Wednesday afternoon brought breaking news of an improved Amanda Staveley offer for Newcastle United.

Sky Sports and various newspapers reported the news/story almost simultaneously, suggesting they had been briefed by somebody in the know.

There had been a stand-off with Amanda Staveley said to have offered £250m and Mike Ashley holding out for at least £300m.

Wednesday’s story claimed that the offer had been increased to around that £300m mark and maybe perhaps just as importantly, certain clauses had been removed as part of this new offer.

However, on Thursday night, Sky Sports are now reporting that whilst a new offer may well have been made it does NOT have the problematic relegation clause removed.

This would potentially see Mike Ashley having to compensate the successful bidders if Newcastle ended up being relegated this season.

One point from twenty four and successive home defeats to Leicester and Everton have hardly helped the process and with Arsenal and West Ham away, then Manchester City at home, there is a real possibility that Newcastle (currently only one point off second bottom) will shortly be in that relegation zone. One of the perils of trying to sell a club mid-season being that a fear of relegation can play such a big part in any negotiations.

Here’s hoping there is no delay in agreement being reached as this squad needs significant strengthening ASAP.

The Mag – 13 December 2017:

Breaking news on Wednesday lunchtime is that Amanda Staveley has increased the £250m offer to around the £300m mark and a Newcastle takeover is imminent.

Sky Sports have announced the imminent deal and various newspapers/media (Mail, Mirror, Independent etc) have also stated the same.

Suggesting that this is the result of a briefing and we are at last set to be released from the grip of Mike Ashley.

It’s reported that as well as the raised bid to around that £300m mark, certain clauses that Ashley wasn’t happy with have been removed, presumably the main one being compensation due if relegation happens this season.

The Amanda Staveley bid is also said to include a willingness to help fund January spending.

With a deal taking time to finally sign off totally, the reports say that Mike Ashley will fund Newcastle’s January spending but then be reimbursed by PCP Partners (Staveley’s company).

It is claimed that this arrangement should give Rafa Benitez some £30m to spend in January.

Previous reports had suggested February as the earliest a final deal could be concluded and the end of January is the timing for that in this latest welcome update.

On Tuesday, Rafa Benitez had yet again expressed his concern about the state of affairs concerning transfers.

The Newcastle boss saying he still had no idea how much, if anything, he would have to spend in January.

Hopefully this deal will now be quickly concluded AND we see a concerted effort by team, fans, manager, tea lady…to get the three points against Everton and make the relegation talk quickly recede.

Rafa Personalised NUFC Gifts


  • MichaelMaximusMoose

    Oh Dear

  • Rob

    £30 million barely papers over the cracks.

    • PJB_NUFC

      True, but it only needs to be enough to keep us up. The with real owners the club could invest properly in the summer

  • Toonrobbybobson

    It wont be Ashley paying back. No business person would pay out up fromt and demand back. I further payment will come from Staveley based on IF we stay up.

    I suspect that January will be alot of expensive loans with options to buy potentially to help tie the club over so cash isnt sunk into permanent signings until takeover is fully complete and a proper transfer strategy drawn up for long term.

    • TheFatController

      Agreed – plus in fairness to Ashley (first time I’ve ever typed that..!) he’ll say you get parachute payments so they’ll only get agreement on what he has put in to cover relegations previously.

      So he may say something like – you get parachute, plus say we agree a £30m clause figure held back that you then keep, but you then trade playing staff with your own money …

      He still pockets about £270m then even if we are relegated. We’d probably keep the same squad, it’s fit for purpose in the championship !

      But they both know there won’t be any relegation clause in reality…

      • MichaelMaximusMoose

        they are expecting premiership payments, not parachute payments they won`t wear that and they`d be idiots if they did

        • TheFatController

          No, how do you put a value on relegation if not by using what it costs to get back up?

          It’s not going to be £100m+ is it or Ashley wouldn’t even have met her? It’s going to be a realistic penalty but as anyone in business knows, once a seller is not influencing things they won’t carry the can for everything if the business fails – especially if he allows them to fund January.

          Staveley I suspect would say ‘we’re not being out of pocket getting us promoted again’. Ashley will say what he put in to secure promotion, that’s the only realistic figure you can agree the clause on…

          Lost earnings will fall under the age old ‘the value of investments can go up as well as down’.

          The clause is to pressure Ashley to let them control January transfers – the less control they have, the more they’ll insist on a relegation clause …

          • MichaelMaximusMoose

            we`ll find out when it goes through, anything can happen with him

          • TheFatController

            I’m just going off what I know of selling businesses, and when you’re the seller you do have the right to say ‘hey, if you’re worried about losing money why are you buying it?’

