Newcastle United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2022/2023

Duff

Wow. Just read through the last 10 or so pages. Just wow.

God be with the days when it was just about 5 of us here wondering how Gouffran was a professional footballer or how much gravy Ashley snorted the weekend.

Saudis say they will bid for prem league tv rights if the takeover goes through, even though piracy of the games is going on through state satellites in Saudi Arabia at the moment.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8266795/Saudi-Arabia-look-secure-Premier-League-TV-rights-300m-Newcastle-deal-approved.html

dissident warns that 'cos oil price is on the floor don't assume money piled in

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-arabia-newcastle-united-takeover-bid-mbs-mohammed-bin-salman-a9486791.html

The fiancee of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, murdered and dismembered by the Saudi regime, has asked that the Premier League block the deal.

She, a Turkish woman, specifically refers to sportswashing, a practice which was doubted by a couple of posters here who wondered if the word even exists.

Amnesty International has also weighed in saying the deal should not proceed, citing the Saudi's appalling record of human rights abuses...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-52465137

Scoundrel

glasso wrote: »

Ah now, don't try to go to sleep all wound up like that.

Here is an article on the subject by a football writer.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/newcastle-united-saudi-arabia-takeover-latest-staveley-ashley-a9468236.html

By a football writer who's paper is part owned by the Saudis and by an ex Russian KGB and FSB oligarch no less.

Scoundrel

Scoundrel wrote: »

By a football writer who's paper is part owned by the Saudis and by an ex Russian KGB and FSB oligarch no less.

oh you read the comments!

that's true but doesn't change the facts of the piece.

gstack166

glasso wrote: »

oh you read the comments!

that's true but doesn't change the facts of the piece.

Well it should make people wonder he’s reasoning for writing it. There is a clear conflict of interest.

It’s actually hilarious him questioning the morality of fans in favour of supporting the club while he accepts money from a regime similar.

gstack166

gstack166 wrote: »

Well it should make people wonder he’s reasoning for writing it. There is a clear conflict of interest.

It’s actually hilarious him questioning the morality of fans in favour of supporting the club while he accepts money from a regime similar.

well if he was being influenced by that part ownership (30% allegedly) then wouldn't be writing in favour of the deal?

if anything, shows that he's not influenced by it!

as regards the part-ownership, it was all designed never to come to light

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jul/23/evening-standard-and-independent-unable-to-rebut-concerns-over-saudi-ownership

marklazarcovic

So is it happening?

marklazarcovic

So is it happening?

Blazer

marklazarcovic wrote: »

So is it happening?

It takes about 30 days or so for the premier league ethics team to review everything. But it’s just a formality, they won’t block it at all as going by their criteria it’s all good.

gstack166

Blazer wrote: »

It takes about 30 days or so for the premier league ethics team to review everything. But it’s just a formality, they won’t block it at all as going by their criteria it’s all good.

Few reports it’s being held up due to Sky & BT urging the FBI to investigate the Saudi’s for piracy last year.

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as what we originally thought. I think it could be 50/50 as to wether this goes through or not.

Ultimately I suppose it depends on how badly the Saudi’s want the deal.

RasTa

Local brewery getting it on social media for releasing this can

Blazer

gstack166 wrote: »

Few reports it’s being held up due to Sky & BT urging the FBI to investigate the Saudi’s for piracy last year.

I don’t think it’s as clear cut as what we originally thought. I think it could be 50/50 as to wether this goes through or not.

Ultimately I suppose it depends on how badly the Saudi’s want the deal.

Nah that’s just a load of rubbish and more paper crap. If anything sky would be heavily in favour of it. The more rich people that come in and take over English clubs the better for sky.
And once they come in and the Arabs realize how much money sky pay out etc they won’t be long cracking down on piracy at home. Plus they can claim the law abiding MBS are helping Sky crack down on the evil pirates etc and look good.

We should be hearing how everything Is going in about 2 weeks or so.

Scoundrel

glasso wrote: »

oh you read the comments!

that's true but doesn't change the facts of the piece.

Oh no need to be so patronising!

It's a do as I say not as I do piece it's fine for Miguel to work for the Saudis but Newcastle fans are expected to stop following their club and denounce the owners why is that stinking piece of hypocrisy acceptable? Or could it be that Miguels true motivation is not human rights based but football based?

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

What difference will it make having billionaire saudis in charge?

