club.
When speaking to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) Committee in June, Masters said, “What we want — off the back of the WTO report and our own efforts and those of other sports — is for Saudi Arabia to respond positively to the situation and allow sports rights holders to protect their rights.”
In the Premier League’s eyes, the Saudis are yet to do that sufficiently.
Has PIF withdrawing therefore saved the Premier League a headache?
There are some, including influential politicians, who believe that to be the case. Sources close to the consortium also suspect that the Premier League continued to dally and delay because it did not want to have to make a decision, with both approval and rejection controversial, if for differing reasons.
But one of the reasons why the Premier League has kept such a low public profile throughout this takeover saga is because it prefers to do things quietly.
Those with knowledge of the administration’s test insist it is very much a back-and-forth process, one in which the Premier League tries to reach compromises. For the organisation, this was seen as an opportunity to resolve the difficulties surrounding their Middle East and North Africa (MENA) rights issue.
The MENA broadcast deal is sold on a regional basis but, given the geopolitical tensions in that issue, most pertinently relating to Saudi and Qatar in this instance, there may be a rationale in splitting them up. Over the past six months, the idea of an individual Saudi rights deal — which would be even more lucrative to the Premier League, alongside the MENA deal, which beIN currently holds — has been floated and the organisation may see this as an opportunity missed to both tackle piracy in the region and potentially recoup greater revenues.
Why does the Premier League say it has not spoken on the issue and why is it speaking now?
Masters claims the Premier League has “not briefed the press” on the takeover process, despite “often-incorrect information being published in the media”.
There are those close to the bid who would dispute that, given apparent leaks have emerged from all sides throughout, including some who claimed to have been briefed on what the Premier League was thinking.
A Daily Mail article, released on Friday morning, which shared a lot of information released in Masters’ letter, will have done little to reduce those disputes, though there are no shortage of interested parties who could have been responsible for information emerging.
For the past four months, on the record, the Premier League has been almost silent, with much of its communication limited to reiterating the “confidential nature of the process”.
It is important to understand that one of the reasons why the Premier League has remained silent during the process is because that is how the clubs prefer it. Ultimately, the league works for the clubs and operates in a manner they prefer, and a chief concern is that they don’t want to scare off investors by embarrassing them. Neither do they want the regulatory bar to be too high or, in the case of say, Mike Ashley, do they want to be stuck with a club they can’t sell.
Ultimately that means there are times when regardless of what is going on behind the scenes, the Premier League, and chiefly Masters, just has to take the heat and not speak.
In explaining why the process is confidential, Masters writes: “If it were not then we believe the necessary disclosures would be harder to obtain, and potential purchasers would be discouraged from entering the market, to the detriment of clubs and fans.”
Seemingly, Masters’ response to Ms Onwurah was brought about by sheer public pressure. More than 80 MPs and more than 108,000 fans have called for greater transparency on the process, Ms Onwurah among them, while the Newcastle United Supporters Trust (NUST) has seen its membership swell beyond 14,000 after leading a campaign demanding answers from the governing body.
Privately, pressure has also been applied from the government and through other avenues, given that this takeover bid also promised investment in the North East, as well as in Newcastle United.
The Premier League says it will speak to fans – when and how will this happen?
Masters confirms that the Premier League will be meeting with “supporter representatives as part of our Structure Dialogue process” — and it is understood that will take place on Wednesday, at noon, via conference call.
This twice-yearly event involves the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) and representatives from six selected club trusts or fan groups. The last of these was in November but one was due to take place in April, though it was postponed due to COVID-19.
Although the main topic on the agenda next week is due to be the phased return of fans to top-flight grounds, The Athletic understands that the Newcastle United takeover is also an item on the list, with the NUST, which is one of the six representatives this time around, having pushed for its inclusion.
The FSA and Premier League release minutes of the meeting, while the NUST will communicate with its members on any answers it receives.
Furthermore, it is understood that the NUST is unsatisfied with the Premier League’s response to their own letter calling for transparency on the takeover process. Its reply was merely a copy of the letter sent to Ms Onwurah — the name had not even been changed at the top — even though the group sent a detailed list of questions which differed from the MP’s, and the NUST will ask its members how they want to proceed in receiving further answers.
