B-more Mag

DQ e'rybody.

Look. We're losing sight of the fact, here, that there still aren't nearly enough colons in the thread name.

Hes had more help than many many people with similar problems. If he can't help himself then he's beyond help and i have no sympathy for the waster That's what I was trying to say before I was lambasted as a heartless tucker. I've lived with an alcoholic and it's tough trying to help someone that is too selfish and wrapped up in themselves to even notice it and accept the help on offer. Gazza as sad as it is to see someone in that condition has had numerous and untold amounts of chances to overcome this much more than your non famous people with addictions and still he chooses the wrong path. Any addiction is awful but you do have put input in yourself to recover as if you don't you'll never recover

If not talking a load of crap was the standard for posting I'd be able to count my posts on like one hand.

Mark Douglas did a news, but it was not a news we were promised.

The seller's view would be that it's not the buyers place to state any of it ahead of the deal being done. That would ALWAYS normally be done in conjunction with (or at least the formal agreement of) the seller. You can say what you like when you've bought it but right now they're making statements about something that is not theirs. As someone who know's the process well, I can say with almost certainty, Ashley won't like their conduct. Agree Kanji[/member]? There's generally an express provision in the SPA that says the buyer can't make any public statement until closing, and then the seller usually has the right to approve or at least see any statement before it's made (or that the parties will agree with each other as to the form of joint or coordinated releases). Yeah. I know. That's why I said it . I was just backing you up on it.

The seller's view would be that it's not the buyers place to state any of it ahead of the deal being done. That would ALWAYS normally be done in conjunction with (or at least the formal agreement of) the seller. You can say what you like when you've bought it but right now they're making statements about something that is not theirs. As someone who know's the process well, I can say with almost certainty, Ashley won't like their conduct. Agree Kanji[/member]? There's generally an express provision in the SPA that says the buyer can't make any public statement until closing, and then the seller usually has the right to approve or at least see any statement before it's made (or that the parties will agree with each other as to the form of joint or coordinated releases).

The thing is, Ashley's a wild card. Fucking bought a club without due diligence. I wouldn't put it past him to sign a letter of intent with a potential buyer but say he's not going to pay the lawyers to read and negotiate a full-blown stock purchase agreement until he has confirmation that SKBZAN is likely to pass the owners' and directors' test and only then go to an SPA (as opposed to a fully negotiated one with closing contingent on passing the test). Not saying it's rational or likely, but he's also not a play-it-by-the-book kind of guy. It would also explain a fairly significant time lapse until the deal gets done (if it gets done). The whole thing of it being public is also just weird. This is not the type of thing that usually comes out without some sort of joint or coordinated press releases with a clear message. It's just weird. Anyway, there's just not enough info to do anything but speculate, so . . .

I hear SKBZAN is the father of Asahd.

Gonna start referring to SKBZAN as Chairman Mou.

No just our potential new owner is in business with a convicted mouderer

This is the form of declaration the club and SKBZAN would have to sign and the the club would have to submit to the PL to get the old fit and proper business rolling. I appear to be falling down a rabbit hole in the absence of actual information. Help iz

None of what they've said would be subject to an NDA. An NDA will be used to stop them disclosing sensitive commercial and financial information they would be given access to during the process, before any transaction is completed or in the event that the takeover fails. It really depends on what the NDA says. It's pretty common in M&A deals for the NDA to say the confidential information that can't be disclosed includes the substance and even the very fact of contact and discussion between the parties. There are a number reasons for that, including not scaring off your employees and not telegraphing business strategies to competitors. Having said that, though, those reasons aren't really that applicable here--everyone already knows the club is for sale and important employees are contractually tied down--so maybe MA doesn't care about the other side blabbing.

struggle to see what the club has done wrong (in this case) they won't say anything until everythings done ashley and co aren't forcing this lot to mouth off to the press and its the very public nature of this is making me wary of this being true. Ordinarily a seller would require the buyer to sign an NDA that prohibits the buyer from going off and saying anything publicly until it's a done deal--and at that point there would be coordinated statements. On the other end of the spectrum, if a fake buyer was making a story up out of whole cloth, a well run organization would clearly and unequivocally set the record straight. But leaving the story out there twisting in the wind is just chaotic--which seems to be part of MA's MO.

Confirms how I read the rules: Any term sheet or binding agreement would have a contingency in it for passing the test. The seller really wouldn't usually have much of anything to say publicly unless and until it's clear that the buyer can actually own the club and the contingency is satisfied. Of course most clubs would also lock the buyer down with a NDA that makes even the fact that discussions are happening confidential information that can't be disclosed without the seller's agreement, but Ashley's gonna Ashley.

One thing I can say with certainty is that this kind of shit show wouldn't be going on around a club that's run anywhere remotely close to competently.

Neither here nor there really, but I figured I'd look up the procedures that trigger the owners' and directors' test. Under Rule F.4 of the Rules of the Premier League, Sheikh KbZ would have to give the PL an "Owners’ and Directors’ Declaration" in the form of PL Form 5 at least 10 working days before he becomes a Director (a defined term that includes a controlling owner). Upon submission of that declaration, the PL has 5 working days to tell the club whether the proposed Director is liable or not to be disqualified under the owners' and directors' test. Boring Milner, etc.

I wonder if the transfer chopper can also double as a takeover chopper?

I believe the proper terminology is "it happen".

Somehow I feel like some sort of fax machine error is at the heart of all of this.

Up your LinkedIn game, Midhat, man.

What does a French cow say?

it happen

The schadenfreude is real.

Fuck Mike Ashley.