Foreign Office held talks with PL over buyout, but details remain unrevealed
AN EXCLUSIVE CHRONICLE INVESTIGATION LEADS TO MORE TAKEOVER QUESTIONS
THE Premier League asked the Foreign Office to meet during the spring to ensure they were ‘on the same page’ when it came to the attempted takeover of Newcastle United by the Public Investment Fund-led consortium.
In 24 pages of correspondence seen by The Chronicle between the Foreign Office and the Premier League, several meetings were held between the two bodies - including one set up after the Premier League insisted the Foreign Office was in line with any decision on the takeokeover.
The email from May 11 has the Premier League stating the decision is ‘not imminent but the chance to ensure we are all on the same page is a good plan’ - a meeteeting was then held d three days later on the 14th. 4th
Sources say ‘on the same page’ refers to the timing of the decision rather than any context to a decision - and that the private conversation, and those held before and afterwards, were an ‘opportunity’ for the Premier League to keep the Government up to date on the matter.
It is around this time confidence was growing that the deal to buy United after two months of being with the Premier League was about to be passed through. That, of course, turned out to be false. Within the pages of corresponden spondence, the majority which has been reda redacted by the Forei eign Office, it is c clear the Premier L League was keen to keep the department up to speed with a any developm ments - something sou sources insist is total totally normal given the int international relations between betwe the UK and Saudi Arabia.
In April, the Premier League requested contact with staff on the Foreign Office’s Middle East desk, asking to know if there had been any press enquiries relating to the deal. At this point, the department says there had not been.
More interestingly, the member of staff dealing with the request from the Premier League, which was sent via email, asks for advice from colleagues on how to respond to a second part of the request from the Premier League - which has been redacted - asking whether he should respond ‘seeking clarity.’
The Foreign Office asks to be kept in the loop regarding any developments.
The correspondence then takes us into May, where a conference call is held to discuss the idea of ‘joined-up messaging’ between the department and the Premier League after the decision on the takeover has been made.
An agenda for the meeting was drafted which included contributions from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as well as the
Department for International Trade. Another call was held on June 10 in which the Foreign Office described the meeting as a ‘brief update’ but offered to organise a ‘more in-depth’ discussion with a ‘large cross government-cast’ at another time.
The consortium then announced their intention to pull out of the deal on July 30 - the correspondence shows the Premier League emailed the Foreign Office a day later to alert them to the announcement - with the department stating the lack of a statement from the Premier League was ‘helpful.’
A call was suggested between the two bodies for the following week.
A statement from the Premier League, of course, did not come for another six weeks - prompted only after huge pressure from fans, MPs
The decision is not imminent but the chance to ensure we are all on the same page is a good plan Premier League e-mail
and a statement from Newcastle United.
Before that statement from the Premier League, which rejected United’s claims the body had rejected the takeover, came a letter to Newcastle Central MP Chi Onwurah.
That letter was sent to the Foreign Office on August 14.
The Government insists it has remained impartial to the outcome.
The Foreign Office was asked the following the questions by The Chronicle in response to the correspondence it presented to us following a Freedom of Information request:
■ Was the department in favour of the takeover bid?
■ If not, would it fully back the decision of the Premier League?
■ Did the department offer any advice to the Premier League on how to deal with Saudi Arabia?
■ Can any clarity be offered on what was discussed if so?
■ Does the department believe the Public Investment Fund and the Saudi Government are separate entities?
It refused to answer any of the questions other than to respond: “We have always been clear any prospective takeover of
Newcastle United Football Club would be a matter for the two parties concerned.
“It is not for the Government to intervene in the buying and selling of football clubs.”
The Foreign Office refused to release any correspondence - which they confirmed there was – on the NUFC takeover between the department and the Saudi government on the grounds of International relations. Person information. Commercial interests.
This rejection came after the department held a test to determine the public interest in releasing the correspondence.
With regards to international relations and the threat to commercial interests, the department wrote: “The disclosure of information detailing our relationship with the Saudi Government could potentially damage the bilateral relationship between the UK and Saudi Arabia.
“This would reduce the UK government’s ability to protect and promote UK interests through its relations with Saudi Arabia which would not be in the public interest.
“Some information has been redacted from the released documents as its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.
“This exemption requires the application of a public interest test.
“The use of this exemption was carefully considered.
“The factors in favour of disclosure of this information, including general public interest and greater transparency and accountability, were carefully weighed against the need to allow business-people and commercial organisations the space to conduct their lawful business competitively and without fear of disclosure of sensitive commercial information.
“In this case, we believe the public interest in withholding the limited amount of information which has been redacted outweighs the public interest in its release.”