Unless they're better at running a football club than Ashley, I don't see what all the fuss is about? (Although tbf I would probably roll the dice and get another owner - just to be rid of mr Ashley)

If they spend their billions, Newcastle will be heavily sanctioned by UEFA. They won't be buying the EPL title that's for sure... or even a top 4 spot either!

gstack166

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote: »

What difference will it make having billionaire saudis in charge?

Unless they're better at running a football club than Ashley, I don't see what all the fuss is about? (Although tbf I would probably roll the dice and get another owner - just to be rid of mr Ashley)

If they spend their billions, Newcastle will be heavily sanctioned by UEFA. They won't be buying the EPL title that's for sure... or even a top 4 spot either!

You would have to assume they’ve done their due diligence and have been told they expect City to win their case versus UEFA at CAS and of so then that would be the end of FFP you’d expect.

Otherwise as you say it’s a bit of a damp squid.

Blazer

Since it only goes back 3 years the Saudis could splash out 200-300 million without any sanctions.

gstack166

Blazer wrote: »

Since it only goes back 3 years the Saudis could splash out 200-300 million without any sanctions.

I would expect if CAS uphold City’s ban and this takeover goes through UEFA will once again adjust their rules to make it hard for Newcastle.

eagle eye

Gretas Gonna Get Ya! wrote:

If they spend their billions, Newcastle will be heavily sanctioned by UEFA. They won't be buying the EPL title that's for sure... or even a top 4 spot either!

You do know that Newcastle United have the potential to be one of the biggest clubs in the world?
Before the big money came into football they were in the top ten most supported teams worldwide.
It won't take them long to get back there with a couple of big name signings, more success on the field and an aggressive marketing effort.

gstack166

gstack166 wrote: »

You would have to assume they’ve done their due diligence and have been told they expect City to win their case versus UEFA at CAS and of so then that would be the end of FFP you’d expect.

Otherwise as you say it’s a bit of a damp squid.

That could be like the worst legal advice ever given!

Man City lost. They had a very expensive team of lawyers argue it all out and they lost. The only possible legal advice would be to point out they lost. Any lawyer saying their loss is a good sign that they'll not just win the appeal but bring down FFP, which has been used to sanction clubs over the past decade, and which has survived legal challenges before, could be exposing themselves to a claim that exceeds the insurance policies of most.

There is a very simple explanation why the Saudis might proceed despite spending limitations, it's the reason outlined by Khashoggi's fiancee and Amnesty International. It's not a football or financial transaction, it's sportswashing. The Saudis may view hundreds of millions spent improving their image as money well spent.

gstack166

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That could be like the worst legal advice ever given!

Man City lost. They had a very expensive team of lawyers argue it all out and they lost. The only possible legal advice would be to point out they lost. Any lawyer saying their loss is a good sign that they'll not just win the appeal but bring down FFP, which has been used to sanction clubs over the past decade, and which has survived legal challenges before, could be exposing themselves to a claim that exceeds the insurance policies of most.

There is a very simple explanation why the Saudis might proceed despite spending limitations, it's the reason outlined by Khashoggi's fiancee and Amnesty International. It's not a football or financial transaction, it's sportswashing. The Saudis may view hundreds of millions spent improving their image as money well spent.

They haven’t lost yet. They were deemed to have broken FFP by a committee that has a member on it that benefits from them being suspended. They said they were producing evidence that proved their innocence but UEFA wouldn’t look at it, they said from the start they wanted a fair hearing from an independent body but were denied it.

The evidence against them was from a hacked email that UEFA don’t have procession of and the man who did have it is imprisoned for the hacking of the emails amongst others.

A lawyer looking at it that understands European law would come to the conclusion that they have a very good chance of overturning it by an impartial jury.

gstack166

gstack166 wrote: »

A lawyer looking at it that understands European law would come to the conclusion that they have a very good chance of overturning it by an impartial jury.

Where to start.

You're just throwing words at it. The concept of a jury doesn't even exist in most European legal systems, a jury is a panel of people that consider matters (usually certain criminal trials) in common law jurisdictions. CAS isn't some Court applying European law, It's an arbitration process to which countries across the world have signed up. It does not have jurors, complaints are referred to panels appointed by it.

Of course Man City may succeed, but they lost a very hard fought battle in front of legal experts already, anyone advising a third party to enter a huge contract on the basis that Man City is on the verge of taking down FFP through CAS would be exposing themselves to an enormous claim.

gstack166

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where to start.

You're just throwing words at it. The concept of a jury doesn't even exist in most European legal systems, a jury is a panel of people that consider matters (usually certain criminal trials) in common law jurisdictions. CAS isn't some Court applying European law, It's an arbitration process to which countries across the world have signed up. It does not have jurors, complaints are referred to panels appointed by it.

