ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

[aggi]

Mainly the risk that it halves if we get relegated and we almost presumably become significantly loss making (albeit I don’t know what terms are in players contracts to protect against this). Also the risks associated with Covid - currently no visibility on when we may have capacity crowds again.

Time will tell, of course, but even if they pay £200m I think for certain there will be clauses withholding some of that cash based on future performance/PL status.

Without the risk of relegation we'd be worth a lot more than £200m.

[NewClaret]

Without the risk of relegation we'd be worth a lot more than £200m.

Well hopefully we’re not too far away from finding out one way or the other!

[Top Claret]

Yes sure, I would expect we have established whether all interested parties have got the funds once the negotiations reach a certain point. But I’m questioning why people can’t understand why it’s taken more than a year to get from initial discussions to where we are now.

It isn't about the length of the process what concerns people, it is about the damage it is heaping on the club through lack of investment on the field and also negligence in not tieing down Hendrick and Lennon, who Dyche wanted to keep.

[claretonthecoast1882]

It isn't about the length of the process what concerns people, it is about the damage it is heaping on the club through lack of investment on the field and also negligence in not tieing down Hendrick and Lennon, who Dyche wanted to keep.

How would you have gone about forcing Hendrick to sign ?

[Top Claret]

How would you have gone about forcing Hendrick to sign ?

If we had have entered negotiations earlier we would have had more chance of securing his services

[Barry_Chuckle]

How would you have gone about forcing Hendrick to sign ?

Chinese burn...... Works every time

For me, if there's a positive to take it's the fact we didnt tie Lennon down to a new contract. An aging, past his best bench warmer, tied down for another 2 years or so, isn't what we need in our "approaching retirement" squad.

[Zlatan]

If we had have entered negotiations earlier we would have had more chance of securing his services

Dont be silly, talking earlier would have only delayed the inevitable as we just simply didn't offer the right deal for him.

[randomclaret2]

Chinese burn...... Works every time

For me, if there's a positive to take it's the fact we didnt tie Lennon down to a new contract. An aging, past his best bench warmer, tied down for another 2 years or so, isn't what we need in our "approaching retirement" squad.

Except we then made Stephens our only signing...

[Rileybobs]

It isn't about the length of the process what concerns people, it is about the damage it is heaping on the club through lack of investment on the field and also negligence in not tieing down Hendrick and Lennon, who Dyche wanted to keep.

The length of the process was concerning the poster who I was replying to.

[Barry_Chuckle]

Except we then made Stephens our only signing...

Which is still not ideal, having said that, at least Stephen's is younger than Lennon. Lennon is 33, 34 in April, whereas Stephen's is sprightly 31 year old.
For me the Stephen's signing was the board trying to keep the fans and manager appeased during the takeover.

[claretonthecoast1882]

If we had have entered negotiations earlier we would have had more chance of securing his services

When do you think these talks began ?

[Danieljwaterhouse]

What relevance does Hendrick signing or not signing have to an impending takeover? If either bid is successful, we are looking at a new manner of business for BFC.

By the end of the day today/tomorrow we should have a preferred bid. Let’s be really clear, the Premier league will not sanction a bid from a cowboy, they’re very protective of their product.

[Murger]

What relevance does Hendrick signing or not signing have to an impending takeover? If either bid is successful, we are looking at a new manner of business for BFC.

By the end of the day today/tomorrow we should have a preferred bid. Let’s be really clear, the Premier league will not sanction a bid from a cowboy, they’re very protective of their product.

I take it they've improved their checks since Portsmouth were in the league?

[Danieljwaterhouse]

I take it they've improved their checks since Portsmouth were in the league?

I think they’ve changed the process from the recent Newcastle takeover!

[Top Claret]

What relevance does Hendrick signing or not signing have to an impending takeover?

Obviously non whatsoever. The point I make is that the board have taken their eye of the ball in trying to secure the services of one of our better players.
Dyche said last spring that they had not done enough to retain his services.

As for the takeover lets hope you are right and things are now taking off and we can welcome new owners, wether they are from Peking or Peckham

[BurnleyPaul]

By the end of the day today/tomorrow we should have a preferred bid.

