AyeDubbleYoo

I guess we'll park the bus from now until the end of the season, to the extent we can. Might limit their counterattacking threat at least.

With Arteta, at least you can be fairly confident that he has a lot of the right knowledge. The risk is that he’s never had to apply it as a number one. That’s definitely a risk but at least there’s some reason to think it might have worked.

I think we're in a fairly unique position where we know that the owner will make the wrong appointment 90% of the time, so it's a good bad that the manager will be shit. If he'd punted on someone like Scott Parker, it would've been more difficult to tell. Depends on those individuals, I doubt anyone could say with any certainty.

Definitely. Football is (or was) a weirdly old fashioned place based on who you know and what your name is. It's only fairly recently that managers like Tuchel etc have come through by actually being good.

But if that's the case, why didn't they reject it? They actually delayed it for as long as possible so the buyers would withdraw. I think we've said loads of times, it would be fair enough if they'd just failed the test. Then we could move on, or go to whatever the next legal step is. The problem is they've tried to avoid applying the proper process.

Yeah, that is possible I suppose.

Is that more likely than Ashley just not caring about who the manager is?

Who cares about all the personality shit anyway, it’s moronic. The case happening is interesting for sure, let’s focus on that.

Bit of a coincidence

I think it's big enough news, we just don't have a clue what it will mean.

Yep, I mean I don't doubt that KSA can make PIF do what they want. Guess layman questions would be stuff like whether that can be proven in law, or whether them nominating directors to the fund should mean that those people should be assessed instead. I don't even understand what gives the PL the ability to ask for other directors which the buyers haven't nominated themselves. Also I doubt whether that was the real reason for delaying the takeover, or just an excuse because of pressure from clubs and Qatar. They should just allow the takeover, it's a lot simpler

Is there? It has to be a bit of leap, from a sovereign wealth fund providing some of the money for a deal, to the country itself being ordered to be assessed as a director of the company. Very complex and strange at the very least.

At the same time, there might be some positive PR in being seen not to let another dodgy billionaire come in. I know that doesn't make sense with who they've allowed before, but still...

Yeah, had thought that as well, getting it set up. But again, you'd think the best outcome would just be for the PL to accept arbitration and reconsider anyway. Guess it acts as a threat hanging over them in case they don't. Would be nice to know more about where arbitration is at.

The second one, I've lost 14 years of enjoyment here.

If we'd won arbitration though, wouldn't the PL have to reconsider their decision anyway? And they would do that without having to be sued, you'd think. It's confusing TBH.

Actually both things could happen - reconsideration and damages to Ashley. I’m not sure exactly what powers this tribunal has.

It just says that the sale didn't go through as it should have, at the time it would have.

Not quite, it says “lost the immediate sale, or the likely opportunity of…” It is strange that this is happening if arbitration is still a possibility mind.

Aye, now.

The powerhouse the fans deserve? Cheeky fucker, spend some money, you own it now you cunt.

Eh?

I'm sure it isn't, it's a sign we can tie down a player and retain their transfer value.

He's said all this and we're still not actually safe.

They’ve trained twice this week, it’s inhuman.