The @Gazzetta_it story is correct. PIF have explored a minority stake in #InterMilan. Told Yasir Al Rumayyan involved in talks. Up to 30% investment discussed which, based on Suning's highest valuation would be €300m (260m). Nothing agreed but may give Suning an out not to sell.
I am told PIF don't want to buy Inter outright, contrary to the approach of BC Partners & Fortress. A halfway approach might be to partner with Fortress, who did toy with a joint bid alongside UAE's Mubadala Investment Company in February. But nothing came of this in the end.
Conflicting reports as to whether BC Partners are still the frontrunners or talks have fallen through in a reported €800m deal. Told Suning would still prefer to find a way not to sell the club, hence the appeal of PIF. But all early stages unlike talks with BC Partners.
This is another complicated investment (should it materialise) for PIF. They know appeal of Italian football from hosting two Super Cups. & beIN has not rebid for Serie A rights. But Serie A will surely have beoutQ concerns. After all Serie A rights were stolen, too.
The only difference between Serie A & EPL is Serie A, during the height of beoutQ, put commercial gain above piracy and still brought the Italian Super Cup to Saudi, much to the dismay of beIN. That's partly why beIN haven't rebid for Serie A & financially this move backfired.
Serie A refunded beIN 120m after conceding Saudi piracy made MENA rights de-facto non-exclusive. Whereas they only got 18m from Saudi for Super Cup. But it'd be plausible Saudi bids for Serie A rights if (still a big if) they invest in Inter & that'd be lucrative for Serie A.
At this stage all that's clear is PIF have engaged with Suning, & with a very different investment model to other suitors. Told this doesn't end their interest in #NUFC, but it obviously shows they are actively looking elsewhere. They are opportunistic & Inter is available.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Jacobs

Ben Jacobs Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JacobsBen

5 Mar
A 🧵on #NUFC's failed High Court bid to remove Michael Beloff as chair of arbitration panel. Firstly, it's confirmed #NUFC trying to clear a path via arbitration to complete Saudi-led takeover. However, regardless of when hearing ends, PIF won't return until post-season/safety.
I am told this is due to a variety of (pretty obvious) factors. Firstly, should relegation occur the EFL would have to green-light the deal. But, more importantly, the terms would need to be renegotiated with a price drop (should Mike Ashley agree) of 85-100 million.
We now know the arbitration remit & panel. Terms of reference are broader than just separation alone. #NUFC maintain PIF are separate from Saudi State & thus gov. should not be listed (& tested) as a Director. But they are also challenging EPL's conduct & "lawfulness" of process.
Read 25 tweets
5 Mar
One point that’s been overlooked regarding Michael Beloff being “biased” against #NUFC is Beloff is also part of Blackstone... Nick DeMarco’s firm. So “Messi of sports law” is arguing against “Godfather of sports law” despite Blackstone saying he’s “always a joy to work with.” Image
The reason there is no conflict is because Beloff is now retired, but still listed on the Blackstone website.
So... #NUFC say past advice given to EPL constitutes a conflict & makes him susceptible to bias yet he will have undertaken far more work for Blackstone than EPL.
Also... Beloff may have offered EPL historical advice, but he's also gone up against them in arbitration alongside Nick De Marco. That was in 2007 when Blackstone was instructed by Fulham in a joint case v EPL to try and 'deregister' Carlos Tevez.
Read 4 tweets
5 Mar
Newcastle confirm arbitration is broader than the separation issue alone & that they are also challenging the “lawfulness” of the EPL’s approach (or “conduct” as previously reported).
The delay in a resolution is party down to the club challenging the panel chair for “bias”.
The Judgment, to try & remove the panel chair, has been made public allowing #NUFC to explain their position. My sense is this is just another opportunity to attack EPL/cast doubt over integrity of arbitration. It’s a very bullish approach showing club clearly feel hard done by.
However... of all the hurdles club/consortium face, separation is hardest to tie to a lack of integrity in process. They are arguing an entity with a .gov website & MBS as chair (& with autonomy) has no gov. influence. Yet PIF’s own portfolio summary argues otherwise... Image
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!