Explained: What Amanda Staveley’s ‘Bin Salman’ WhatsApps mean for Newcastle

On Sunday afternoon, British newspaper The Telegraph published WhatsApp messages from former Newcastle United co-owner Amanda Staveley that appeared to shed further light on the role of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) during the club’s takeover process.

Three years ago, after months of controversy and legal wrangling, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) purchased an 80 per cent stake in the club in October 2021. Staveley and the Reuben family completed the consortium, though Staveley sold her remaining stake this July.

When the takeover was approved, the Premier League announced this was contingent on “legally binding assurances” that Newcastle would not be run by the Saudi state.

However, the extent of Saudi leadership’s involvement — much of which has previously been revealed by The Athletic — has meant there have been repeated calls for the Premier League to reinvestigate their relationship.

So what is the relevance of these latest claims, what does it suggest about the extent of UK and Saudi government involvement and is anything likely to happen?

What has been revealed in these latest claims?

Effectively, the regular involvement of MBS in the Newcastle takeover process.

Some of this has been previously reported — for example, The Daily Mail wrote in April 2021 that MBS had pressured then-British prime minister Boris Johnson to “correct” the Premier League’s decision to block the deal.

These messages elaborate on his role. All conversations involve Staveley, the financier responsible for bringing together the takeover coalition and known for her business connections in the Gulf, who ultimately forced the deal through.

For example, in March 2020, The Telegraph reported that Staveley messaged an unnamed recipient to insist that “the Crown Prince is loosing [sic] patience — I need to assure him we will get there”.

Four months later, she discusses her conversations with Yasir Al-Rumayyan, governor of PIF, writing: “HE (His Excellency/Al-Rumayyan) is trying to hang on to the deal and convince the Crown Prince not to pull out.”

These appear to show that MBS has the ultimate power over the purchase process, rather than Al-Rumayyan, who is the Newcastle United chairman. The crown prince is also the chairman of PIF.

In August, MBS is again mentioned in the context of conversations with the Saudi ambassador to the UK, Prince Khalid bin Bandar Al Saud.

That month, she messages to say: “The UK Saudi ambassador spoke to the Crown Prince this morning.” Three weeks later she adds: “We need to update the Saudi Ambassador at 4pm as he needs to update the Crown Prince.”

Staveley’s messages also imply further UK government involvement in the deal — something revealed by The Athletic in April 2023.

Lord Gerry Grimstone was the UK’s minister for investment at the time of the takeover, with Staveley’s messages revealing she contacted him in September in an effort to force the takeover through.

On September 8, she sends him a WhatsApp asking him to “check in” with then-Premier League chairman Gary Hoffman. Grimstone replies to say this should happen in the coming days.

One month later, Staveley tells representatives of former owner Mike Ashley: “No 10 can’t get any further involved than what they have done to date. Gerry (Grimstone) said that they pushed behind the scenes and made it very clear that their preference is for the deal to go ahead, they are obviously very aware of the damage this has caused and the repercussions for future investments.”

Why could it be significant?

Concerns over Saudi Arabia’s human rights record held up the Premier League’s approval of the takeover and rival Premier League clubs echoed these concerns.

Unofficially, as shown by documentation sourced by The Athletic, the resolution of a piracy case — in which a Saudi broadcaster, beoutQ, allegedly illegally streamed footage from Qatari company beIN Sport — was also a major factor.

To overcome the human rights objections, the league’s board received “legally binding assurances” that the Saudi state would not control Newcastle United on a day-to-day basis.

However, Staveley’s messages seem to portray MBS, the head of state, and as such, the man ultimately answerable to these human rights abuses, to be a central figure in greenlighting PIF’s ongoing commitment to the purchase.

Campaigners against Newcastle’s ownership on human rights grounds can consequently argue that the “legally binding assurances” separating the club’s ownership and the Saudi ownership have not been met — and, correspondingly, that the takeover should be reinvestigated.

“As (we) have said since the takeover, the ‘legally binding assurances’ were lies,” activists NUFC Fans Against Sportswashing said on Monday. “The Premier League must immediately review the ownership of Newcastle United. Despotic, human rights abusing regimes have no business owning our football clubs.”

Senior sources with knowledge of PIF’s operations, who had not been authorised to speak publicly, point out that MBS is the chairman of PIF as well as the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, so it is natural that he will approve any sizable outlay.

They do, however, also acknowledge that there is a bridge that must be walked between his role as PIF chairman and the subsequent lack of any day-to-day involvement at Newcastle.

The Athletic has contacted Staveley for comment but The Telegraph reported that she had responded to their claims, through her lawyers. to say that her references to MBS were only in his capacity as chairman of PIF.

She added that it was “as illogical as it is misconceived” to say that the WhatsApp messages cast doubt on assurances that independence from the Saudi state had been adhered to.

What does ‘legal separation’ between PIF and the Saudi state mean and why does the Premier League think it exists?

Essentially, if the state of Saudi Arabia is found to be the owner of Newcastle, it would, by extension, fail the Premier League’s owners’ and directors’ test (OADT).