The Premier League says it is not aware of whether the consortium has lost its bonus, how much oversight of the process does it have?
One of Ms Onwurah’s questions related to the fact that, should this bid fail because the prospective buyers have withdrawn, Ashley can keep the £17 million deposit paid by the consortium. She suggested that this money should, instead, go towards the NUFC Foundation, which is the club’s charity, and the NUST.
Unfortunately, this is not within the Premier League’s remit.
The process of buying a club involves an agreement between the potential purchaser and the current owner, in this case the consortium and Ashley. They signed a contract on, or around, April 9, for a deal worth around £300 million.
At that stage, Newcastle United then informed the Premier League that they had reached such an agreement and that the prospective buyers wanted to be put through the Owners’ and Directors’ Test. Throughout that process, all communication between the Premier League and the prospective buyers is conducted via the club.
To put it simply, the business transaction element of a takeover is between the owner and the buyer and is outside of the Premier League’s jurisdiction.
So, is this the end of the matter?
We suspect not. This is, after all, the interminable takeover saga. Just when you think it is coming to an end, it takes another unexpected twist.
For a start, Masters’ letter, although far more revelatory than previous communication from the Premier League, hardly provides answers to every question. The NUST will push for greater clarity on Wednesday on that, at the very least.
But, as for the consortium, sources close to the deal insist this communication from the Premier League “doesn’t really change anything”. All three parties involved — Staveley, the Reuben Brothers and PIF — insist they would return with their bid if the Premier League agreed to pass it.
How we reach that point, however, even with dialogue understood to be ongoing and potential behind-the-scenes movement over the past fortnight, remains unclear.
Another source says, “This is very much not over.” Though what exactly that means, nobody can say definitively.
Frustratingly, Newcastle United, and more importantly the club’s supporters, are still in limbo, entirely unsure who their owners will be, despite the 2020-21 season beginning in less than a month and the transfer window being open.
Until this is resolved conclusively one way or another, uncertainty will reign.
Just a fan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:32 PM
Comment #24Jail he has a lot of friends
I think he is the second coming
Mund
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:33 PM
Comment #25CH
He is one of the most pathetic people I’ve saw online.
He comes preaching trying to play the good guy when he has been one of the most vile on this blog throughout the years.
Total wet fart
Just a fan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:34 PM
Comment #26Or a bit of a tool I’m not sure which
Respect I still love him
coming home
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:34 PM
Comment #27Just a fanny
Off you go to bed the nurse is calling
Regan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:35 PM
Comment #28Jaf. …don’t be saying God told you
Cos I never said a thing
coming home
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:35 PM
Comment #29Mund
He is a pure bitch
Just a fan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:39 PM
Comment #30This is Mund
Morning Bob
Hi Jim
How is the wife billy
Cartoon your so cute
Dubai your great
Jimmy sorry about your problems
Jail I’m going to smash you face in I’m so hard
Just a fan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:40 PM
Comment #31I won’t get eighty hearts lol
Mund
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:40 PM
Comment #32https://mobile.twitter.com/TheFootballLaw/status/1294367593172733958
coming home
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:41 PM
Comment #33Just a fanny
You pissed again
Mund
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:41 PM
Comment #34Wow JAFfa cake you just made yourself look a right prick
Just a fan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:44 PM
Comment #35Coming home
Not yet
Kevin Vegan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:44 PM
Comment #367-2
Unbelievable.
I’ll save everyone some time going back over the posts and admit I got this one wrong too 😉
Just a fan
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:45 PM
Comment #37Mund
I look like a prick you are a prick
IrishRob
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:46 PM
Comment #38Sad to think Coutinho is going to be going to somone like Arsenal. We could have genuinely had him. Even if the takeover happens, were going to miss out on a special time in the window when players like him are on the market and players are going cheap.
coming home
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:46 PM
Comment #39Just a fanny
Make sure your Zimmer frame is near your bed
lochinvar
Aug 14, 2020 at 9:46 PM
Comment #40December 2019
Appointment of Richard Masters to EPL
“The clubs believe this is the right appointment in the long-term interests of the Premier League”
Bruce Buck, Chelsea FC
According to Masters letter today other clubs apparently have no influence ?
Is that right ?
Just asking the question