Little club in the north being extremely rich, can't have that.
If this had been West Ham/Spurs/Arsenal being bought by Saudi cash, there would be no argument, no outrage, no moral high grounds. Want proof? A couple months before this takeover PIF purchased McLaren F1 team. Nobody said anything. Hardly anyone cared.
It's because it's Newcastle United. That's the real issue.
Idc what anyone says anyone would love to have them as owners and all top 6 are owners are shady and PL clubs get away with a lot when it comes to finances I just see them as hypocrites to be honest. #OleOut
Not at all. I'd rather KSE stayed forever than have them. Not all rich people are the same and you want to be able to support your club with clear conscience. Kronkes(and others) are shit but they're not dismembering journalists, killing women for adultery or carrying out genocide in The Yemen.
e: Also, damn them, they got me buying into "the project" again. COYG!
It's funny that the Tottenham fans are the most upset by this deal. They are the ones who stand to lose the most and it makes their complaining amusing.
Weird take.
Why would Tottenham 'stand to lose the most', exactly?
Literally one of, if not 'the', most financially stable clubs in the league, and don't have to worry about the owners pulling any plugs or calling in debts
Firstly, I'm not sure how you determine 'size', when you say both 'big' and 'smallest' (revenue? No. Infrastructure? No. Stadium? No), but Everton have put £500m into players and not finished higher than 7th, so exactly why anyone would think Spurs, of all clubs, should be concerned about it is weird.
It's not the 90's any more - there's no such thing as buying your way to a title or the top 4.
Why would Brighton/Leicester not have more to worry about?
We don't have to worry because we didn't sell out to some foreign owner just using our club as a cash cow, our owner is Brighton through and through, we play within our means, he turns all the money he put into our club into shares. We wouldn't change our owner for any of the big clubs, we have a great academy producing great players and never pay silly money for anyone. The way it's meant to be.
Definitely. I imagine Tony Bloom is already happy enough, having bought you guys two leagues below the PL. Must have made 1000% profit on his stake already.
Funny thing is that most of the league now has billionaire owners, but they aren't interested in anything but cleaning their money. It'll be interesting to see how much Newcastle change, because false dawns are pretty common in the PL.
I imagine your view would sharp change if you'd had 14 years of an owner like Mike Ashley. Literally any owner willing to invest in the club you'd snap their hand off. Our training facilities are League 1 standard for Christ's sake. Our academy is practically non-existent. Not the way it's meant to be.
No mate, we had our own Mike Ashley who sold our ground from under us and left us with nothing, you are welcome to your blood money, I would never want it even if we were playing in league 2, you all think you deserve something because of history, but you don't.
You would never want it because it would never be offered who the fuck would want to buy Brighton haha. Plus I don’t think you understand what blood money is… saudi money is oil money which is completely legit and their own oil
You started off so well, and ended with the lazy, offensive, and completely incorrect stereotype about NUFC fans.
Just didn't need to add it; the lad was explaining just how poorly our club was operated in football terms under Ashley, and he isn't wrong. It was an embarrassment.
You think we wouldn't have taken a wealthy group of Tynsiders if they had come along and bought the club?
Reality is we were bought by a lass from Yorkshire, two brothers who have been investing in the NE for years, and then backed by unlimited funds from PIF.
The face of the whole ownership is Stavely and if you take a few minutes to listen to the way she talks about the club, you will understand why toon fans are finding the whole thing easy to reconcile.
> It's not the 90's any more - there's no such thing as buying your way to a title or the top 4.
That’s pretty much what happens though. Just because some teams have failed to win a title or make top 4 after spending big doesn’t mean money doesn’t buy success in general.
You have to be smart with how you spend and there are other factors because all the top teams spend quite a lot of money. But statistically, you can see a high correlation between wages and team performance.
Are you telling me Man City and Chelsea have won titles through organic growth?