Of course Man City may succeed, but they lost a very hard fought battle in front of legal experts already, anyone advising a third party to enter a huge contract on the basis that Man City is on the verge of taking down FFP through CAS would be exposing themselves to an enormous claim.

There was no hard fought battle. They opened the doors to UEFA to examine them for months, there was no assembled team of lawyers fighting their case (there is now) the UEFA president was even a guest at a champions league game last year. AFAIA they found nothing during their examination of the club during the investigation, the whole thing is based on the hacked emails.

Of course if I’m wrong and you present facts otherwise I’ll apologise.

Anyways, this is gone off topic from the thread.

gstack166

gstack166 wrote: »

Of course if I’m wrong and you present facts otherwise I’ll apologise.

Anyways, this is gone off topic from the thread.

Oh no need to apologise, you are correct insofar as of course Man City might win.

But anyone advising the Saudis to proceed to buy NUFC on the basis that they will win and take down FFP is taking a huge risk.

~Rebel~

gstack166 wrote: »

There was no hard fought battle. They opened the doors to UEFA to examine them for months, there was no assembled team of lawyers fighting their case (there is now) the UEFA president was even a guest at a champions league game last year. AFAIA they found nothing during their examination of the club during the investigation,

Then why did CAS refuse to throw out the case, as City petitioned for?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/11/15/man-city-appeal-against-uefa-investigation-potential-financial/

Would love to see a link to a statement detailing that UEFA found nothing during their examinations.

the whole thing is based on the hacked emails.

Not really... and this one is obviously common sense. You can't base a legal case on hacked emails. But those emails shone a spotlight on the issue, which the committee were then able to verify through the false information provided by Man City (and this is the bigger issue - the case isn't as much about breaching FFP, it's more about providing false information).

We don't have visibility on the details of the case, but discussions by those more au fait with this process (including in the Forbes article below) than we are have intimated its very very unlikely that the case at all rests on the leaks (which Man City have never said are not authentic incidentally), because it would be weak. UEFA"s confidence in the case means they have almost certainly backed it up using the falsified information Man City presented against them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2020/02/16/uefa-ban-manchester-city-for-2-years-separating-the-facts-from-fiction/#21d328c204fc

Of course if I’m wrong and you present facts otherwise I’ll apologise.

I like how you get to just throw things out there without reference, but other people supposedly need to present citations?

gstack166

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Then why did CAS refuse to throw out the case, as City petitioned for?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/11/15/man-city-appeal-against-uefa-investigation-potential-financial/

Would love to see a link to a statement detailing that UEFA found nothing during their examinations.



Not really... and this one is obviously common sense. You can't base a legal case on hacked emails. But those emails shone a spotlight on the issue, which the committee were then able to verify through the false information provided by Man City (and this is the bigger issue - the case isn't as much about breaching FFP, it's more about providing false information).

We don't have visibility on the details of the case, but discussions by those more au fait with this process (including in the Forbes article below) than we are have intimated its very very unlikely that the case at all rests on the leaks (which Man City have never said are not authentic incidentally), because it would be weak. UEFA"s confidence in the case means they have almost certainly backed it up using the falsified information Man City presented against them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2020/02/16/uefa-ban-manchester-city-for-2-years-separating-the-facts-from-fiction/#21d328c204fc



I like how you get to just throw things out there without reference, but other people supposedly need to present citations?

CAS seemed it inadmissible due to no decision having been made at the time. They couldn’t ‘appeal’ a decision when they’re wasn’t one, even though CAS stated they were worried about the leaks to the press:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/15/manchester-city-cas-appeal-financial-fair-play-uefa-dismissed

As for what UEFA have on City, The small trick here is that when you appeal at CAS City cannot produce new evidence of innocence but CAS will go through only evidence already given to take a decision. City I think contended that the Investigative Committee of UEFA didn't do a proper job

I've read it a few dozen times and now I see it. The information you put in front of CAS has to be dated prior to the decision of the IC or AC. So you cant present new evidence, that’s where UEFA are getting their confidence, of course they wouldn’t have banned them for 2 years otherwise.

City have stated from the start the process was flawed and they overlooked information giving to them by the club:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thenational.ae/sport/football/manchester-city-appeal-uefa-s-flawed-decision-so-what-happens-next-1.979233


In regards what UEFA found on City during their investigation it stated here by Forbes they were in breach of 2 charges

1. of falsely inflating sponsorship revenues when making submissions as part of the Financial Fair Play (FFP) compliance process;

2. of breaching regulations by failing to cooperate in the investigation of the case by the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB).

