Jackie Broon

The Judicial review process only applies to decisions made by public bodies. I studied restraint of trade in sport last year and came across some judicial commentary that suggest judges may be open to extending judicial review to sports regulatory bodies in some instances. Doubt this case is one of them mind. Interesting, but whatever happens I think the most likely route for altering the decision is an appeal to the PL and then to CAS after that, if there is the will.

No, we can't. Apart from the fact that there is probably no way to do that, the O&D test is applied to directors/owners all promoted clubs, also at the start of every season for current PL clubs and can be reapplied at any time the PL become aware of a disqualifying event.

The Judicial review process only applies to decisions made by public bodies.

I was expecting that’s what we’d hear if we heard anything. I said on a few occasions there’s no way the PL would budge I genuinely feel sorry for the fans who convinced themselves it was still happening It sort of was though wasn’t it? Privately at least, the bid was re-submitted, pif was involved again. Now unless they’re prepared to go to arbitration that would take an incredible amount of time (no information suggests this is likely) it’s flat dead on its arse. It’s absolutely gutting. They can appeal, which is heard as soon as possible. There is nothing to suggest they’re going to though? Unless I’m missing something. Who says they won’t? People have been adamant they walked away in July, they didn’t (well, not for long). PIF are in as long as Staveley has confidence the deal can be done, they’ll only walk away if she does. She is still committed to the deal and will take it to appeal. If it’s rejected on appeal it will be interesting, at that stage MA could take legal action but I have doubts the consortium would hang around that long. I expect it to be approved on appeal. I honestly wish I had your optimism, I hope you’re right. Realistically I think Ashley will probably have to appeal it through the PL's appeals process before taking it any further. He can't go to the CAS until they've been through the PL appeal process and it would probably really weaken any legal case brought against the PL if they haven't exhausted the appeals process first. The club are able to appeal the decision with or without the involvement of PIF.

guess it's just confirmation that ashley actively wants out and seems willing to push things to be able to get it done And confirmation that PIF were never really out, and they now have a decision that can be appealed. It seems probable that the PL board would prefer to be seen to resist the takeover and for it to be potentially granted by a tribunal on appeal so they can distance themselves from the decision. But, ultimately, it's a bit gutting to know that we could well have been celebrating the successful takeover yesterday.

Just a misspelling mate. Meant to say c**t

Don't know if anyone else has picked up on this but there's some intriguing wording in the club's statement: "The club and its owners do not accept that Premier League chief executive Richard Masters and the Premier League have acted appropriately in relation to this matter and will be considering all relevant options available to them." Not owner, "owners"?

The club is 100% owned by the owner though, so it's the same thing, no? I don't understand business transactions of this scale so am happy to have it explained why I'm wrong: but surely if I want something to become my property - I give money to the owner of that property, rather than to the property itself? So the 17mill goes to Ashley and he can do with it whatever the hell he wants? So the toaster owner could put that fiver towards a new heating element to improve the toaster, but they're not entitled to. They could go and spend it on anything. I think the £17m went to St James Holdings Ltd, not Ashley directly. I'm not sure what that means in terms of Ashley being able to pocket the money.

I don't think they said that. People have assumed it. “Even now, if the Premier League came to us and said ‘we will approve you’ we would do this deal tomorrow, all three parties of the consortium,” Amanda Staveley interviewed in The Athletic on 30th July. Massive massive pinch of salt. I think that's pretty obvious. Why? Anyway, the point is that people haven't just assumed it, Staveley has been directly quoted as saying it. It's a fair point, yeah. But for me I think she's very calculated and says things for a reason. It's a moot point anyway, given we know it's not gonna get approved. I agree, but she would have no reason to say that if the deal were completely dead. We know absolutely nothing, everything that has been said publicly from every side possibly has an ulterior motive. For all we know there there could be an arbitration or appeal process going on or an alternative funding arrangement with more distance from the Saudi state is being worked out, or it could be completely dead. What we do know is that all of the publicly available elements of the the legal framework for the deal are still in place, so the deal could probably be concluded completely out of the public eye this time.

I don't think they said that. People have assumed it. “Even now, if the Premier League came to us and said ‘we will approve you’ we would do this deal tomorrow, all three parties of the consortium,” Amanda Staveley interviewed in The Athletic on 30th July. Massive massive pinch of salt. I think that's pretty obvious. Why? Anyway, the point is that people haven't just assumed it, Staveley has been directly quoted as saying it.

