Jackie Broon

I think the fact that the PL refused to actually make a decision on that indicates that there was more to it than that. They were clearly not confident in disqualifying the directors on that basis but did not want to approve the takeover, most likely due to the Saudi piracy issue. If that is resolved their reason for blocking the takeover by refusing to make a decision might have gone away.

That'll be what the actual QCs are doing, I'd guess. The pressure from the fans/NCSL is about keeping it in the public eye and making the PL realise they can't just squirm out of it because there is evidence available that they've not been entirely open and honest in their actions. That's my take on this anyway. But it seems pointless, the vague call for transparency is just so easy for the PL to squirm out of. The PL's line has been 'we couldn't make a decision because they wouldn't provide the information on other directors and PIF have withdrawn now' and the public, government and supporter groups' response was essentially 'fair enough'. They've never really been publicly challenged on that, the PL have continued with that line and it's been parroted in government and MP responses, without question. But it's blatantly contrary to their O&D test rules, which not only allow them to make a decision on the basis (disqualifying the other directors) but require them to have made a decision well before PIF withdrew. A legal challenge of that process would possibly take years and in the court of public opinion 'you broke your own rules' is a much stronger message than some vague call for transparency of a process that fundamentally can't be transparent.

I just don't get the benefit these calls for transparency, it's just so vague and easy to bat away because O&D test and arbitration are fundamentally confidential processes. Also, MP's can't be seen to be influencing the judiciary so it's pointless asking for them to intervene in NCSL's case. Surely it would be better to concentrate on concrete things like asking MPs to put pressure on the PL to act in accordance with its own rules and make a formal decision or on stuff the government can actually influence, like an investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority.

De La Rue. So it's an actual money plane

Ashley's plane seems to be following this one, from Newcastle, to Kuwait?? https://www.flightradar24.com/KAF3201/26485834

It's legit: https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/GMATO https://my.pinkfroot.com/photo/g-mato-falcon-7x

The fact that they weren't confident enough in their position to actually follow their rules and make a formal decision says everything about what is going on on the PL side. They clearly aren't actually confident in their position.

Hall and Shepherd seen the pound signs and knew all the objections were going to lead to a lengthy public enquiry. He went for the quickest option and not the best in the long term in my opinion. There's no reason why they couldn't have pressed ahead with both the appeal and an application for the expansion of St James' Park at the same time. Planning Public Inquires aren't generally particularly lengthy or expensive in the grand scheme of things (unless it's something like Heathrow terminal 5). Generally they last a week or two and having thousands of objections is nothing unusual. That's assuming it would've definitively been refused, in my experience you can never know 100% what is going to happen at a council committee meeting. The fact that it was withdrawn suggests to me that either they weren't fully committed to it in the first place or that there was a fundamental issue that they were advised would make it unlikely to have been successful at appeal. That wouldn't be down to public objections. I think the friends of Leazes Park had the likes of English Heritage involved, it would definitely have gone to government for a full public enquiry. I just think it boiled down to economics in the end and they wanted the extra capacity in the quickest time frame possible. Certainly would have been interesting had it been built, though like most new stadia built around that time it might now have looked dated in comparison to Spurs etc now. No, it would have been a planning inquiry undertaken by the planning inspectorate, although that is an executive agency of government. It probably wouldn't have been an incredibly complex inquiry because the primary issue probably would have been heritage impact only, and large scale well organised public objection is not unusual at inquiries, ubiquitous even. It is possible like you say they just wanted the extra capacity in the quickest time, but why not at least let the application run its course and see what happens? Why not twin-track an application for expansion with an appeal? Planning inquires are not that expensive, tens of thousands of pounds rather than hundreds of thousands usually, cost would not be likely to have been a significant obstacle It's likely that English Heritage would have been a statutory consultee anyway, and they would not have been influenced by public objection to the development. Although, their objection is likely to have been a significant issue for its prospects at appeal. But my point is that the influence of public objections probably wasn't as significant as people make out.

Hall and Shepherd seen the pound signs and knew all the objections were going to lead to a lengthy public enquiry. He went for the quickest option and not the best in the long term in my opinion. There's no reason why they couldn't have pressed ahead with both the appeal and an application for the expansion of St James' Park at the same time. Planning Public Inquires aren't generally particularly lengthy or expensive in the grand scheme of things (unless it's something like Heathrow terminal 5). Generally they last a week or two and having thousands of objections is nothing unusual. That's assuming it would've definitively been refused, in my experience you can never know 100% what is going to happen at a council committee meeting. The fact that it was withdrawn suggests to me that either they weren't fully committed to it in the first place or that there was a fundamental issue that they were advised would make it unlikely to have been successful at appeal. That wouldn't be down to public objections.