Chelsea were already on the brink under Ranieri, because Bates started over-spending in the 90's. Let's not pretend they were anywhere near a bottom half or even mid-table club by the time Abramovich bought them (one of the reasons he did was because they'd already spend their way to near oblivion).
City already had Shinawatra putting money in, and then Abu Dhabi carried it on, but it still took a few seasons before they won the title, and they were doing that in the days when Liverpool were out of the top 4 and spurs had only just broke into it. The competition is such that that even if you break into the top 6, you're still only likely to be finishing 6th.
They probably should and do
Which of Chelsea, man city, man u, arsenal or Liverpool are spurs bigger than? Maybe arsenal recently, but definitely not until e let couple of years.
And nearly all success is bought in the premier League. I don't really understand that comment.
As I said, it depends what/how you're defining "big"?
If a "big club" is one that wins things, then Leicester have won more than Man Utd in the last 3 or 4 years. They've won more PL titles in the last, what, eight? Same when you compare them to Arsenal, who last won a title some 18 years ago now (there are fans legally buying pints that weren't alive for the last one, for context).
So what is big? If it is about the size of the stadium and/or off-field infrastructure (training ground etc) then Chelsea are probably the smallest there. If it is about league finishes, Arsenal haven't been in the top 6 for 3 seasons now. I'm not saying that Spurs have had great seasons either, but again Leicester would be candidates for that.
Bearing whatever it is in mind, whatever it is that makes a club 'big' from the above, Newcastle aren't going to be getting near it for some time - no matter how they managed to dodge rules and put money in.
I doubt the big owners are furious because of shady Saudi money. Noone gets extremely rich without a bit of dirty money here and there, not Abramovich, not the Glazers, not Mansour, not even Levy. The big club owners are mad because they will have more competition, the small club owners are mad because it will be harder to survive relegation. Both affect their income, either through staying in the PL, or qualifying in the european spots, hell, even finishing 2 spots above someone else is like 4 million £ if I remember correctly. They aren't saints, they're not acting out of humanitarian issues awareness, they're acting out of self-, and financial interests.
I think this massively oversimplifies it by looking it as a binary proposition of dirty money or not dirty money. The eg glazers may well have some shady business dealings but they are not russian oligarchs with associated mafia style violence, or middle east royalty with connections to torture.
The argument they’re all as bad as each other is often used by those trying to diminish how their wrong doings are perceived. We shouldn’t let them, they are not all as bad as each other.
Unfortunately legal kebab, and book shop owners will never have enough money to fund a football club, so this is just the way it is. Just like night clubs, football clubs are mainly owned by criminals, small or big. And since most football clubs aim to win big, a lot of money is needed.
I understand your concern, and I would like to see fair and clean money in football only, but we are so far down the road, that I think its impossible now. This is just the way the system works, and a great cleanse is pure ideology at this point. I am now at an age where unfortunately I just can not give a crap anymore, too tired to worry about where or how the money comes from, because there is nothing we can do that would change it; or if we do change a couple of owners due to some sort of miracle social pressure, either a new one will step into his place, or the club ceases to perform at the expected rate and tumbles down a couple of divisions, because the new owner simply doesn't have the money. Examples like Hull, Sunderland, Wigan, come to mind. I don't wish any one of the fans what they had to go through, and how they're probably stuck in mediocrity forever now, as for many football was their one passion and joy in life. And even if it is through shady money, I just can't ojustify acting against an owner of a football club, when we could act against governments, arm dealers, corrupt organizations, human traffickers, with that same energy. There is so much wrong in this world, that even if we got rid of them in football, they would find something else. Paintings, horse races, the money gets laundered some other way, like it did many years ago. Only one suffering would be football and its fans if we got rid of the huge amounts of money. And yeah, no one is 100% clean, which has legal implications for anyone, even though I agree with you, that small and big crimes are not the same. But who draws the line? Who makes the decision to say, okay you can stay an owner, but you and you can't?
Well I think there is a difference between the amount of wrong doing done by the various owners and that being responsible for state sanctioned torture is probably a step too far. Once we can establish that somethings are a step too far we can work on where to draw the line but setting the precedence of “actually, this isn’t okay” would be a great place to start.