Apparently a Saudi government plane HZ-MF2 landed at Luton earlier today.

I don't think they said that. People have assumed it. “Even now, if the Premier League came to us and said ‘we will approve you’ we would do this deal tomorrow, all three parties of the consortium,” Amanda Staveley interviewed in The Athletic on 30th July.

Pure guess work but Ashley hasn’t taken bid off table and it’s still with PL, we know for definite all communication must go through club. It’s rumoured Ashley is working to save deal, I suspect he’s still in dialogue with consortium and PL to find a way to get this through. Will it happen who knows, but the point being there is a glimmer and certainly discussions are still happening. It’s been reported PIF will return if green light is assured, how they get to that point is for far more skilled people in this sphere than ourselves to work out. Also it’s still worth recalling the Southampton takeover, they initially knocked it back but found a way to restructure it. I still retain hope that Rick Astley will be belting out over the tannoy before Xmas to herald Staveley’s arrival (sorry for the last sentence Shaun). The actual deal expired and no longer exists. In reality, despite what Amanda Staveley said, Ashley probably fucked the consortium right off, by trying to get more money out of them. I've suspected the same, that if the public withdrawal is a tactic it's probably as much, or more, about exposing the other bids as fake as it is about the O&D test stuff. We don't actually know what the situation is with the deal. In terms of what's publicly available all of the legal structures of it, such as the loan agreement between St James Holdings and PCP, seem to still be in place. If it no longer existed in any form and was completely dead wouldn't that have been satisfied on Companies House by now?

I don't think it works like that unfortunately, our directors would still be subject to the PL test before the club plays in the PL. I'm really looking forward to the day an existing director fails and the PL ban the club from the league. It'll never happen though. By the letter of the rules Abramovich should be disqualified if this is true https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/chelsea-owner-admits-he-paid-out-billions-in-bribes-26459423.html

I don't think it works like that unfortunately, our directors would still be subject to the PL test before the club plays in the PL.

Resistance is useless.

The extra information they wanted was for the state to be subjected to test, whether that was just MBS or the whole govt is open to debate. The consortium argue PIF is a separate entity and should be treated as so. A stand off then ensues for around a month. The consortium maintain they have provided all info as required, however instead of rejecting the takeover the PL find a way of not making any decision by offering arbitration on this one single point of ownership. Now if you believe the PL this was a previously unheralded move and they gave the consortium an olive branch. All very reasonable at face value, however the sting in the tale is this arbitration may have taken 12 months who knows, and they would still have had to take test after this. This is where accusations of them being disingenuous come into play, the consortium at this point had every right to expect PL to make decision based on info they provided. However, the PL allegedly just said where not going to either approve or reject, and where happy to sit here month after month. If the last sentence is true they basically left them with no alternative but to walk away, and as far as I’m concerned this is still the key unanswered question by the PL and why many believe they manipulated this outcome from the start. If the PL have requested somebody be named and the consortium haven't done that, then they haven't complied with the PL's requests, at all. So reject the takeover on insufficient information received ? I'm sure I saw a list of rules [in relation to timeframes, the only timeframes] in which it stated that any request for information should be responded to in 5 days, and if no response is received, a new 5 day period commences. If that is correct, I'm not sure they could do that. I don't think that's correct, there is absolutely no provision or process in the rules for requesting further information. The process is this, and only this: A declaration is submitted by the club for each proposed director. The rules state that within five working days of receipt of the declaration the PL board will confirm to the club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a director and, if so, will give written notice to the club and person that the proposed director is disqualified. The PL may informally request and allow additional information to be submitted but that is actually not in accordance with the letter of their rules, which require a formal decision to be made on each declaration, which can then be subject to appeal.

Well, that wasn't actually the end of that, because they refused to actually make a formal decision on that basis Also, I don't think it's technically correct to say that it's specifically about MbS. The PL have referred to it being an 'entity' that they require to be declared as a director, that entity is likely to be the Saudi State. I think the entity would need to be represented by an individual for the purposes of the test, which could be MbS but wouldn't necessarily have to be. It may seem like common sense that the state would control its sovereign wealth fund, but there have also been legitimate legal opinions given that PIF should be considered to be a legally separate independent entity. However, the issue isn't that the PL came to that conclusion, which they are entitled to do, it's that they took three months to do so and then spent a further month refusing to actually issue a formal decision, that could have been appealed, before PIF finally pulled the plug.