Any reason for being so precise with the timescale DJW? What exactly do you know?

[AndyClaret]

Any reason for being so precise with the timescale DJW? What exactly do you know?

Isn'tt the Egyptian meeting with the premier League today ?

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Any reason for being so precise with the timescale DJW? What exactly do you know?

I understand that there has been reporting made to the league in regards to the sale/purchase. This will be verified and the green light given to the club to move forward.

[BurnleyPaul]

Thanks for clarifying DJW...

Which bid are you talking about btw? ALK or El Kashashy?

[ClaretTony]

We keep being told talks have been ongoing for over 12 months! How much more time do they need!?

I am not aware of anyone involved saying they've been going on for over 12 months. I do know that we issued a prospectus around two years ago. I've no idea when talks started with these two parties and I've no idea where this 'for over 12 months' has come from.

[Goddy]

I understand that there has been reporting made to the league in regards to the sale/purchase. This will be verified and the green light given to the club to move forward.

I presume only one of the bidders (the preferred one, clearly) would be going to the Premier League, today. Is that your understanding djw? I presume you couldn't have both interested parties going to the League and then allowing MG to finalise a deal with one or t'other? Surely the PL would only be interested in giving approval to a preferred bidder? If so, does that mean the ALK deal is extremely unlikely to proceed (unless the PL do not approve the other deal)?

[Grumps]

I am not aware of anyone involved saying they've been going on for over 12 months. I do know that we issued a prospectus around two years ago. I've no idea when talks started with these two parties and I've no idea where this 'for over 12 months' has come from.

The press reports I think

[claretblue]

DJW 'liked' AndyClarets post!

...that might be a clue BP!

[randomclaret2]

I am not aware of anyone involved saying they've been going on for over 12 months. I do know that we issued a prospectus around two years ago. I've no idea when talks started with these two parties and I've no idea where this 'for over 12 months' has come from.

Several media outlets , including Sky and The Mirror have mentioned " over 12 months " and The Athletic article mentioned " almost a year "

[TVC15]

‘ As for the takeover lets hope you are right and things are now taking off and we can welcome new owners, wether they are from Peking or Peckham’

Stick a pony in me pocket
I'll fetch the suitcase from the van
Cause if you want the best 'uns
And you don't ask questions
Then brother I'm your man

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Several media outlets , including Sky and The Mirror have mentioned " over 12 months " and The Athletic article mentioned " almost a year "

It’s not been over 12 months for either bid

[Quickenthetempo]

I am not aware of anyone involved saying they've been going on for over 12 months. I do know that we issued a prospectus around two years ago. I've no idea when talks started with these two parties and I've no idea where this 'for over 12 months' has come from.

When DanielJWaterhouse broke the news on this site he said they had been in talks for over a year.
As well as newspapers, although they may have just quoted posts off this messageboard?

[claretandy]

A quarter of Birmingham has been sold for £5.4m.

[randomclaret2]

A quarter of Birmingham has been sold for £5.4m.

The football club or the city ?

[Barry_Chuckle]

A quarter of Birmingham has been sold for £5.4m.

They've massively overpaid, you ever been to Balsall Heath or Handsworth?

[RMutt]

I presume only one of the bidders (the preferred one, clearly) would be going to the Premier League, today. Is that your understanding djw? I presume you couldn't have both interested parties going to the League and then allowing MG to finalise a deal with one or t'other? Surely the PL would only be interested in giving approval to a preferred bidder? If so, does that mean the ALK deal is extremely unlikely to proceed (unless the PL do not approve the other deal)?

It's been hinted at that the Elkashashy bid is state funded. Is there a way the Premier League can not find that a bit didgy?

[Chester Perry]

It's been hinted at that the Elkashashy bid is state funded. Is there a way the Premier League can not find that a bit didgy?