Both counts leaked in the hacked emails, there is no way possible for them to have found that in there investigations last year even if they are guilty of it because they have no authority to get ETIHAD to disclose the money so it’s obvious they’re going off the hacked emails.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2020/02/16/uefa-ban-manchester-city-for-2-years-separating-the-facts-from-fiction/amp/

Any time I do produce links to back my point up, I normally the human rights card or the ‘do you honestly think their innocent’ card thrown at me which is a totally different topic completely.

eagle eye

There's a thread all about the City case.

gstack166

eagle eye wrote: »

There's a thread all about the City case.

You’re right. I stated it was off topic a couple messages back but got dragged back into it again when I said I wouldn’t.

I’m done with replying to those posts about City in here now. Apologies.

TheCitizen

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52601464

Won't go down well with the 'Toonamy' round here

Blazer

TheCitizen wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52601464

Won't go down well with the 'Toonamy' round here

what won't?
The article or the fact she's speaking out against the merger?
Please articulate your posts so we actually know what you're talking about.

TheCitizen

Blazer wrote: »

what won't?
The article or the fact she's speaking out against the merger?
Please articulate your posts so we actually know what you're talking about.

The linked article with the woman speaking out against the merger. What do you think I'm talking about?

In the article she makes a lot of the points those speaking out against this takeover were on this thread but were dismissed by Newcastle fans as jealous or hypocrites etc. etc.

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote:

The linked article with the woman speaking out against the merger. What do you think I'm talking about?

This was all discussed here already.

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

This was all discussed here already.

Are you saying it shouldn't be discussed any further. Nothing to see here, move along..... Nope, doesn't work like that pal.

She calls on the English Premier League to block this deal. I hope they do. Despicable people involved in this takeover.

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote:

Are you saying it shouldn't be discussed any further. Nothing to see here, move along..... Nope, doesn't work like that pal.
]She calls on the English Premier League to block this deal. I hope they do. Despicable people involved in this takeover.

Read the thread, you are over a week late.
If it's such a big deal to you start a new thread about it, see if it gets any traction.

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

Read the thread, you are over a week late.

Why is it a week late? The article I've linked to is on the BBC football website today. This is an ongoing story, still being discussed whether you want to talk about it or not. Who are you to decide when it should no longer be discussed?

eagle eye wrote: »

If it's such a big deal to you start a new thread about it, see if it gets any traction.

Oh you'd like that wouldn't you. That would be convenient for you. The takeover is relevant to the football club of this thread, why should the takeover deal and the ramifications from it be compartmentalised off somewhere else.

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote:

Why is it a week late? The article I've linked to is on the BBC football website today. This is an ongoing story, still being discussed whether you want to talk about it or not. Who are you to decide when it should no longer be discussed?

Its a week.latecl because it's already been discussed in this thread. You are just rehashing old news.

TheCitizen wrote:

Oh you'd like that wouldn't you. That would be convenient for you. The takeover is relevant to the football club of this thread, why should the takeover deal and the ramifications from it be compartmentalised off somewhere else.

I'm not a Newcastle fan. I just see through people like you desperate to try and argue righteousness with some fan who loves his club and wants them to be successful..

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

Its a week.latecl because it's already been discussed in this thread. You are just rehashing old news.

Nope. It's an ongoing live story and it will continue to be discussed whether you like it or not.

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not a Newcastle fan. I just see through people like you desperate to try and argue righteousness with some fan who loves his club and wants them to be successful..

I'm not desperate to argue anything. I hadn't been thinking about this at all recently. It's on the first page of the Beeb football site today, that's why it's being discussed.

This takeover bid should be blocked. It brings the term Sportswashing to a new low.

If you don't want to talk about it that's your business, who do you think you are to tell others to not discuss it?

It will continue to be discussed and if the deal goes through it will forever be discussed for as long as they run that club.

Blazer

ah christ man give it a break. Go back and read the thread.
Hell I'm against to, said my piece and letting other fans make their own minds up.
But ye guys with your attitudes...ye sicken me as much as the saudis. All of ye thinking your opinion is more important etc.

eagle eye

So you let out all your righteous indignation now. Are you happy? Feel better?

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

So you let out all your righteous indignation now. Are you happy? Feel better?