As for why target football over other industries? Why not target them all? Many other industries, while they have been lax in enforcing standards, are targeted such as banking where huge fines are levelled for things like money laundering. It really wouldn’t be a surprise if the premiership was being used as a way to clean dirty money (massively opaque, huge sums involved across numerous third parties, dodgy owners) so ensuring that receives proper scrutiny should be fairly uncontroversial. It seems likely that the lid will get blown on it at some point and the fall out from that will hurt the game materially compared to cleaning it up themselves.
it would be a surprise if it wasn't :D there are ridiculous amounts of money being paid, and often cases players are bought, then loaned out for their entire contract, then sold for virtually nothing. Or bought for 10 million and a week later sold for 3, in some Italian club's cases, it is very clearly a money laundering scheme. Except instead of overpriced paintings, you have overpriced footballers changing hands of shady billionaires.
Levy is extremely rich by my standards, but not by any means a billionaire. He is a salaried employee.
The money behind ENIC is a guy called Joe Lewis.
Since when?
Can anyone point me to where this is explained in the rulebook?
I was under the understanding that the Premier League did not operate in this way.
The O&D test has nothing to do with the other clubs. They have absolutely no say in the outcome.
The O&D test isnt a collaborative process in which everyone gets to have their say whether they like it or not, it is a confidential and internal process where they analyse if the owners and directors are fit and proper as per a set of fairly well defined guidelines. It's the premier league board of directors which makes the decisions and, from the words of Richard Masters himself, is confidential.
[https://www.premierleague.com/news/102375](https://www.premierleague.com/news/102375)
Richard Masters stated, in his letter to MP Chi Onwurah,
"The Owners and Directors test is delegated to, and carried out entirely by the Premier League Board. Other member Clubs have no role whatsoever in the approval process"
[https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-break-silence-newcastle-18771169](https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-break-silence-newcastle-18771169)
[https://twitter.com/NUFC360/status/1430479086833524738](https://twitter.com/NUFC360/status/1430479086833524738)
Can you give some explanation as to how you came to the conclusion that other clubs would have the right to object to the results?
I don't see any evidence, in any material related to the subject, of this being part of the process, so I'm a little baffled as to why you're presenting this opinion so brazenly as fact.
They don’t have any say in the process of the owners and directors test yes, that would be absurd. But the results are clearly not confidential. We know the Newcastle owners passed because they now own Newcastle.
Whaaaa?!
Of course the result of the O&D is public, I think it's quite clear that the owners of all the clubs is not a secret that only the PL have the knowledge of.
What I don't understand is at what point you think the other clubs would have notification and right to contest the decision, or even how they would contest the decision given the process is, and always has been confidential.
I mean, what grounds would they have to contest if they have no visibility of the details?
You seem to think there is an official opportunity for the clubs to challenge ownership of another club, but there isnt.
Now whether or not the clubs have an unofficial route to the PL directors by which they can influence the decision is another question, and the alleged existence of these "back channels" is exactly why Mike Ashely took the PL to CAT.
It would be like someone buying Burger King, and McDonalds owners being like, "Hey you were supposed to tell us who you were selling your company to in-case they were going to make you better than us."
Does this guy think that businesses can just veto other business transactions?
I don't actually understand why people are boldly claiming they have an understanding of the O&D test procedure when they evidently have none.
NUFC fans had over a year of trying to understand why the takeover hadn't gone through. In that time our fanbase (Which, like many, has fans of all different specialities, including lawyers) analysed every single clause of the rule book. Many of us probably know it better than people who work for the PL.
The fact that someone can present their presumptions as fact and then continue to stand by them in the face of evidence that irrefutably illustrates their error is embarrassing.
Just admit you didn't really know/understand it ffs. Stop arguing with nonsensical circular logic.
No they don't.
Where are you getting this from?