            Staveley in this instance can say ‘because we’re potentially unable to realise its full value due to business mistakes in the summer transfer window. I need you, as you’ll still be owner in Jan, to put that mistake right, using our money. If it isn’t put right, you’ll have to compensate us as the club won’t be worth the £300m on the table now …’

            So what I suspect they are saying to Ashley is, if the squad end of Jan is £50m better off, they’ll remove the clause, and pay full £300m. If it’s not their £50m and the mistakes of last summer are repeated , they will remove the offer as there’ll be no chance of agreeing the clause as relegation is odds-on…

          • LA toon

            What’s Staveleys rush, just state here`s the offer and conditions, let me know when you are ready to accept. She could get a bargin when we are in the Championship. When I look to buy an income property and the property has been on the market for a while and the seller won’t negotiate on the price I just state ” let me know when you are serious” as there are other properties coming on the market all the time.

          • TheFatController

            Yes, agreed, but she just wants to speed him up in accepting £300m. He wants £350m still. If he accepts £300m, he won’t want anything else to come back on him as in his head he has already given them £50m in lost value.

            “I’ve already gone from £400m to £300m, get rid of that clause…”
            “Sure, so long as we spend the £50m saved (on the £350m we think it’s worth as a PL club) on players in Jan..”

            She’s getting the club cheap but wants players in in Jan. He won’t go below £300m if he wanted £380-400m. There will be no relegation clause in the final deal, only an agreement on PCP spending in Jan if the deal is £300m

          • HarryHype59

            £300m isn’t cheap for a club that is down to 3-1 to get relegated this season and is bottom of the form league.

            I think those odds are generous, as this team is worse than the one that went down in 2016!

          • Toonrobbybobson

            Ashley is a gambler and she will play on that. Offer a bit below than hes pumped in (say £40m and class that as what SD should have paid for advertising) with chunks dependent on performance to take it to an amount which is appealing to him. But the rush is on him because of relegation risk she has the ability to stop that by investing. Agreeing a deal now which is on her terms if relegated she could get club cheaper and invest to bounce back keeping Rafa and fans on side. The money saved from the relegation clause offseting it. To an owner in it for the right reasons they are in the box seat.

          • TheFatController

            Agreed, although I think Staveley wants the deal done in totality without clauses, but lower than £300m if possible.

            Why? Because I think they would have paid £350m had we been on 22 points say, but is still confident that if they save £50m on price and spend that in Jan, they’ll be in the PL no problem next season.

            The reason she mentions a relegation clause is simply to highlight to Ashley that his £350m valuation is not realistic whilst sat on 16 points with three tough games to come …”£280-300m cash now, no clauses, we’ll bail out the squad weaknesses in Jan “

          • TheFatController

            Well, write to Mike Ashley and tell him £350m isn’t cheap in your view, and see if he hugs you and says ‘oh go on then, I’ll change my valuation …’

          • HarryHype59

            It doesn’t matter what Ashley, you, or myself value the club. It is only worth what someone is willing to pay!

            The current slump in results strengthens the position of the buyer.

          • TheFatController

            Well, maybe we’ll find Ashley deciding, rather than selling at sub £300m with a relegation clause, not to sell.

            He’ll maybe think ‘if I spend £50m in Jan and that keeps us up, I can put it back on the market in May at £400m…’

            Because he doesn’t need to sell, he just wants to. On his terms. Currently he feels he’s not getting enough – it wouldn’t surprise me if he replays the ‘5 French players in January’ trick to stay up and thus increase the sale value back to the £380m goal he has…

          • HarryHype59

            It is looking increasingly likely that this takeover will stall! If Ashley doesn’t sell, he must commit at least £50m to survive in the top flight!

            Even then it’ s not guaranteed relegation will be avoided! As usual, the club is playing catch up due to the fat fools lack of vision in the summer!

          • HarryHype59

            The difference between the parachute money (£41m) and finishing 17th (£109m) is £68m. Also the club loses around 60% of its EPL value once relegated. See Aston Villa for proof of this!

          • TheFatController

            Yes, but costs are lower in the championship also – that’s why Ashley brings in about £30m when we go down, not the £68m you quote.

            I’m pleading with people on here to understand that lost revenue when you are in charge of a company cannot be charged back to the previous owner!!!! That’s basic 101 of investments …

            As of Feb, Ashley has nothing to do with the Club’s financial success or otherwise, he won’t therefore pay that £68m – ‘you bought the club to make money for you not me, if you lose money that’s on you also, not me..’ is any seller of a business’ status…

          • HarryHype59

            The players will still be on the same wage unless they have relegation clauses in their contracts, so I doubt costs will be that much lower. TV revenues, will plummet from £100m to around 5 to 6 million. That is why the club value will fall by two thirds.