Ah so it's "righteous indignation" to discuss an obvious case of sportswashing is it? Why are you so determined to shut down discussion of this? What's it to you if others discuss it?

TheCitizen

Blazer wrote: »

ah christ man give it a break. Go back and read the thread.
Hell I'm against to, said my piece and letting other fans make their own minds up.
But ye guys with your attitudes...ye sicken me as much as the saudis. All of ye thinking your opinion is more important etc.

So people speaking against this are as bad as the Saudis or as you put it "sicken" you as much as the Saudi's? Such an effort to shut down discussion on this.

You're not going to stop people talking about this, be very clear about that. It's a scandalous takeover.

Blazer

TheCitizen wrote: »

So people speaking against this are as bad as the Saudis or as you put it "sicken" you as much as the Saudi's? Such an effort to shut down discussion on this.

You're not going to stop people talking about this, be very clear about that. It's a scandalous takeover.

I completely agree...and we've discussed this over the past week if you had bothered to read the posts as you were asked.
But what are you expecting to achieve on this thread that other people haven't?
Hell I'm just putting you on ignore after I finish this post so you've already lost one poster with your attitude.
I'm guessing everyone else will do the same and what will that have achieved?
At least if you created a separate post you'd get other fans on it etc.

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote:

Ah so it's "righteous indignation" to discuss an obvious case of sportswashing is it? Why are you so determined to shut down discussion of this? What's it to you if others discuss it?

I'm not discussing the merits, I'm telling you it's old news. You are too late, you are not going to get people to bite which is all you are after.

TheCitizen

Blazer wrote: »

I completely agree...and we've discussed this over the past week if you had bothered to read the posts as you were asked.
But what are you expecting to achieve on this thread that other people haven't?
Hell I'm just putting you on ignore after I finish this post so you've already lost one poster with your attitude.
I'm guessing everyone else will do the same and what will that have achieved?
At least if you created a separate post you'd get other fans on it etc.

Nope. It should be discussed here in my opinion, it should not be shelved off someplace else, that's just blatant censorship.

You and others can ignore me if you like, this teakeover will still continue to be discussed. The "attitude" that stinks on here is attitudes like what you have that are trying to stop this scandalous takeover being discussed.

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not discussing the merits, I'm telling you it's old news. You are too late, you are not going to get people to bite which is all you are after.

It's not old news. I don't care if others "bite" or not. This is a discussion board is it not?

I haven't been on this thread for ages because I don't think about this issue every day, in fact I never thought much of or about Newcastle FC before at all, a rather mediocre club that never win much of anything. The issue of this scandalous takeover ain't going to go away just cos you want to wish it away.

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote:

It's not old news. I don't care if others "bite" or not. This is a discussion board is it not?

Enjoy preaching to nobody, you are already on an ignore list over it and I'm sure many others will do the same thing.
If you had went back and read the last two weeks of posts them you'd see how much discussion was already had about it. You didn't though, you just posted old, rehashed news like it was a totally new conversation.
It's clear you are looking for somebody to bite so you can have an argument where you take the high moral ground.
I think you'll find that everybody is on to you and you'll not get a response.

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

Enjoy preaching to nobody, you are already on an ignore list over it and I'm sure many others will do the same thing.
If you had went back and read the last two weeks of posts them you'd see how much discussion was already had about it. You didn't though, you just posted old, rehashed news like it was a totally new conversation.
It's clear you are looking for somebody to bite so you can have an argument where you take the high moral ground.
I think you'll find that everybody is on to you and you'll not get a response.

I'm not preaching to anyone and for the umpteenth time; it is not an old story. If you don't want to talk about it, off you go no one is forcing you. This takeover though and the scandal of it will rumble on.

eagle eye

TheCitizen wrote:

I'm not preaching to anyone and for the umpteenth time; it is not an old story. If you don't want to talk about it, off you go no one is forcing you. This takeover though and the scandal of it will rumble on.

The post you put up links to an old story.
As I said go back in the thread and read.

TheCitizen

eagle eye wrote: »

The post you put up links to an old story.
As I said go back in the thread and read.

Seeing as you keep coming back to me on this, repeating that it's an "old story" when it clearly isn't and is an evolving live story, does that mean I'm actually not on your "ignore list"?

ShamoBuc

TheCitizen wrote: »

Seeing as you keep coming back to me on this, repeating that it's an "old story" when it clearly isn't and is an evolving live story, does that mean I'm actually not on your "ignore list"?

Mod Note
Kindly get back to talking about all things Newcastle.