Jackie Broon

I don't think we've even had any of the usual unofficial press releases from the usual suspects saying that the PL are privately confident that they will successfully defend the case. Have we?

I very much doubt that would prevent them from denying that they have acted in any unlawfully anti-competitive way.

The fact that the PL haven't made any comment on the CAT case could possibly be a good sign. It seems common practice for companies having anti competition cases brought against them to publicly refute them as baseless (such as Apple and Google recently). The PL have publicly responded to other announcements, such as after the withdrawal of PIF and Ashley's statement, but just 'no comment' on this.

I don't think so, it states that: The Claim states that the Defendant exercised its power to block the Proposed Takeover when it decided between June and September 2020 that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a director exercising “control” over NUFC, for the purposes of the Rules (“the Director Decision”). It's stating that it was the decision that Saudi Arabia would be a director, not that it was blocked by disqualifying the proposed directors, which would be effect of a formal decision. We know from what was said by the PL in response to Ashley's statement in September that the PL made determinations in June and September that Saudi Arabia would be a director, but didn't make a formal decision disqualifying the other directors, so I think that is what is being referred to.

We did agree, only after that did he disclose that he had done work for the PL (advising on the O&D test), which is why we went to the High Court to try to get him removed.

They didn't make a formal decision. Following Ashley's statement in September, where he said they had refused the takeover, the PL made a statement saying they hadn't made a formal decision and basically that PIF had withdrawn so they didn't need to.

It's not a matter of realism vs. optimism, it's all speculation. Negative speculation isn't any more inherently realistic. "The takeover if dead, just accept it" vs. "there are these indications that the takeover is still alive" is not realism vs. optimism, it's pessimism vs. optimism.

They might not make that decision, it will almost certainly be the PL's legal insurers that will foot the bill and they will decide whether to fight or settle. I've seen it where I work, we had a multi-million pound damages case against us and the insurers were the ones making the decisions, they even required us to bring in new policies in response to it after they had settled the case.

Apparently 6-8 weeks if it's expedited, about 3 months if it isn't, but if the PL were to settle that could happen at any time. That's most likely to happen at the disclosure stage, which is half way through.

No one here could know that. For all we know Masters may have recommended that the board approve the takeover and been outvoted, it seems possible that something like that happened given the positive noises that were made to the government followed by an opposite non-decision.

In which case they should have just made a formal decision refusing the takeover (or more precisely disqualified the proposed directors under rule F.6 for breach of rule F.1.1.1). The process as set out in the rules is this: The club submits a declaration with the details of the directors it is proposing to appoint (including anyone taking control of the club). The PL board have five working days to respond confirming whether any of them are liable to be disqualified as a director under the provisions of Rule F1 (which includes where they believe details of another director haven't been provided). If so, the board will issue a notice disqualifying those directors under the provisions of rule F.6. Rule F.6 requires that notice is issued immediately. No allowance for going back and asking for more information, no allowance for months of indecision, if the declaration isn't adequate the proper process in rules is to formally disqualify the proposed director/s immediately. Then the club can either submit a new declaration with those details or appeal. There's also no explicit consequence for not following that process, there is no rule that says for example if a decision is not made within five working days the directors are automatically approved. Which the PL have obviously taken as a green light to take as long as they want. But the issue here is going to be whether they have behaved reasonably or appear to have deliberately blocked the deal (and right of appeal) by refusing to actually make a decision that their rules explicitly state will be made within five working days. I think they are probably going to have a very hard time defending their actions.

Extremely flimsy, especially if what Staveley said about them asking the PL to just make a formal decision and them refusing to is true.

I think it's more likely that: a) they couldn't think of anyone else that would take the job, Bruce was their 9th choice or something, when the club were in a much stronger position. b) his past experience is that changing an unpopular manager = relegation, sticking with an unpopular manager = survival.

It seems like it would be hard for the PL to argue that they couldn't have disqualified the proposed directors, rule F.1.1.1 gives them the power to do that on the basis that they have "failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person)."

As I've speculated before, the PL board probably won't be the ones who decide whether to fight or settle this, their insurers will. This move might essentially take the decision out of PL board's hands.

Yes

Whatever the reality behind the announcement of their withdrawal in July, whether it was an actual formal withdrawal or just a tactic, PIF were back in for the club by August. They provided additional information and Lord Lister was brought in to help. Boris Johnson was reportedly told by Lord Lister on 7th September that the Newcastle deal would hopefully be signed that week, but the PL again came back saying they weren’t satisfied. After which Ashley put out his statement and instructed De Marco. So, after their press release in July PIF have been back trying to get the deal through, there's nothing to indicate that isn't still the case, quite the opposite. It might not end up with the takeover happening, but to say that it is finished is as daft as the stuff from the ultra positives.

Keith Patterson indicated in the NUFC Matters linked a few pages back that it hasn't started yet.

Well, that £13m seems to still be sitting in a controlled account (albeit not 100% certain), when Ashley could have just walked away with it nine months ago, indicates to me that there may be some kind of deal still in place.

But what about the £13m deposit?

The £150m amount is at para 4.14.5 How would anyone outside of the deal know there is any outstanding loan balance? It requires a deposit of £13m to be paid (para 5.11), which it's suggested above is the much talked about deposit that was paid by the consortium to Ashley. If it is unsatisfied doesn't that mean that the deposit will still be sitting in the controlled account? I'm not saying you're wrong, it's clearly something you know more about than me, just asking out of interest

What is it then? Here's a solicitor off of twitter's take: The ‘New Loan’: the position with the new loan is unclear. The Daily Express already reported this. It’s titled a “vendor loan” but the reality may be different. Our view is Ashley is putting the facility in place via St James’ Holdings to represent his existing £150m loan. The wording of the charge suggests that Ashley, via St James Holdings, will retain security over a specific bank account. It would seem that Ashley will finance the purchase initially (as otherwise it becomes complex to redeem his investment) and then Cantervale / JV1 will deposit £150m in the relevant bank account and the facility is immediately at an end. This approach would also explain why the deal was initially reported as being comprised of a £150m deposit and £200 of debt. There is a clause in the ‘new loan’ that the account doesn’t drop below 13m. This likely represents the 5% deposit that has been reported and would support our view that Whatever it is, it's still there and unsatisfied nine months after the sale supposedly collapsed.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/OC311146/charges/NajlYnFJqeQExM8atpduvlV3AwQ

Fair enough, but you asked for evidence that the agreement might still be in place, there is evidence in the form a a £150m loan between PCP and Ashley which is extant on Companies House. Al-Rumayyan personally delivered documents to the PL in the autumn, after PIF had publicly withdrawn. Why would PIF bother doing that unless they were still intending to purchase the club? It has been reported that Ashley has refused to even answer the phone other potential buyers since then. Why would he do that unless he has some sort of commitment from PIF? I'm not saying that is the case, and I'm not in the blindly optimistic camp, but there are things that point towards the possibility that the agreement to buy the club might have been extended after the public withdrawal of PIF in July.