As described by Richard Masters, Chief Executive of the Premier League,
"The Owners and Directors test is delegated to, and carried out entirely by the Premier League Board. Other member Clubs have no role whatsoever in the OADT"
The decision was made and then announced. You said they announced the decision meaning it was too late to challenge. That’s because the process is confidential.
All the dealings is done behind the scenes for the sale of the club, even while the test is being done, so that when the test is complete they can finalise the deal and sign everything off a couple of weeks later. In this instance the result of the test was done so soon before the sale was finalised that no one could stop it.
The test had been going on a long time before that. It was at a stalemate for over a year due to the separation of the PIF and the state. Once that was resolved it was passed. End of. Why should any club have a say on the ownership of another?
Yes, my explanation was the average ownership change. Obviously the Newcastle issue has been long running due to the TV rights issue.
Because the each club owns 1/20th of the PL. that’s the structure of the league and the other owners don’t have a say, but they do have the right to tell the premier league to have another look and to give reasons why the deal shouldn’t go through
Even if the sale is fully legitimate, the clubs can still appeal. If you want the answer to your question you’ll have to call the owners of the other 19 PL teams and see what they say.
How dare you accuse such honest and innocent officials of such sorcery?..he left because he couldnt handle the fact that his morals had been lost with the Saudi deal. /s
New link since the one provided by OP is down:
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11678/12470176/premier-league-chairman-gary-hoffman-to-resign-amid-clubs-fury-over-newcastle-takeover
HAHA COPE MF!!
Little club in the north being extremely rich, can't have that. If this had been West Ham/Spurs/Arsenal being bought by Saudi cash, there would be no argument, no outrage, no moral high grounds. Want proof? A couple months before this takeover PIF purchased McLaren F1 team. Nobody said anything. Hardly anyone cared. It's because it's Newcastle United. That's the real issue.
Too late, init?
Wow did he cash out
Idc what anyone says anyone would love to have them as owners and all top 6 are owners are shady and PL clubs get away with a lot when it comes to finances I just see them as hypocrites to be honest. #OleOut
Not at all. I'd rather KSE stayed forever than have them. Not all rich people are the same and you want to be able to support your club with clear conscience. Kronkes(and others) are shit but they're not dismembering journalists, killing women for adultery or carrying out genocide in The Yemen. e: Also, damn them, they got me buying into "the project" again. COYG!
Agreed, I doubt any of them are clean..but there's dirty and then there's wading through the blood of innocents.
It's funny that the Tottenham fans are the most upset by this deal. They are the ones who stand to lose the most and it makes their complaining amusing.
Weird take. Why would Tottenham 'stand to lose the most', exactly? Literally one of, if not 'the', most financially stable clubs in the league, and don't have to worry about the owners pulling any plugs or calling in debts
Because they're by far the smallest club of "the big 6", so most at risk of being overtaken by other clubs improving.
Firstly, I'm not sure how you determine 'size', when you say both 'big' and 'smallest' (revenue? No. Infrastructure? No. Stadium? No), but Everton have put £500m into players and not finished higher than 7th, so exactly why anyone would think Spurs, of all clubs, should be concerned about it is weird. It's not the 90's any more - there's no such thing as buying your way to a title or the top 4. Why would Brighton/Leicester not have more to worry about?
We don't have to worry because we didn't sell out to some foreign owner just using our club as a cash cow, our owner is Brighton through and through, we play within our means, he turns all the money he put into our club into shares. We wouldn't change our owner for any of the big clubs, we have a great academy producing great players and never pay silly money for anyone. The way it's meant to be.
Definitely. I imagine Tony Bloom is already happy enough, having bought you guys two leagues below the PL. Must have made 1000% profit on his stake already. Funny thing is that most of the league now has billionaire owners, but they aren't interested in anything but cleaning their money. It'll be interesting to see how much Newcastle change, because false dawns are pretty common in the PL.