Rule F.1.8 in the list of the OADT’s disqualifying events states no deal can be approved by the Premier League if “in the reasonable opinion of the board, (the owners) have engaged in conduct outside of the UK that would constitute an offence if such conduct had taken place in the UK, whether or not such conduct resulted in a conviction”.

This would have thrown up issues — for example, a CIA report concluded that MBS was responsible for ordering the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

For a takeover to proceed, the bidding party effectively had to show the Premier League that the takeover would be led by a separate entity from the Saudi state.

This is why, when the completed deal was announced in October 2021, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters stated that the league “has now received legally binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not control Newcastle United”.

Mohammed bin Salman is Saudi Arabia’s ruler and chairman of PIF (Nicolas Tucat/AFP via Getty Images)

The Premier League has never confirmed the exact nature of these assurances.

These assurances would have been provided to the Premier League board — which, in theory, is bound by existing Premier League regulations on whether a prospective owner adheres to the OADT.

To cover a common misnomer, the assurances do not seek to separate the Saudi state from the ultimate ownership of Newcastle — but they are intended to show they do not run the club on a day-to-day basis.

For example, when PIF lawyers claimed sovereign immunity for Al-Rumayyan in a case involving LIV Golf, claiming he was “a sitting minister of the government”, this was the reason they utilised to argue there was still a separation.

In the immediate aftermath of the takeover, Staveley and her husband Mehrdad Ghodoussi took on the majority of the club’s running, implementing a management structure which is headed by CEO Darren Eales.

However, Al-Rumayyan, as chairman of Newcastle’s board, is still consulted on major decisions.

How involved was the UK government in the Saudi-backed takeover of Newcastle?

In April 2021, Johnson insisted to parliament that his government “was not involved at any point in the takeover talks on the sale of Newcastle”. However, subsequent documentation has suggested this was not the case.

Last April, The Athletic published documents from the Foreign Office, sourced through Freedom of Information requests (FOI), that revealed that the British government considered the possible failure of the Saudi takeover of Newcastle United to be an “immediate risk” to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the Gulf nation.

Johnson’s chief strategic advisor even sought to find a “senior interlocutor to impress the interests” of the government onto the Premier League — which appears to have been Grimstone, whose messages are revealed above.

As is also previously mentioned, The Daily Mail reported that MBS had personally pressured Johnson over the takeover.

Senior sources connected to the Premier League insist that any interaction with the government did not influence their decision-making.

“I made it very clear to all parties that my only role was to facilitate the passing of ideas between the PIF and EPL (English Premier League) and that in no way did I seek to prejudice the EPL’s complete autonomy,” Grimstone told The Athletic last April.

“I reiterate that it was not my role to influence the EPL’s decision in any way. Naturally, as I would with any high-profile investment coming into the UK, I was concerned that the parties resolved this between themselves courteously and professionally whatever the outcome of their discussions.”

Is there anything else?

Staveley’s messages also appear to demonstrate how the takeover bid used famous faces to push their case.

In October 2020, Staveley’s messages implied that she would ask Ant and Dec — Anthony McPartlin and Declan Donnelly, television personalities and Newcastle fans known for shows such as I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here and Saturday Night Takeaway — to post an article on their social media channels.

The report, from local newspaper The Shields Gazette, supported the takeover’s interests, reporting that the Premier League had been served with a legal letter demanding anti-competition disclosure.

The article later appeared on Ant and Dec’s official social media account and Staveley’s.

😳 ⚽️◼️◻️◼️◻️https://t.co/Fsm1VkisTY

— antanddec (@antanddec) October 27, 2020

The Athletic has contacted McPartlin and Donnelly for comment.

What are people saying about the claims?

The majority of parties involved have refused to comment, including the Premier League, Newcastle United, and Staveley.

A spokesperson for the PIF told The Athletic: “In October 2021, following a lengthy investigation, the Premier League announced that the sale of Newcastle United Football Club had been completed following the receipt of assurances that the government of Saudi Arabia would not control the club.

“The facts and circumstances that underpin those assurances, as confirmed at the time to the Premier League, remain unchanged.”

Is this likely to trigger any action?

No. Since the takeover, Masters has faced repeated questions to investigate the exact relationship between the Saudi state and the football club.

Talking to MPs last March, he said: “I’m afraid I can’t comment on it. Even to the point of saying it is the Premier League investigating it, I can’t really comment.

“The only time when the Premier League comments publicly on regulatory issues is when it’s charged and at the end of the process when an independent panel decides if any rule breaches have taken place.”

Asked by The Athletic whether they would reinvestigate in light of these claims, the Premier League refused to comment.

Staveley’s messages elaborate on details of the takeover process — such as MBS’ involvement and the UK government’s ongoing interest — which had previously been publicly known.

It could also be argued that the messages predominantly relate to the run-up to the takeover, with the assurances related to the operation of the club itself — though connections between the two are straightforward to draw out.

In any possible future investigation, in which the legal process of disclosure would force key individuals to hand over phone records, messages such as these may form part of any evidence bundle — but for the moment, there are no indications that any such review would take place.

(Top photos: Amanda Staveley, Mohammed bin Salman; Getty Images)