• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

All NUFC and Sportswashing here (threads will be merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mackem2017 said:
‘Another’ statement appointment? Are they trying to claim they’ve made a statement by appointing Eddie Howe? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
Looks like they’re going down to the dungeon!!
Heavyweights would leap at the chance to go to the worlds richest club 🙄 no more than a comic tray rag
 
mag in peace said:
Many many mag fans dislike him. Many.
Click to expand...
I don't know how he manages it mind. He seems to be genuinely disliked by almost all mags (with the exception of a few sycophants on twitter) and yet still manages to get wheeled onto shows etc as some sort of voice of the Newcastle fans. Fuck me you lot think he's as much of a whopper as we do, and when that's one of the only things that the two sets of fans agree on you really must be a prize wanker
 
mag in peace said:
You must be logged on to see media items

'It is also likely to raise questions about the appetite of credible candidates to replace him, given the demonstration of muscle-flexing power by Premier League clubs which has heralded his exit.

Some senior figures in the game argue that Mr Hoffman is being unfairly left to carry the can over the Newcastle deal, and say the League's board was put in an impossible position'

Yet all along they tried to deny interference. I feel a bit for the bloke. He was never going to win this. He's losing his job because the big 6 didn't get their own way. At the same time, he's colluded with the corruption and allowed this influence.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that the Premier League clubs owners are a bunch of self serving hypocrites, but that takes nothing away from the fact that your club is now owned by a regime that was happy to dismember a journalist who was critical of said regime.

Everything else is just noise.
 
Pancho said:
I have no doubt that the Premier League clubs owners are a bunch of self serving hypocrites, but that takes nothing away from the fact that your club is now owned by a regime that was happy to dismember a journalist who was critical of said regime.

Everything else is just noise.
Click to expand...
But that's not why he is stepping down. Or rather being forced to step down. The top 6 have proved time and time again they only have their own interests in mind. They don't give a shit.

We do and rightly so. The rules absolutely need changing but this isn't a 'Hoffman loses job for passing takeover' headline. He's lost his job because he disobeyed the lobbying by the top 6. He couldn't fail the test because by the rules the PL wrote and passed, it passed.
 
You must be logged on to see media items

All Keith the Fraudsters doing this. The takeover was because of him and a letter he wrote. I bet the fucker cannot even spell.
 
mag in peace said:
This fella is corrupt as fuck and not for the reasons people seem to be suggesting on here.

He was appointed despite having clear links with Qatar and Bein sports to stop the takeover. He is now facing being 'removed' because he couldn't do that.

More blatant proof of corruption doesn't exist. He 'technically' followed the rules of the EPL to pass the takeover. Whether we like it or not he eventually acted as he should (as rules currently stand). To remove him now, shows he was appointed with an agenda.

Newcastle fans said this all along.
Click to expand...

He did no such thing. It's an OWNERS and directors test. To ignore the first part and blatently disregard Saudi involvement in piracy of PL rights (of which the settlement makes no difference) is, far from following the rules, riding roughshod over them. By the way, why is Al-Ramayyam being called "Chairman" when he has not, in fact, been appointed a director of Newcastle United Ltd?
jlaws said:
I know you are not a fool but a 120m loan at a rate like MSD charge of 7.9% is 9.48m. There was not many seasons where the mags had 9.48m kicking about and if it was compounded for 14 years a whopping 347m at the end. He has left the ground, academy, structure in a shite state but that's the Prem for you - most of the cash goes on transfers and wages. If the academy, ground etc. were in good shape the loan to Mike would have been so large that you would still be owned by him as the sale price of 305m or so would have given him peanuts once the debt was paid off. I think the toon are barking up the wrong tree with this advertising talk. Let's see where Queen Mandy stands when 200m is needed for a signings, wages and a new training ground and needs to find 20m.
Click to expand...

Of that total, only £120m was in Newcastle United. The other £250m was in St James Holdings, which is still owned by Mike Ashley.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
He did no such thing. It's an OWNERS and directors test. To ignore the first part and blatently disregard Saudi involvement in piracy of PL rights (of which the settlement makes no difference) is, far from following the rules, riding roughshod over them. By the way, why is Al-Ramayyam being called "Chairman" when he has not, in fact, been appointed a director of Newcastle United Ltd?
Click to expand...
He didn't disregard it, the issue was settled. If Bein have said it's settled, he can hardly say no it is not can he 🤷🏻 why is he expected to keep the top 6 updated on progress of our takeover? That's odd don't you think? I can't imagine it's normal practice.

