Chris_R

I completely get the frustration at the delays, but in the entire history of law has any defendant ever done anything different, ever? Under an "innocent until proven guilty" system, without a 100% chance of success in their defence doesn't everyone always just kick the can down the road? Doesn't make it any less frustrating, but to paint it as a specific tactic that the PL have invented just for this case is a bit bizarre.

The formal decision would've been "No", granting PIF more time to do what is needed, which is in PIF's favour, cannot be held against the PL.

Well hopefully you're right. However I cannot see how the PL's own rules, as enforced by the PL, regarding who can be in the PL, can be decided by anyone else? The PL is just a club, a society if you like. There's membership rules. Don't like the rules? You're welcome to not be in the club.

Because PIF won't agree he's a shadow director and so won't provide the details of him that the PL need, they're objecting to that part. And the PL are insisting he is. So they couldn't proceed with the O&D test because PIF weren't giving them the information they needed. Everything I've said about shadow directors, piracy etc is in the PLs own rulebook regarding the O&Ds test. It's clear as day what's happened here. This is what I was trying to remember, yes. So from a fairly reputable source in the whole matter, you'd think.

I don't think there's any point, personally. But some people keep rolling the dice when they're already down. It's the club's money, so they're entitled to crack on. I guess they want to have arbitration rule that MBS is not a shadow director, but I cannot see how that can logically be an outcome any arbitration panel reaches based on what we know. He's literally the chairman of the organisation buying us. It's bonkers to say he cannot and will not have any say over our running, it's genuine head-in-clouds stuff. And in fact initially the club refused arbitration, did they not? Presumably they reached this conclusion too at least initially.

I am under the impression that it's public knowledge that PIF were asked to name MBS as a shadow director and refused. So much has happened that I forget where I get that from and don't have time to look that up as I'm heading back out soon, but I'm sure it's in the public domain and beyond dispute that this was asked for by the PL and PIF refused. Both parties then refused to move - The PL couldn't continue with the O&Ds checks, and PIF refused to accept that he'd be a shadow director. This continued for week after week until eventually PIF walked away.This is absolutely the timeline as I understand it from what happened last year, and I'm under the impression all of it is common knowledge.

Which bit is speculation? All the points about shadow directors etc is from the PL's own rulebook on takoevers. I quoted it here back in the time, gave paragraphs and everything. And the Saudi state, of which MBS is the head of, is absolutely suspected of being involved in piracy. We know the PL wanted PIF to name MBS as a shadow director, and we know they refused. Which bit is speculation?

Let me once more spell out the big problem here, which I've consistently pointed out since day 1 when this takeover story first broke: - Anyone who the PL consider will have influence over the club can be named a "shadow director" - This is in the PL's own rules - MBS is chairman of PIF, so he will clearly have influence over NUFC if PIF buy us, I cannot see how anyone can realistically dispute this no matter what anyone says about the actual makeup of the board of NUFC - MBS, via his role running the Saudi state, is suspected of having approved of or helped facilitate piracy - It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT whether PIF and the Saudi State are separate legal entities because MBS exists in both parts of the Venn Diagram. What he did in one circle is relevant in the other circle, even if they are separate entities, because he actually did it and is head of both. - People suspected of being involved in piracy (No conviction required - suspicion is enough by the PL's handbook) are prohibited from being involved in clubs under the PL's own rules - The PL asked for MBS's details so they could run the above checks on him as a shadow director, which he would clearly fail - PIF refused, because they knew he'd clearly fail - PL said "Fine, we'll wait then, we can't proceed without that info" - PIF walked away after losing a Mexican stand-off NONE of the above has been cleared up. All of those issues remain. This takeover, quite simply, cannot happen and will not happen because MBS's previous suspected involvement in piracy precludes it from ever completing. Don't misunderstand me, I'd love it to happen. But wanting something doesn't mean I can suspend all disbelief in facts.

They may well settle, but settling won't mean allowing the takeover through. It'll be cash to Ashley or something. Last thing the PL will ever do is let the takeover through.

We're so fucking awful to watch. We're just content to spend the entire match letting Fulham attack us. No ambition to get a second at all. Just dire.

Erm, don't do that. Just don't.