Man City are irrelevant to this takeover, the test back then was different. Doesnt the O&D test have to be done every season ? Sure someone said it was. It does, or a director can be disqualified at any time upon the PL board becoming aware of them being liable for disqualification. Also, the 'immunity' in the rules for directors who underwent the test pre-2009 only applies to conviction of an offence that would not have led to disqualification at that time, not the circumstance here where a director hasn't been disclosed. However, I don't think that anyone outside of the PL and Man City would know whether Sheikh Mansour has been subject to the O&D test or not. Him not being listed as a director of the company doesn't mean that he hasn't been subject to the O&D test.

It is their place to assess that because it's part of the test, but having concluded that another 'entity' should be named a director in June the rules required that a formal decision be made disqualifying the other directors on that basis. They didn't do that. The PL have absolutely no wiggle room on that from what I can see, they've come out and said they've come to a conclusion on it and reached an impasse. Their rules unequivocally require that formal notice of disqualification be issued "upon the Board becoming aware" of a disqualifying event.

You argue a sound case, but the PL response is that your reading of F.1.1.1 is too much a strict letter reading, that the PL acknowledged that PIF disclosed its would-be directors but were fuzzy on what “control” meant in the rules - and because the PL is such a helpful bunch, they gave them an opportunity to correct their papers rather than reject it outright. Yes, the rules say they should have been rejected, but I don’t know the argument “Be damned with ‘helpful’, they should have failed us” is going to beat the above PR line. Although the PL may helpfully allow proposed directors to submit additional information (although, by the letter, their rules don't actually allow for that) the PL have said that an impasse was reached in June, they clearly should have issued a formal notice of disqualification at that point.

"RM outlined the Owners’ & Directors’ Test process, explaining that it was an objective test and not one that was open to subjective opinion. He explained the need to establish if there were links to other legal entities that would own or control the Club. When an impasse was reached in this matter, the consortium was offered a number of routes to progress the matter: – the entity in question accepts they would have Control by completing relevant forms and processes – an independent arbitration on the issue of Control which en" It is an objective test, it's very clearly set out and the process in the rules is this: Rule F.4. requires the submission of a declaration if any Person proposes to become a director of a club (including anyone acquiring control of the club): That is then assessed against Rule F.1. which sets out a number of 'disqualifying events'. Those 'disqualifying events' include rule F.1.1.1. that the person subject to the test has failed to provide all relevant information (including information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed). Rule F.6. states that: Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will: F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons. Rule F.13. states that Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s) The PL have abundantly clearly not followed that process. They established in June that an 'entity' that they believed should be included as a director had not been disclosed (a disqualifying event under rule F.1.1.1.). Rule F.6. requires them to have issued a notice of disqualification to the proposed directors "upon becoming aware" that they were liable to be disqualified. The rules give them absolutely no other option, they should have issued a formal decision at that point, which could then have been appealed.

The board of the company isn't necessarily reflective of who has been subject to the O&D test, it could be that he was included in the test. Although the test was different when Man City were taken over and they are exempt from the requirements of the current test.

Yes, the PL have said PIF have withdrawn and the O&D test isn't ongoing. It's over as far as the takeover is concerned I think, but I also think the PL are possibly going to get absolutely taken to the cleaners in court... which will make it even more galling being stuck with Ashley. The PL aren't going to be taken to the cleaners. As, I assume, neither of us are qualified to give a legal opinion on this I accept that your view is as valid as mine, but it would be good to at least see a bit of analysis to back up your view? My view is that at very least they are likely to be liable for £17m plus legal costs. Today's letter makes it abundantly clear that they haven't followed their rules on the O&D test. It's clear from the rules, in the circumstances the PL set out in today's letter, that they should have issued a formal written notification of disqualification of the directors in June. Had they done that the consortium would have been refunded their deposit of £17m (as Staveley has stated). The PL rules would be the basis of a contract for the purposes of contract law, the PL have failed to apply the rules as set out and that has resulted in the consortium losing £17m. That seems open and shut to me. Ashley's potential case would probably be much more complicated, because he would probably have to demonstrate that the test should have been passed to show financial harm. But if the actual valid legal opinion of Football Law that PIF and the KSA are legally separate is the position taken by the court, Ashley could get the full value of the club, plus legal costs.

Yes, the PL have said PIF have withdrawn and the O&D test isn't ongoing. It's over as far as the takeover is concerned I think, but I also think the PL are possibly going to get absolutely taken to the cleaners in court... which will make it even more galling being stuck with Ashley.