As for the chairman comment, on the PL website -
You must be logged on to see external links


He is clearly listed as a director. So according to them, he is. Why that is not on companies house yet, who knows 🤷🏻

We can go back and forth over this as much as we want but by letter of the owners and directors test, it passed. It shouldn't have, but it did.
 
mag in peace said:
He didn't disregard it, the issue was settled. If Bein have said it's settled, he can hardly say no it is not can he 🤷🏻 why is he expected to keep the top 6 updated on progress of our takeover? That's odd don't you think? I can't imagine it's normal practice.

As for the chairman comment, on the PL website -
You must be logged on to see external links


He is clearly listed as a director. So according to them, he is. Why that is not on companies house yet, who knows 🤷🏻

We can go back and forth over this as much as we want but by letter of the owners and directors test, it passed. It shouldn't have, but it did.
Click to expand...

Under the rules, historical piracy counts just as much as as a current offence, and the settlement is more or less a guilty plea.

On the other point, they daren't confirm Al-Ramayyam, as that would blow the "Saudis won't be running the club" smokescreen out of the water.
 
Last edited:
Grumpy Old Man said:
He did no such thing. It's an OWNERS and directors test. To ignore the first part and blatently disregard Saudi involvement in piracy of PL rights (of which the settlement makes no difference) is, far from following the rules, riding roughshod over them. By the way, why is Al-Ramayyam being called "Chairman" when he has not, in fact, been appointed a director of Newcastle United Ltd?


Of that total, only £120m was in Newcastle United. The other £250m was in St James Holdings, which is still owned by Mike Ashley.
Click to expand...

That's what I said?
 
mag in peace said:
He didn't disregard it, the issue was settled. If Bein have said it's settled, he can hardly say no it is not can he 🤷🏻 why is he expected to keep the top 6 updated on progress of our takeover? That's odd don't you think? I can't imagine it's normal practice.

As for the chairman comment, on the PL website -
You must be logged on to see external links


He is clearly listed as a director. So according to them, he is. Why that is not on companies house yet, who knows 🤷🏻

We can go back and forth over this as much as we want but by letter of the owners and directors test, it passed. It shouldn't have, but it did.
Click to expand...
All past misdemeanours are looked at in the owners test
 
Fecking hell, I just so hope the skunks fail in epic fashion.
I know you can't tar them all with the same brush, and there are some, just some, decent human beings amongst them
But ffs....a plague on their houses
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Under the rules, historical piracy counts just as much as as a current offence, and the settlement is more or less a guilty plea.

On the other point, they daren't confirm Al-Ramayyam, as that would blow the "Saudis won't be running the club" smokescreen out of the water.
Click to expand...
Nobody has claimed the Saudi's won't be running the club 🤷🏻 at least not that I've read.
 
I feel sorry for Hoffman, I imagine he’s falling on his sword and will take a chunky payoff.

Stops the deal based on piracy and links between Saudi state and PIF. Is bizarrely accused of being a corrupt Qatari plant working against the Saudi state.

Qatar then accept hush money from Saudi around piracy and it appears the UK government gold plated a mysterious guarantee PIF and the Saudi state were separate, two blocks removed and Hoffman literally had no choice but to sign off on the deal, no matter how odd it all was.

Nothing to do with Keith, Wraith, Hoffman or the global conspiracy to stop us getting back to the Intertoto Cup glory days and all to do with Saudi money.
 
mag in peace said:
To be fair, I politely disagree. We have had nearly 2000pages since the takeover was announced. In that time, we have played 2 games. You wouldn't get 2k pages for two games.

You could probably collate all things Sunderland into one thread and not get that many pages.

It's because it's a contentious issue and because a lot of your fans do enjoy a Newcastle thread. That coupled with international breaks and fuck all else happening.
Click to expand...
Hate beats love

also nufc fans pay money to watch sunderland regularly,
 
jlaws said:
I know you are not a fool but a 120m loan at a rate like MSD charge of 7.9% is 9.48m. There was not many seasons where the mags had 9.48m kicking about and if it was compounded for 14 years a whopping 347m at the end. He has left the ground, academy, structure in a shite state but that's the Prem for you - most of the cash goes on transfers and wages. If the academy, ground etc. were in good shape the loan to Mike would have been so large that you would still be owned by him as the sale price of 305m or so would have given him peanuts once the debt was paid off. I think the toon are barking up the wrong tree with this advertising talk. Let's see where Queen Mandy stands when 200m is needed for a signings, wages and a new training ground and needs to find 20m.
Click to expand...
I have alluded to your final point a few times on here. Presumably the consortium shareholder agreement requires parity of funding in line with the equity holdings, the PIF crew won't be increasing the value of the business whilst the others don't or can't pay their way. Maybe they will issue and buy up new capital and simply dilute Queen Manda out, perhaps the Reubens can/will meet their share of funding requirement or they too will vanish. Possibly the plan is to spend so 'little' that it's not actually a big deal for the Reubens but whichever way you cut it it's hard to see Staveley lasting as a stakeholder, maybe a paid executive director though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top