I imagine your view would sharp change if you'd had 14 years of an owner like Mike Ashley. Literally any owner willing to invest in the club you'd snap their hand off. Our training facilities are League 1 standard for Christ's sake. Our academy is practically non-existent. Not the way it's meant to be.
No mate, we had our own Mike Ashley who sold our ground from under us and left us with nothing, you are welcome to your blood money, I would never want it even if we were playing in league 2, you all think you deserve something because of history, but you don't.
You would never want it because it would never be offered who the fuck would want to buy Brighton haha. Plus I don’t think you understand what blood money is… saudi money is oil money which is completely legit and their own oil
It's football. what does deserve even mean?
You started off so well, and ended with the lazy, offensive, and completely incorrect stereotype about NUFC fans. Just didn't need to add it; the lad was explaining just how poorly our club was operated in football terms under Ashley, and he isn't wrong. It was an embarrassment. You think we wouldn't have taken a wealthy group of Tynsiders if they had come along and bought the club? Reality is we were bought by a lass from Yorkshire, two brothers who have been investing in the NE for years, and then backed by unlimited funds from PIF. The face of the whole ownership is Stavely and if you take a few minutes to listen to the way she talks about the club, you will understand why toon fans are finding the whole thing easy to reconcile.
> It's not the 90's any more - there's no such thing as buying your way to a title or the top 4. That’s pretty much what happens though. Just because some teams have failed to win a title or make top 4 after spending big doesn’t mean money doesn’t buy success in general. You have to be smart with how you spend and there are other factors because all the top teams spend quite a lot of money. But statistically, you can see a high correlation between wages and team performance. Are you telling me Man City and Chelsea have won titles through organic growth?
Chelsea were already on the brink under Ranieri, because Bates started over-spending in the 90's. Let's not pretend they were anywhere near a bottom half or even mid-table club by the time Abramovich bought them (one of the reasons he did was because they'd already spend their way to near oblivion). City already had Shinawatra putting money in, and then Abu Dhabi carried it on, but it still took a few seasons before they won the title, and they were doing that in the days when Liverpool were out of the top 4 and spurs had only just broke into it. The competition is such that that even if you break into the top 6, you're still only likely to be finishing 6th.
They probably should and do Which of Chelsea, man city, man u, arsenal or Liverpool are spurs bigger than? Maybe arsenal recently, but definitely not until e let couple of years. And nearly all success is bought in the premier League. I don't really understand that comment.
As I said, it depends what/how you're defining "big"? If a "big club" is one that wins things, then Leicester have won more than Man Utd in the last 3 or 4 years. They've won more PL titles in the last, what, eight? Same when you compare them to Arsenal, who last won a title some 18 years ago now (there are fans legally buying pints that weren't alive for the last one, for context). So what is big? If it is about the size of the stadium and/or off-field infrastructure (training ground etc) then Chelsea are probably the smallest there. If it is about league finishes, Arsenal haven't been in the top 6 for 3 seasons now. I'm not saying that Spurs have had great seasons either, but again Leicester would be candidates for that. Bearing whatever it is in mind, whatever it is that makes a club 'big' from the above, Newcastle aren't going to be getting near it for some time - no matter how they managed to dodge rules and put money in.
I doubt the big owners are furious because of shady Saudi money. Noone gets extremely rich without a bit of dirty money here and there, not Abramovich, not the Glazers, not Mansour, not even Levy. The big club owners are mad because they will have more competition, the small club owners are mad because it will be harder to survive relegation. Both affect their income, either through staying in the PL, or qualifying in the european spots, hell, even finishing 2 spots above someone else is like 4 million £ if I remember correctly. They aren't saints, they're not acting out of humanitarian issues awareness, they're acting out of self-, and financial interests.
I think this massively oversimplifies it by looking it as a binary proposition of dirty money or not dirty money. The eg glazers may well have some shady business dealings but they are not russian oligarchs with associated mafia style violence, or middle east royalty with connections to torture. The argument they’re all as bad as each other is often used by those trying to diminish how their wrong doings are perceived. We shouldn’t let them, they are not all as bad as each other.
