Right & proper Ownership? Potential law suit

[Ragatino]

To be honest, I don't think many of our fans would have a problem contributing if there was a realistic chance of a successful outcome and I agree with what was said earlier-fans of other clubs would be up for it too.

My problem isn't with the idea per se-and let me add that I like the way you're thinking out of the box and trying to come up with a plan-it's more a case of my own ignorance of any legal basis for the validity of any lawsuit. My initial thought would be that there is no legal requirement for a prospective owner to either know or care about what the club means to its supporters or for them to have an emotional connection. I don't know what the legal requirements are for a prospective owner to pass the fit and proper test but I'm guessing that the aforementioned issues aren't covered. Anyone know?

Mr Zippity, I'm no more informed about the prospective legal challenge or if there is even a possible case.

I would think the best way to go about it would be to contact the national trust & every Newcastle MP & Councillor.

Asking the National trust to be involved with the heritage of the club, it's ties to the former ship yards, mines and other heavy industry which gave Tyneside it's identity, would help to promote the idea that this owner is not maintaining the integrity of the historic significance of the club.

Getting the political support from the local MPs and councillors ( who we should be aware have a real disdain for the Owner, his attitude to employees & parliament ) to also being asking questions in Parliament regarding the nature of the FA & the Premier Leagues management of buy-outs & club ownership.

We have a lot to go at. I'm sure there are some technicalities which would peak the interested of several law firms.

Also just the publicity alone. Even if we don't necessarily sweep to victory and secure a settlement of billions or find any legal wrong doing by the owner & his henchmen it will force the FA & Premier League to review their processes and also make the idea of club ownership a much more hostile environment, which, would deter hucksters & charlatans like our current owner from getting involved.

Another consideration is that the hassle from MPs & a fan led movement of legal action may well force the owners hand and see him sell out and scuttle off back to his warehouse of tat in the east middles, never to return.

Food for thought.

Sadly I'm not based in the UK at present & no longer tied into the fans groups. However I am happy to provide any support possible.

Does anyone know the guys who attend the fans forum or are part of a group/union/collective of NUFC fans who may be interested in supporting this endeavour?

Should we get traction with the idea, we could then reach out to the likes of Blackburn etc who's fans I'm sure would jump at the chance to cause their dodgy owners a bit of heart break considering how much pain those guys have suffered in recent years!

Ideally, we'll sweep to victory and they make a netflix movie about us, I'd insist David Ginola plays me Because I'm worth it haha

[Ragatino]

Fit-and-proper-person test - introduced in 2004 - four years before the MASH take over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fit-an...er-person_test

Disqualifying events
The Premier League has tighter restrictions than the Football League or National League. In general, a businessman will fail the test if:

They have power or influence over another Football League club
They hold a significant interest in another Football League club
They become prohibited by law from being a director
They are filing for bankruptcy
They have been director of a club while it has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency
They have been a director of two or more clubs of which, while they have been director, has suffered an event of insolvency

The rules appear to be solely focused on dual ownership in the same league & the financial solvency of the individual.

Not very helpful for cause but I'll keep digging.

[Ragatino]

Reading this article (see link below) reminded me of about the ethos of the Premier league agreement to all clubs who compete in competition. The money is divided between ALL teams in the league to ensure that it remains a competitive & exciting league.

Quote from the article:

'Fans, and Benitez, are rightly questioning where the £123million-plus Premier League TV money from last season has disappeared to. And, even if all that has been used up - which seems hard to believe - then there is surely no excuse as to why the £40m-£50m lump-sum payment United are due from the Premier League cannot be made available. The Premier League actually state that such finances are distributed in order for them to be spent on transfers - but Newcastle are yet to do so this summer.'

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/spor...ourse-14924205


The take away message here which stuck a cord with me was the 'The Premier League actually state that such finances are distributed in order for them to be spent on transfers - but Newcastle are yet to do so this summer.'

An potential legal team would have to analysis the contractual agreements by which each club ascribe, laid out by the Premier league, then I think there might genuinely be room for legal recourse to cooborate the claim that the owner is not 'Right & Proper'.

If the money is going into MASH holdings and being disipated through dubious 'clever accounting' there should be enough scope to cause a big enough stink for the Premier league to reconsider the current owners tenure. Again it's not perfect but at this point it is about making the owners situation as uncomfortable as possible. Give the man a dose of his own medic

[Ragatino]

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...irectors-test/

'Dishonest Act' means any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest.

This is interesting - The owner's business practices which he was summonsed to appear before a parliamentary committee would certainly lend weight to the claim the man is a walking 'Dishonest act'

[ashingtoon62]

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance...irectors-test/

'Dishonest Act' means any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest.

This is interesting - The owner's business practices which he was summonsed to appear before a parliamentary committee would certainly lend weight to the claim the man is a walking 'Dishonest act'

I watched the select committee malarkey on TV,he should have got an Oscar for that one.
The best Uriah Heep chacterisation EVER,Dickens would have been proud FFS.

He was sitting there wringing his fecking cap oot saying "Me sir no sir,very sorry sir,I'm just a fick barrow boy me sir.I fink I have bitten more off than I can chew sir wif SD.."


A most despicable fu cking tw@t I have ever laid eyes on....

[dagenhamJohn]

having a criminal record, being photographed staggering drunk out of some brothel in the early hours and hiring cheap labour while hardly being able to grasp the most simple English phrases usually qualifies you with excellence i believe......
as you were
john.

[Cannylad]

The only way you will get rid of this cnut is to totally boycott St. James's Park and I do mean TOTALLY and stop buying any of his tat, which we all know is never going to happen, other than that we are stuck with him for the foreseeable. As long as he is making money he will never sell up, he doesn't give a sh!t about what we think of him. Talk of suing him in my eyes is just pie in the sky.

[Ragatino]

The only way you will get rid of this cnut is to totally boycott St. James's Park and I do mean TOTALLY and stop buying any of his tat, which we all know is never going to happen, other than that we are stuck with him for the foreseeable. As long as he is making money he will never sell up, he doesn't give a sh!t about what we think of him. Talk of suing him in my eyes is just pie in the sky.

Howay bonny lad, realistically a 'total boycott' is never gonna happen.

We are a small group of supporters here on this forum & the vast majority won't even turn up late let alone stand outside and protest or simply stay away.

I'm not saying that any legal action will work but it will hopefully give the owner most hassle & with SD posting such big losses perhaps it would be enough to change his mind over Staveley's bid.

However looking at the bigger picture. This issue of sh!tty owners is bigger than our famous old club but it's about the integrity of our national past time & the great historic institutions on which the history and the legend is built.

[Cannylad]

Howay bonny lad, realistically a 'total boycott' is never gonna happen.

We are a small group of supporters here on this forum & the vast majority won't even turn up late let alone stand outside and protest or simply stay away.

I'm not saying that any legal action will work but it will hopefully give the owner most hassle & with SD posting such big losses perhaps it would be enough to change his mind over Staveley's bid.

However looking at the bigger picture. This issue of sh!tty owners is bigger than our famous old club but it's about the integrity of our national past time & the great historic institutions on which the history and the legend is built.

Read my post again, I said it would never happen. Howay man!

[Ragatino]

As long as he is making money he will never sell up, he doesn't give a sh!t about what we think of him. Talk of suing him in my eyes is just pie in the sky.

Pie in the Sky? Howay man! If ya divvent try ya divvent know man!

Is it not better to have a crack on and failing rather than not try at all, eh?