            Neither one of us knows exactly what the clause is. However, I would be astounded if it is as low as £30m.

          • TheFatController

            There’ll be sales and wage reductions – look at all the redundancies and player sales we make.

            It will be low because as I keep saying, It’s leverage only to make Ashley spend their money in Jan, or no deal.

            They know there will never be a relegation clause, because, as I keep saying, no company owner covers losses after he sells. That makes buying the club a no brainer
            -“ hey mike, we go down you pay for lost revenue, we stay up we keep all profits” “ er, no”

            How hard to understand is it that the clause is to make Ashley accept a lower cash offer now and allow them to fund Jan. Neither party expect it to stay, Ashley just doesn’t like being pressured into accepting £300m instead of £350m because we keep losing. That’s the problem for him. But he knows there’ll be no comeback to him through clauses if he sells, that’s a compete non-starter and they both know it.

          • HarryHype59

            The £300m is based primarily on receiving EPL TV money. Without that , the club plummets in value! Even the arch Ashley apologist Fleckman accepts this.

            Money saved from player sales won’t cover the shortfall in TV revenue!

            I have a feeling this clause may scupper this deal! Why would PCP accept a mere £30m, when the club will be worth £200m less if relegated.

          • TheFatController

            Because it’s not intended to be agreed!!! FFS!

            They want it at £250m, Ashley says £350m – so Staveley says £300m but you cover relegation costs. Ashley says no. Staveley says, well it’s not worth £350m then is it, given the league form?

            If you don’t want a clause mike, it’s £300m and we control Jan…?

            But I want £350m? Says mike.

            Ok mike, I’ll take out the clause if you agree £300m now, and spend our £50m in Jan?

            Oh, but I wanted £350m!! Oh, ok, give me £300m cash. But you’re fleecing me …

          • HarryHype59

            What part of the article about the mention of the clause did you not comprehend?

            Is controlling the Jan window is presumably exclusive of the clause? You don’t know and are merely speculating!

          • HarryHype59

            What part of the article about the mention of the clause did you not comprehend?

            Is controlling the Jan window is presumably exclusive of the clause? You don’t know and are merely speculating!

          • HarryHype59

            What part of the article about the mention of the clause did you not comprehend?

            Is controlling the Jan window presumably exclusive of the clause? You don’t know and are merely speculating!

            Financial literacy doesn’t appear to be your strong point!

          • TheFatController

            I’ve sold my company so no need for moral superiority.

            Ok, why would there be no clause in reality?

            Look up any book of finacial literacy on selling and buying a company.

            If you are buying, and assets or guaranteed income are higher than the asking price, you WILL NOT GET ANY PERFORMANCE RELATED CLAUSES …

            Ashley won’t entertain that we’ll be relegated, we know he’s an idiot.

            Without relegation, revenues are guaranteed because of the minimum tv deal money on offer being the majority of turnover, which on renewal all experts say will go higher not lower.

            So revenues are higher than £350m, and in ashley’s head guaranteed – let alone the stadium value, commercial revenue and playing assets.

            Staveley knows she is getting the prospect of £150m minimum a year for years to come for £300m or so, but is frustrated no doubt Ashley thinks PL status is guaranteed

            So she puts a clause in, knowing Ashley will reject it due to his belief that by spending in Jan our PL status is guaranteed. She says it’s not and thus gets to argue that it’s not worth £350m unless PL tv revenues are guaranteed. Without the guarantee, it’s £300m cash, now. But she knows the guaranteed revenues mean she can’t really expect performance clauses, but has to make Ashley spend £50m not £20m in Jan

            Is that enough financial literacy for you? Did you even know that because PL tv revenues are guaranteed, they make performance clauses laughable because most of the money PL clubs receive isn’t reliant on performance.

            Clearly you didn’t know. That’s why most PL clubs sold have no future performance clauses in them – there’s no real surprises in each club’s annual turnover unless you’re relegated .which makes us the exception not the rule …most clubs aren’t sold mid season when looking awful on the pitch.

            But nice try, smart @rse.

      • HarryHype59

        The parachute money is £41m compared to £109m for staying up in 17th position.

        The clause will be significantly more than £30m.

        • TheFatController

          No, they won’t be able to claim for lost revenue, that’s the risk you take as buyer. Otherwise everyone would buy the club, if losses were covered by Ashley

          They want to control Jan, the relegation clause is leverage to let them Control Jan. No squad improvement, no deal.