We have been through this once already and it has been much more heavily documented on the MMT thread previously

The reason the Newcastle bid faltered at the Owners and Directors test stage is that the Premier League where determined to find who the ultimate owner would be - these 2 articles are a reasonable starting ground

I am not sure that this is actual new news - The Mail on the central difficulty in the Saudi takeover bid for Newcastle United

Newcastle's £300m takeover collapsed because of concerns the Saudi Arabian state would control the club as it's revealed Premier League's offer to break the deadlock was REJECTED by consortium during crucial Owners and Directors Test
- Newcastle's £300m proposed takeover bid dramatically fell through last month
- Sportsmail can reveal it collapsed due to a dispute over who would own the club
- Premier League wished to make plain the link between club and Saudi Arabia
- Offer to place the issue in arbitration was rejected before the buyers pulled out
By MARTIN SAMUEL FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 13 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:44, 13 August 2020

Newcastle United’s takeover collapsed in a stalemate over whether the Saudi Arabian state would be in control of the club after the deal went through, Sportsmail can reveal.

A petition approaching 108,000 signatures has now been raised, calling on the Premier League to explain their reasons for delaying the takeover, after Mike Ashley accepted a £300million offer from a consortium made up of the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, the Reuben Brothers and Amanda Staveley.

Richard Masters, the Premier League’s chief executive, has been personally targeted, with his home address circulated on online fan forums.

The dispute concerned the completion of a key Premier League form in the owners and directors test regarding club control and ownership — and the 80 per cent stake in the club that would reside with Saudi Arabia.

The Premier League wished to make plain the link between the Saudi Arabian state and Newcastle, but met resistance. An offer to place the issue in arbitration to break the deadlock was also rebuffed before the consortium announced it was pulling out. The Premier League have never rejected the Newcastle takeover.

The lengthy legal dispute over state ownership explains why the process dragged on for months, with the Premier League reluctant to make a definitive ruling.

What seemed like inertia on the Premier League’s part was in fact an impasse, with the League refusing to recognise the Saudi Arabia PIF as different to or independent from the state, given that its chairman, Mohammed bin Salman, is also the de facto head of Saudi Arabia.

Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of the PIF, was to be the principal Saudi representative on the Newcastle board, but the Premier League were unhappy the direct link to state governance was not being made clear. This sparked fears the owners and directors test would not be passed. It was at that point arbitration was suggested with the League seeking an independent ruling on who would own Newcastle.

If an arbitrator had ruled in Newcastle’s favour, the Saudis would have been required to go ahead with owner registration. This would have given the League the right to call Newcastle’s ownership to account over TV piracy by network beoutQ.

As is the want of the Mail these days they split the story into multiple parts - this again from MArtin Samuel as to why the Premier League is much more stringent - does it add up for you?

Ali al-Faraj's reign at Portsmouth left the Premier League with scars over transparency of ownership... it was the Saudi-consortium's failure to answer one easy question that saw their £300m Newcastle deal die
- Newcastle's takeover failed because it wasn't clear who would be in charge
- Ali al-Faraj' stint at Portsmouth made the Premier League more stringent
- Richard Masters is taking the heat, but it collapsed due to lack of transparency
By MARTIN SAMUEL - SPORT FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 13 August 2020 | UPDATED: 22:30, 13 August 2020

Ali al-Faraj scuppered the deal to buy Newcastle. Well, not him personally. Maybe not him at all. That’s the point. Nobody quite knew. Al-Faraj, a Saudi Arabian, owned Portsmouth for roughly four months between October 2009 and February 2010, or maybe he didn’t. Either way, the Premier League determined: never again.

Not never again for Saudi Arabians. Never again without transparency.

The Premier League struggled to get to the bottom of Portsmouth’s ownership structure, as the club slipped further towards financial collapse. That is why the owners and directors test became more stringent.

It is not, as some seem to think, an assessment of whether Amnesty International think you are a nice bloke. It is whether you have the money, short-term, to run a football club — no governing body can seek to guarantee long-term fiscal buoyancy — and whether the listed owners are personally accountable.

Portsmouth left scars that haven’t quite healed. Every time the Premier League are accused of poor governance, Portsmouth is the club that is cited.

And the Newcastle takeover did not stall because the Premier League thought the buyers were scoundrels. It was satisfied about the money. It had no issues with personnel. But there were compliance issues that raked up some old ground.

Who, exactly, is in charge of this football club? Can you put it down on this piece of paper? Are we satisfied with this answer?