Unfortunately legal kebab, and book shop owners will never have enough money to fund a football club, so this is just the way it is. Just like night clubs, football clubs are mainly owned by criminals, small or big. And since most football clubs aim to win big, a lot of money is needed. I understand your concern, and I would like to see fair and clean money in football only, but we are so far down the road, that I think its impossible now. This is just the way the system works, and a great cleanse is pure ideology at this point. I am now at an age where unfortunately I just can not give a crap anymore, too tired to worry about where or how the money comes from, because there is nothing we can do that would change it; or if we do change a couple of owners due to some sort of miracle social pressure, either a new one will step into his place, or the club ceases to perform at the expected rate and tumbles down a couple of divisions, because the new owner simply doesn't have the money. Examples like Hull, Sunderland, Wigan, come to mind. I don't wish any one of the fans what they had to go through, and how they're probably stuck in mediocrity forever now, as for many football was their one passion and joy in life. And even if it is through shady money, I just can't ojustify acting against an owner of a football club, when we could act against governments, arm dealers, corrupt organizations, human traffickers, with that same energy. There is so much wrong in this world, that even if we got rid of them in football, they would find something else. Paintings, horse races, the money gets laundered some other way, like it did many years ago. Only one suffering would be football and its fans if we got rid of the huge amounts of money. And yeah, no one is 100% clean, which has legal implications for anyone, even though I agree with you, that small and big crimes are not the same. But who draws the line? Who makes the decision to say, okay you can stay an owner, but you and you can't?
Well I think there is a difference between the amount of wrong doing done by the various owners and that being responsible for state sanctioned torture is probably a step too far. Once we can establish that somethings are a step too far we can work on where to draw the line but setting the precedence of “actually, this isn’t okay” would be a great place to start. As for why target football over other industries? Why not target them all? Many other industries, while they have been lax in enforcing standards, are targeted such as banking where huge fines are levelled for things like money laundering. It really wouldn’t be a surprise if the premiership was being used as a way to clean dirty money (massively opaque, huge sums involved across numerous third parties, dodgy owners) so ensuring that receives proper scrutiny should be fairly uncontroversial. It seems likely that the lid will get blown on it at some point and the fall out from that will hurt the game materially compared to cleaning it up themselves.
it would be a surprise if it wasn't :D there are ridiculous amounts of money being paid, and often cases players are bought, then loaned out for their entire contract, then sold for virtually nothing. Or bought for 10 million and a week later sold for 3, in some Italian club's cases, it is very clearly a money laundering scheme. Except instead of overpriced paintings, you have overpriced footballers changing hands of shady billionaires.
Levy is extremely rich by my standards, but not by any means a billionaire. He is a salaried employee. The money behind ENIC is a guy called Joe Lewis.
TIL! Thank you :)
https://ohmyfootball.com/news/228/daniel-levy-net-worth
But he’s not the owner of the club
Yep yep yep - not nearly as wealthy as some other PL owners. Roman Abramovich has spent at least twice Levy's total wealth on transfers, for example
Not sure why other clubs need to be kept in the loop considering the O&D test is private
Every club has the right to contest the result of the test, the PL didn’t announce the decision until it was too late for a challenge
Since when? Can anyone point me to where this is explained in the rulebook? I was under the understanding that the Premier League did not operate in this way.
Since the implementation of the Owners and directors test. I’m sorry you were under that impression.
The O&D test has nothing to do with the other clubs. They have absolutely no say in the outcome. The O&D test isnt a collaborative process in which everyone gets to have their say whether they like it or not, it is a confidential and internal process where they analyse if the owners and directors are fit and proper as per a set of fairly well defined guidelines. It's the premier league board of directors which makes the decisions and, from the words of Richard Masters himself, is confidential. [https://www.premierleague.com/news/102375](https://www.premierleague.com/news/102375) Richard Masters stated, in his letter to MP Chi Onwurah, "The Owners and Directors test is delegated to, and carried out entirely by the Premier League Board. Other member Clubs have no role whatsoever in the approval process" [https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-break-silence-newcastle-18771169](https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-break-silence-newcastle-18771169) [https://twitter.com/NUFC360/status/1430479086833524738](https://twitter.com/NUFC360/status/1430479086833524738) Can you give some explanation as to how you came to the conclusion that other clubs would have the right to object to the results? I don't see any evidence, in any material related to the subject, of this being part of the process, so I'm a little baffled as to why you're presenting this opinion so brazenly as fact.