          They both have to carry the risk of relegation, it can’t all fall on Ashley. It’s why PCP want to give Rafa money in Jan. It’s their responsibility as well as Ashley’s to ensure PL status.

          • HarryHype59

            I still don’t know why she doesn’t wait until the end of the season to buy this club!

            There is a high probability of another relegation which would devalue the club by around two thirds.

            She could buy it for £100m. Lerner at Villa took £60m for Villa once they were relegated.

          • Martin

            It’s pretty normal in buying a business to have a part of the price paid to be contingent on the future results of the business. That is no different then what is being proposed here. If Fatty doesn’t like that, then he will have to accept less for the club, or remain in charge. Either way his penny pinching in August will now cost him, Maybe at the end of season, we will stay up, Fatty will have gone and this run of bad results will have been equisitely timed to cause him maximum financial harm which would be nice.

          • TheFatController

            You are right about performance related deals but they are rare when price is below fixed asset valuation. But I suspect Ashley will say that because of the tv deal in place and further deals likely to be equal or higher for years to come, future revenues are guaranteed, so the purchase price he wants matched is guaranteed to deliver a fixed minimum revenue each season.

            Why would he say PL tv revenues are guaranteed ? Because as Luke Edwards at the Telegraph said this week, if you know how Ashley thinks, in his head we’re not even in the relegation places yet! He’ll think £20m for Rafa in Jan and we’ll be 17th come May – in his head making the club worth £350m of anyone’s money, because revenue as a PL club is guaranteed for years. So, his view will be, ‘we’re not getting relegated and the £350m I want reflects almost guaranteed tv incomes for a PL club, which is what I’m selling…’

            We all know the reality, but I agree with Edwards and Ashley will hold out for £350m

            Recognising this lunacy in her opposite number, Staveley wants to thrust the likely potential of relegation to the front of his deluded mind, to speed up a deal that would allow them to discuss spending PCP money in Jan, by inserting a clause.. She wants a deal, cash, but no clauses so long as ‘you let us fund Jan’, I would think. Why? Because she knows if they stay up she is saving £50m at £300m.

            Sadly, Ashley will be sat with a naan bread in his mouth saying ‘what relegation…? 17th is a cert – £350m cash and get rid of that relegation clause, we aren’t going down, I’ve done the numbers …’

            Because if he isn’t thinking that, and he wasn’t deluded and actually saw the squad as we see it, we’d have been sold two weeks ago.

      • Steven05

        I may be totally wrong, but I thought parachute payments weren’t given to a club that goes down, back up and then down again?

    • Danimal

      That sounds more likely and also more palatable for the fat scumbag.

    • glassjawsh-got-banned

      don’t be silly. We aren’t getting a single transfer over the line with the pieman signing (or refusing to sign) the checks.

  • MichaelMaximusMoose

    It means Rafa could cost the Fat Lad around £100m if Newcastle are relegated.

    • Mitros gotta start

      Or could cost us a new owner with his clueless team selections and inability to motivate the players he has.

      • anyobrien

        That’s the spirit

      • Whickhamrobbie

        The blind faith in Rafa is starting to wane .

    • puretoon

      Rafa’s not costing anyone anything as it’s Ashley lack of funding for Rafa that’s been/is the problem.

      I sincerely hope this potential sale goes through and fast because if it doesn’t it’s basically the sickening end of our club-with Ashley to thank!

  • HarryHype59

    This makes sense for Stavely and PCP! It would be fiscal madness to pay Phatz £300m with no strings attached, for a club that is 3-1( at present) with bookies to go down and is 20th in the form table!

    I have a feeling this takeover may run in to complications regarding the amount specified in the relegation clause.

  • anyobrien

    He has to accept he has put us in this mess the moron…… Lack of investment is coming back to haunt the fat fool.

    • HarryHype59

      Agreed, how he must regret not bringing in a £30m striker in the summer.

      • Geordiegiants

        Ha ha, he wouldn’t regret not spending money.

        • HarryHype59

          He will if he can’t sell the club on the terms he wants.

  • Whickhamrobbie

    we are down so lets cut the c$%P they wont buy at his valuation and he wont sell at theirs so we are stuffed .
    Lack of investment in players is coming back to haunt us .

  • Desree

    My bet with Bobbi Fleckman will cover the gap.

