Newcastle deal collapsed because Saudi Arabia refused to deny that it would be in control of the club

The Premier League has confirmed that the £300million takeover of Newcastle United collapsed because it insisted Saudi Arabia had to declare it would be in control of the club.

Telegraph Sport revealed on July 27 that an impasse had been reached over the proposed ownership structure for Newcastle with the extraordinary demand that the Saudi kingdom effectively agreed to be bound by the Premier League’s rules.

Three days later a statement was issued withdrawing the bid. It is understood, however, the same offer would be re-submitted – and accepted by Newcastle’s owner Mike Ashley – if the Premier League were to alter its position that the bidders regard as unreasonable. The consortium, in effect, remains intact as does Ashley’s commitment to sell to them despite the fact that an exclusivity agreement expired at the end of June. Despite that commitment it remains unlikely the bid can go through unless the Premier League changes its mind.

Now, for the first time, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters has commented on the reasons for the bid failing and why it had not been passed despite having been submitted for 17 weeks while it underwent the organisation’s owners and directors test. He also confirmed the test would be reviewed in the wake of the collapse.

More than 108,000 Newcastle fans have signed a petition demanding answers from the Premier League and in a letter to Newcastle Central MP Chi Onwurah, who demanded clarity, Masters said: “I would like to deal directly with the questions you raise."

Masters also confirmed Telegraph Sport report that the consortium, under which Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund is seeking to buy an 80 per cent stake in the club, declined an offer of independent arbitration. The consortium believed that arbitration was not worthwhile given the unclear terms the Premier League were operating under.

Masters wrote: "In June, the Premier League board made a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition, in accordance with the Premier League rules.

"Subsequently, the Premier League then asked each such person or entity to provide the Premier League with additional information, which would then have been used to consider the assessment of any possible disqualifying events.

"In this matter, the consortium disagreed with the Premier League's determination that one entity would fall within the criteria requiring the provision of this information.

"The Premier League recognised this dispute, and offered the consortium the ability to have the matter determined by an independent arbitral tribunal if it wished to challenge the conclusion of the board.

"The consortium chose not to take up that offer, but nor did it procure the provision of the additional information. Later, it (or PIF specifically) voluntarily withdrew from the process."

The Premier League appears to dispute the claim that the PIF, although funded by the Saudi state and with the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as its chairman, is an independent investment vehicle headed by governor Yasir Al-Rumayyan despite its extensive portfolio of business interests around the world.

The consortium, with a 10 per cent stake being taken by the Reuben Brothers and the remaining 10 per cent going to Amanda Staveley’s PCP Capital Partners, who would have the management contract for Newcastle, insist they provided all the information the Premier League needed and dispute the claim that it did not answer all the questions it was asked.

It would be unprecedented for a country to submit to the rules of a private sports body as, it appeared, the Premier League were insisting before it would allow the takeover to go through.