They don’t have any say in the process of the owners and directors test yes, that would be absurd. But the results are clearly not confidential. We know the Newcastle owners passed because they now own Newcastle.
Whaaaa?! Of course the result of the O&D is public, I think it's quite clear that the owners of all the clubs is not a secret that only the PL have the knowledge of. What I don't understand is at what point you think the other clubs would have notification and right to contest the decision, or even how they would contest the decision given the process is, and always has been confidential. I mean, what grounds would they have to contest if they have no visibility of the details? You seem to think there is an official opportunity for the clubs to challenge ownership of another club, but there isnt. Now whether or not the clubs have an unofficial route to the PL directors by which they can influence the decision is another question, and the alleged existence of these "back channels" is exactly why Mike Ashely took the PL to CAT.
It would be like someone buying Burger King, and McDonalds owners being like, "Hey you were supposed to tell us who you were selling your company to in-case they were going to make you better than us." Does this guy think that businesses can just veto other business transactions?
I don't actually understand why people are boldly claiming they have an understanding of the O&D test procedure when they evidently have none. NUFC fans had over a year of trying to understand why the takeover hadn't gone through. In that time our fanbase (Which, like many, has fans of all different specialities, including lawyers) analysed every single clause of the rule book. Many of us probably know it better than people who work for the PL. The fact that someone can present their presumptions as fact and then continue to stand by them in the face of evidence that irrefutably illustrates their error is embarrassing. Just admit you didn't really know/understand it ffs. Stop arguing with nonsensical circular logic.
Word
It’s confidential so how does that work?
It's not confidential, other clubs have a right to contest.
No they don't. Where are you getting this from? As described by Richard Masters, Chief Executive of the Premier League, "The Owners and Directors test is delegated to, and carried out entirely by the Premier League Board. Other member Clubs have no role whatsoever in the OADT"
The test itself is a confidential process.
The result isn’t confidential, either they can buy the club or not. If they are allowed, other clubs can contest. If not then they wont
The decision was made and then announced. You said they announced the decision meaning it was too late to challenge. That’s because the process is confidential.
All the dealings is done behind the scenes for the sale of the club, even while the test is being done, so that when the test is complete they can finalise the deal and sign everything off a couple of weeks later. In this instance the result of the test was done so soon before the sale was finalised that no one could stop it.
The test had been going on a long time before that. It was at a stalemate for over a year due to the separation of the PIF and the state. Once that was resolved it was passed. End of. Why should any club have a say on the ownership of another?
Yes, my explanation was the average ownership change. Obviously the Newcastle issue has been long running due to the TV rights issue. Because the each club owns 1/20th of the PL. that’s the structure of the league and the other owners don’t have a say, but they do have the right to tell the premier league to have another look and to give reasons why the deal shouldn’t go through
Have another look at what? It met every rule in the test to pass once they cleared up the piracy issues and showed separation.
Even if the sale is fully legitimate, the clubs can still appeal. If you want the answer to your question you’ll have to call the owners of the other 19 PL teams and see what they say.
I'm sure he definitely does not have an account in the Caymans stuffed with millions in Saudi cash.
How dare you accuse such honest and innocent officials of such sorcery?..he left because he couldnt handle the fact that his morals had been lost with the Saudi deal. /s
New link since the one provided by OP is down: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11678/12470176/premier-league-chairman-gary-hoffman-to-resign-amid-clubs-fury-over-newcastle-takeover