Potential reputational damage, broadcast piracy, these subjects were swirling in the background and no doubt became part of a wider discussion, too. Yet the bottom line was less complicated. The consortium felt they had answered all the questions over club ownership structure, the Premier League disagreed.

They suggested arbitration, the consortium declined. And then they pulled out.

Al-Faraj bought 90 per cent of Portsmouth from Dr Sulaiman al-Fahim, who had owned it for a mighty 42 days, with money it now transpires was stolen from his wife.

In 2018, Al-Fahim was sentenced to five years imprisonment, in his absence, for forgery, using forged documents and aiding and abetting.

Enter Al-Faraj, whose reign was slightly longer but no less troubled. Players went unpaid, Avram Grant was appointed manager and the new owner never set foot inside the club.

Huge loans were taken out and secured against Fratton Park, future television revenue and Al-Faraj’s stake. When repayments were not made, the club became the property of the loan supplier Balram Chainrai. We’ll have to move on from what happened next to Portsmouth, because there really isn’t the room.

What can be said is Al-Faraj’s stewardship of the club was shrouded in such mystery he became known as Al Mirage within Premier League headquarters. Dr Hafez al-Medlej, chairman of the Saudi Professional League Commission, claimed never to have heard of him. For three days after the takeover, no picture appeared in a Saudi newspaper. When an interview was finally published, Portsmouth claimed it had been invented. The newspaper responded Al-Faraj had authorised his brother, Ahmed, to speak on his behalf.

Years later, puzzles remain. Was it his money? Did he have any money? Was he a front? The same questions that continue to rage around clubs such as Bury and Charlton were raised over Portsmouth more than a decade ago.

Different ones are being asked of Newcastle now. A petition of 108,000 names, and rising, demands explanations from the Premier League over delays that contributed to the withdrawal.

At first, the reason behind the collapse seems quite clear: piracy. Saudi Arabia wished to be a member of a club, while at the same time looting its assets.

At the front, they would be steering the project at Newcastle, shaking hands with their fellow Premier League shareholders. At the back, they would be waging a war against beIn Sports, owned by Qatar, and official rights holders for the Middle East and North Africa. They would be pirating feeds and broadcasting illegally. How could the Premier League welcome an owner with those connections?

And it is true after considering the Newcastle deal, the Premier League regarded the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund — which was 80 per cent of the consortium — as part of the Saudi state.

It was not a leftfield or controversial conclusion, because everybody else did, too. Yet it was important given that the World Trade Organisation ruled the pirate broadcaster beoutQ was ‘operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia’ and the Saudi state had breached intellectual property rights by failing to tackle piracy. Saudi Arabia had also repeatedly blocked the League taking legal action against the pirate broadcaster illegally streaming matches.

The Premier League supplied evidence to the WTO directly detailing Saudi piracy and chief executive Richard Masters named Saudi Arabia to Parliament when discussing the protection of sports rights. So how could a Saudi-owned club be welcomed to the Premier League’s table?

Yet that isn’t the whole picture. In many ways, it would be advantageous for the Premier League to be in business with Saudi Arabia. If the piracy issue remained, they could go through the front door and apply pressure. Equally, if it was not dealt with and beIn Sports pulled out or demanded rights money back, this would directly impact on Newcastle’s finances. The Saudis would have skin in the game.

And once inside, the old adage about tents and the direction of micturition would apply.

Except when the Premier League sought to engage their newest owners, it got complex. It is, apparently, very plain who owns and runs Manchester City. Rival clubs do not like sovereign wealth clubs because they are financially strong and hard to beat. Yet City’s structure satisfied all ownership criteria. Newcastle’s did not.

And the consortium must have been aware of this because that was the reason the takeover dragged on for months: the legal conversations, the clarifications, the call and response.

So when the buyers revert to a default position of whipping up Newcastle’s support through the media, when it demands answers of the Premier League — why so coy? It was even suggested this week that Mike Ashley would sue the League for the takeover’s collapse. Why would he do that when, in all likelihood, he will have to work with these people for the foreseeable future?

