Simon Jordan has accused Mike Ashley of sitting ‘like a dog with two proverbials‘ – just hours after another fresh twist in Newcastle United’s takeover saga. A joint statement from Newcastle and the Premier League confirmed the club’s arbitration hearing has been adjourned until early 2022 due to issues with the disclosure of evidence.
Simon Jordan said: “Mike Ashley is sitting there – with the greatest respect in the world to Mike, he’s not my mate, he’s an acquaintance – like a dog with two proverbials because he’s got 17 million quid of non-refundable deposit out of a deal that Amanda didn’t do her due diligence on. She didn’t understand about the parameters of what’s going to break this deal down. When you do a deal, you understand where it breaks and you take that off the table before it breaks and Amanda has put the Saudis into a position where, potentially, 17 million pounds has gone into Mike Ashley’s pocket. He will, perhaps, use that to pay for some of the arbitration while sitting there. There is not one single question from you or the Newcastle fanbase about how much money Mike Ashley is going to spend on Newcastle next year if he’s still there. It’s all deflected away from him and what we’re now talking about is a corrupt big six and a corrupt Premier League when really what we’re talking about is a situation that’s very difficult to overcome. The reasons why this arbitration, in my view, has fallen down at the first stage is because I think this is what has happened. They’ve walked into a room and the Premier League have said, ‘We want you to unequivocally prove that there is no link between the PIF, the Saudi state and piracy’ and the Saudis have gone, ‘Hang on a second. We want you to prove that there is no link of corruption of the big six having an undue influence’. This is my supposition. The Premier League have said, ‘We don’t have to prove anything to you. We’re the Premier League. You’re wanting to join our gang. We’ve got an issue with you. It’s incumbent upon you to disclose what we’re asking you to disclose’. All of a sudden, transparency isn’t so important for those that are calling for transparency.”