I'm not negative. I'd absolutely love this to go through. But wanting something doesn't make it any more likely to happen. I'm positive but realistic. Also realism, or negativity if you prefer, is a psychological defence mechanism. For example, if I say something good won't happen and you say it will, then if it does I'll be happier than you because I'm surprised and am going from a lower base position too so see a bigger change in my mood whereas you just have your expectations confirmed that it the good thing did indeed happen just as you expected, that's not even really cause for celebration when you think about it? On the flip side, if the good thing doesn't happen then I've got less distance to fall. My expectations are merely confirmed whereas you come crashing down. Being negative, or realistic, actually makes you happier in the long-run.

I would love this takeover to go through, but I don't think it will. I've said that since day 1 and so far it hasn't gone through so I guess I'm not totally wide of the mark?

You just delete the incriminating bits. You don't delete all your meetings, you just delete the meetings where you talked about blocking the takeover. "Can we see all the meetings where you talked about the takeover?" "Sorry there weren't any". Sure there's a decent chance they fuck this up, but to suggest they won't even try is crazy. Of course they will. Companies do this kind of shit all the time in court cases. History is replete with suspiciously-timed server fires, or convenient hardware refreshes.

What do you - sorry, your friend - want to delete? Ccleaner is pretty good for PCs, and OK for most uses. But the only absolutely sure way is to delete what you don't want then copy everything over to a brand-new drive using something like Macrium Reflect, and physically destroy the old drive. Like, melt it in a furnace or something haha, or lob it over the side of a ferry in the middle of the Atlantic.

Of course it does. But "Looking suspicious" isn't a crime.

It's not contempt to do it before a court orders you to hand over the data. If you have something issued to you asking you to hand over things, and then you delete them, that's a problem. But if you suspect you've been naughty and think things might be about to stir up, and you delete things early, that's not illegal at all. Since we've all suspected for a long time that court cases are impending, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the PL would pre-emptively engage in a bit of "housekeeping".

Nobody's full of hell, I'm incredibly happy as it happens. It just feels like I've stumbled into a flat-Earth society meeting or some kind of "Covid is caused by 5G" thread. Be optimistic, sure, but maybe just don't be utterly delusional? Acknowledge there's actually a chance of things not working as you want them to, rather than pretending with utter conviction that there's 0 chance of it not. Because I genuinely worry for some people in here if things DON'T work out, because they're that high up on whatever they're smoking that they're going to have a hell of a fall back to Earth. There's a massive difference between optimism and crazy. But sure, I'll let you all get back to it. Enjoy.

Everyone who ever launches a legal case thinks they've got good evidence and a high chance of success. Some of them lose. There's nothing to suggest that cannot happen to us, yet everyone in here is talking in such certainty about our impending court case victory. It's just bonkers. I hope we win. We might very well win. But we haven't won, and we might well lose. That's the honest state of play that loads of you are refusing to even acknowledge. This is not a foregone conclusion, no matter how confident any of the parties are.

Fair enough, and I obviously hope you're right. There's a good chance you are.

You think that'll be worse for them than just handing over all the incriminating stuff? They'll at least try. A lost case is a lost case. You can always hide your reasons for deleting stuff. "Oh, we had a hardware refresh, everyone's PCs were out of date so we took the opportunity to get new ones and move to a new email platform". "There was a fire in the server room, so unfortunate". Whatever. There's countless roads they can go down. Of course they'll all be suspicious as hell and we'll all know they just deleted everything, but nobody will be able to prove anything. Happens all of the time.

I am an IT specialist. It'll be easy to retrieve data if the PL are idiots and do a half-assed job of deleting stuff. If they take deletion seriously, it'll be impossible.

Yes, if you do it properly. And give everyone involved a new phone too which is far cheaper than this lawsuit. Oh come on. I don't think the PL are going to just empty the recycle bin and think that's it, job done. There's a load of ways to delete things permanently off a computer, it's incredibly easy for a £multi-billion organisation facing massive lawsuits. For example, delete what you don't want, then mirror the old drive to a new drive, put the new drive in the PC and put the old one through in industrial shredder of some kind. Or chuck the old one off a boat in the middle of the sea. Easy.

Why? The shredders (physical and electronic) will have been running full pelt for months now. Do you actually think they'll hand over damning evidence rather than just deleting it? Really?