One imagines he knows why the deal floundered, and the consortium will, too. They will certainly know what the Premier League was asking, and the possible ways forward from there. Yet they let Masters take the heat and play dumb around the petitioners.

It’s a very simple question: who owns Newcastle? Nobody should need months to answer that.

[RMutt]

Sorry if I'm going over old news, it's just that our man who 'could be in the know' seems to think that the Elkashashy bid is the favoured one but at the same time suggesting it could be state funded. I just wonder if it's going to fall apart at the Premier League?

[Danieljwaterhouse]

Sorry if I'm going over old news, it's just that our man who 'could be in the know' seems to think that the Elkashashy bid is the favoured one but at the same time suggesting it could be state funded. I just wonder if it's going to fall apart at the Premier League?

Read above, the money isn’t the issue.

[RMutt]

Read above, the money isn’t the issue.

Sorry, you’ll have to spell it out. Are you saying the Premier League are happy with state funding, as long as it’s transparent and not from Saudi Arabia?

[Chester Perry]

Sorry, you’ll have to spell it out. Are you saying the Premier League are happy with state funding, as long as it’s transparent and not from Saudi Arabia?

No - owners have to make guarantees that include things like not being involved in corruption, illegal activity and piracy - that is a huge commitment a state could not (and probably should not) make.

[RMutt]

No - owners have to make guarantees that include things like not being involved in corruption, illegal activity and piracy - that is a huge commitment a state could not (and probably should not) make.

OK. So let’s say our bidder is state funded then presumably it falls at the Premier League meeting hurdle?

[Chester Perry]

OK. So let’s say our bidder is state funded then presumably it falls at the Premier League meeting hurdle?

In the Emirates states are ruled by royal families - the easiest way to get the deal through would be for a close relative of the ruler to be the front person for the deal - like at Manchester City. The Saudi deal was fronted by the PiF which they could not demonstrate as not being ultimately controlled by the state even though that was the claim, because the articles of the PiF said they were ultimately controlled by the state.

the key is that there must be clarity of who is the ultimate owner and that owner must legally contract to the Premier League in terms of standards and conditions of membership

[RMutt]

Yes, I can see how in some Middle Eastern countries private wealth and state wealth are very closely related. But that’s not the case with our bidder is it?

[Chester Perry]

Yes, I can see how in some Middle Eastern countries private wealth and state wealth are very closely related. But that’s not the case with our bidder is it?

we don't know, it has been suggested, but as you have seen that can be played out in various ways to get approval

[RMutt]

Thanks CP and DJW. I don’t think I’m any nearer to an answer of my original question really but I appreciate your patience. I suppose we will have to just wait and see what comes out in the wash.

[cblantfanclub]

"am not aware of anyone involved saying they've been going on for over 12 months. I do know that we issued a prospectus around two years ago. I've no idea when talks started with these two parties and I've no idea where this 'for over 12 months' has come from."

Try the Times article of March 2018 that mentions both the bids.

[Danieljwaterhouse]

If the money is coming from state owned, that state would effectively be taking on the terms and conditions stipulated by the premier league. Those stipulate for example, no piracy. We are led to believe that this would be a problem for some Middle Eastern states who may dabble.

Effectively, it opens up a huge investigative hole that people would be very willing to jump into

[ClaretTony]

"am not aware of anyone involved saying they've been going on for over 12 months. I do know that we issued a prospectus around two years ago. I've no idea when talks started with these two parties and I've no idea where this 'for over 12 months' has come from."

Try the Times article of March 2018 that mentions both the bids.

So a Times article referred to these two bids two and a half years ago. If they did then, from the info I have, that's amazing.

[cblantfanclub]

Google it and see for yourself it's still on line

[cblantfanclub]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/

[Dodobdobodobo]

75BFB2CD-B301-4A5D-B3FC-233724D421CF.jpeg (607.71 KiB) Viewed 3574 times

Gone up 20 million. Fair play to MG for holding out

[randomclaret2]

So 2 years 8 months ago ?

[BurnleyFC]

So 2 years 8 months ago ?

We must be doing some really thorough due diligence checks!

[randomclaret2]

Are we a more , or less attractive proposition now ?