The petition didn't prevent that development from going ahead, John Hall withdrawing the application before it had run its course did. Whether that was just him throwing his toys out of the pram or because there was a more fundamental issue, I don't know, but public objection alone does not prevent a development by a genuinely committed developer.

The Foreign Office is a department of government and therefore everything it does is delegated from the authority of the Secretary of State (google ‘Carltona doctrine').

Also seems to confirm that Masters lied to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. https://committees.parliament.uk/event/1477/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/ Q466 John Nicolson: I am told that the Premier League has been put under enormous pressure by the Government to look favourably on the Saudi deal. Have you spoken to anybody in the Government about it? Richard Masters: Again, I am talking generally. During my time at the Premier League, I am not aware of the Government placing any pressure on the Premier League one way or another in relation to any takeover. Q467 John Nicolson: But this one is different because the Government are very keen to keep good relations with Saudi Arabia, regardless of how brutal the regime. The Saudi takeover is different from most takeovers. Are you assuring us that there have been no discussions between Government Ministers and you, or indeed anybody in the league, about this? Richard Masters: You are suggesting that we were put under pressure to go one way or another and that has not happened. Q468 John Nicolson: There has been no pressure? Richard Masters: No. Q469 John Nicolson: Have Government Ministers expressed a view to you about whether or not they would like this to go ahead? Richard Masters: You are asking me to talk about it, but, generally speaking, that has never happened. Q470 John Nicolson: No, in this specific case, has any Government Minister expressed a view, either favourable or unfavourable, to you? Richard Masters: No.

I don't think so, those companies are generally tenants rather than owners of their stores. I think it's more about acquiring the brands and the stock at knockdown price and general dominance of what's left of the high street.

I'm not expecting that he'll be sacked after tonight or even before the takeover completes, if that happens, but Kennedy will be getting fed the information they want out there, nothing more than that.

I had £30 I'd forgotten about in my Paddy Power account left from a win on the last Grand National so thought it was worth a punt.

They don't offer the market anymore. Nobody does apart from Skybet (12/1). They still do through oddschecker, currently at 20/1.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2020-11-23/119233

I’m sure if the bid is still on the table they can’t just change the rules ffs Im sure they can tbh citing the PIF public withdrawal I don’t think you have a clue what you are talking about OK mate Its going to go through and the PL will be more than happy to support the process I’ve not said that at all but you’ve basically just talked a load of s*** The last few months backs my point up, so I disagree! 1. There’s nothing to suggest project big picture 2.0 has anything about takeovers in it. The main sticking point in the original project big picture was the power grab 2. Even if there is, there is no suggestion it’ll get voted thru. In actual fact the non big 6 PL clubs would be mental to vote that thru 3. There is no way the legal teams are hanging around waiting to see the outcome of PBP and yes there is plenty they can do about it 4. Many sources say the bid is still on the table. I’m not a lawyer but I’m confident they can’t just change the rules around takeovers during a takeover especially when the club is currently involved in arbitration about said takeover Once again you are talking s*** I would suggest most of that is opinion which could also be interpreted as s*** and glass half full s*** at that! Do you genuinely believe the PL clubs will vote to allow the big 6 to block takeovers? That’s essentially what your whole theory is based on I think there will be sweetners offered to Everton WHU Wolves and maybe Southampton to get this over the line. So yes i do! It would clearly be illegal under competition law, I'm amazed it was even proposed, if it was as reported in the first project big picture. You can't have a situation where competing companies have a veto over the ownership of their competitor companies, that's about as clear a case of anti-competitive activity as could possibly be imagined.

I'm hopeful that something important has happened behind the scenes, but I wouldn't read too much into NCSL's likes, they seem to like pretty much every post they're tagged in.

Promoted clubs have to undergo the PL O&D test before playing in the PL, so that's not an option.

When you know, you know you know. Actually, when you know you know you don't know. Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

They would not seek arbitration on a deal that is off. That’s the club. Not the group. I am aware of that, it doesn't change the fact that arbitration would be pointless if the deal were dead. If that were the case the club would be pursuing litigation rather than arbitration.

They would not seek arbitration on a deal that is off.

It's been widely reported that the only issue is whether the KSA / MbS should be disclosed as a director, so that's very likely to be the only issue they're arbitrating on.

That it was NCSL, not the PL, that had breached confidentiality by saying the club had an ongoing legal case with the PL.