    We are not staying up in this current state. I can see no sale happening. Ashley will not accept he has bought a dud. Rafa sacked, Kinnear back

  • Waxi

    One thing that is a concern is the transfer kitty when the press had us all believe it was going to be 500 million quid and they now have it down to 30 million max. The press no now’t and the longer this goes on the more i think the fat man will still be in charge come the start of next season. If PCP had the 28 billion fund that was quoted at the start of the negotiation they would not give a monkeys about a few million quid. Something stinks and i think we will find out about it soon enough. It looks more and more like a out of the frying pan and into the oven situation.

    • HarryHype59

      They are an investment hedge fund and use strict financial analysis to value an asset. Fatties £380m valuation was nonsense as

      a: We are not an established EPL side
      b: There is very little equity in the squad.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if this deal doesn’t go through as Stavely’s backers won’t risk the devaluation of the club arising from a very likely relegation.

      The £300m valuation arises from the EPL TV revenues. That is now at risk.

    • HarryHype59

      They are an investment hedge fund and use strict financial analysis to value an asset. Fatties £380m valuation was nonsense as

      a: We are not an established EPL side
      b: There is very little equity in the squad.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if this deal doesn’t go through as Stavely’s backers won’t risk the devaluation of the club arising from a very likely relegation.

      The £300m valuation arises from the EPL TV revenues. That is now at risk.

    • HarryHype59

      They are an investment hedge fund and use strict financial analysis to value an asset. Fatties £380m valuation was nonsense as

      a: We are not an established EPL side
      b: There is very little equity in the squad.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if this deal doesn’t go through as Stavely’s backers won’t risk the devaluation of the club arising from a very likely relegation.

      The £300m valuation arises from the EPL TV revenues. That is now at risk.

  • HTL

    Strange how sky sports are the ones “in the know” to report figures and clauses as fact, are they acting as another PR outlet for mr A?

    I just hope someone accepts responsibility, that enough money is spent (in the right way) and that the team is strengthened in January,

    It is looking more likely that each side is expecting the other to keep us in the premiership, and without the right players being brought in I fear relegation is a distinct possibility.
    HTL

  • FatParosite

    This is once again a speculation of facts. Regardless of whether that speculation is based on cast iron common sense it is still speculation. Why would Amanda remove a clause that protected her investment? Ashley is not in a good position. Staveley holds all the cards. The whole idea of announcing the sale has coincided with our poor form. There is no coincidence. With a stupid sale handled badly, Ashley has torpedoed his own profit. That much alone is not speculation.

  • FatParosite

    This is once again a speculation of facts. Regardless of whether that speculation is based on cast iron common sense it is still speculation. Why would Amanda remove a clause that protected her investment? Ashley is not in a good position. Staveley holds all the cards. The whole idea of announcing the sale has coincided with our poor form. There is no coincidence. With a stupid sale handled badly, Ashley has torpedoed his own profit. That much alone is not speculation.

  • Danimal

    Where is the Ghost-of-Bobbi-Clarko-from-Monkseaton when you need him? I need someone to remind me why life under Ashley is so enjoyable. Looks like we’re stuck with it.

    • Leazes Ender

      You mean Kevin.

  • Down Under Mag

    Let’s be honest here, she can raise a fair whack of capital just from releasing us from the clutches of the S***ts D***ct free advertising. There’s a lot of companies will pay top amounts for advertising space given the extra publicity the club would garner in the immediate aftermath of the take-over. At the very least I expect a few million raised that could go a long way to securing a few loan deals. I’m not getting carried away with expecting a 200m quid bank rolled spree at this stage, all I ask for is some sensible spending on the backing of the clubs size, fan base and the TV revenue…

    • Leazes Ender

      I’d like to see the cameras there on the day his advertising comes down…. ceremoniously cashiered with a crowbar to a sound background dirge version of the Jarrow song.

    • FatParosite

      I’m afraid Ashley has used speculative gamble on player contracts ending & the loan market roulette wheel to plunder the NUFC silver. The buying last January, in the summer & purchasing of land around the ground all point to the salting of earth equity ransom the Porcine one has levied on us. There was always a reason he decided to press the ejector seat button & feverishly pressed it again & again. He knows the cupboard is bare & some sustained tumultuous spending was the only thing that would save it. If there is a hell Ashley will have a lavish office with connecting doors to Beelzebub in it.

  • Toonrobbybobson

    One thing id take another relegation to be rid of Ashley. I really would if the right owner has a plan to get the club sorted. Really though any owner wants to start from Prem to hit ground running quicker. But seriously we want to see the end of Ashleys history with this great club. End of.

  • HTL

    See its being reported (sky sports) that mr A is going away on a family holiday on Friday, looks to me that he is not really interested in pushing for a quick sale,
    HTL