Jackie Broon

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.

Already been explained, but you never seem to listen to anyone. He and KSA are uninterested in NUFC, they don’t want to be involved and being subjected to the test will make them involved (and prove the PL’s point that they are involved). That would be an inconvenience to them and they and too much hassle for what is a very low level investment for them. What involvement is required after going through the test? You mean that if they’re put forward, and pass (you say it would) then they’re forced to start acting in that role? Weird f***ing logic man. The test is the involvement. As soon as PIF put him forward for the test, they’re accepting he is involved. How difficult is that to comprehend. And if it’s simply to pass the test, what’s the issue? You say it would pass, but they choose not to do it. The only reason they won’t put him forward for it is because they know it would fail. Because the they are beholden to the requirements of the test, it's not a one-off thing. Anyway, no one has said that it's MbS that is the issue. Masters said it's an entity and Staveley said KSA.

Everything that I've seen suggests that it's the Saudi state rather than MbS that the PL think should be included in the test (for all we know MbS has already been included, as you'd expect as the chairman of PIF). Staveley said that the PL wanted the KSA to be tested, Masters referred only to an 'entity' (although the rules of the test only referres to a 'person' so I'm not sure how they could legally apply it to an entity) so it seems to be the Saudi state that they want to include rather than MbS.

We need to point out where the PL have clearly broken their own rules in the O&D test process. All of that baseless stuff about corruption on twitter is easily brushed aside, we need specifically to focus on the fact that they have been ignoring their own rules in how they have dealt with the process.

From what Staveley and the PL have said it sounds like they wanted to actually apply the O&D test to the Saudi state She sounds like she's back tracking & lashing out. The PL's rules are really specific as to what the process should be, they require the PL to issue written notice of disqualification upon becoming aware of any disqualifying event (including not providing relevant information about any other individual who would qualify as a director but has not been disclosed). There is absolutely no provision or allowance in their rules for the back-and-forward they have been engaging in or for independent arbitration before a decision is issued. The rules are clear that upon becoming aware of any disqualifying event written notice of disqualification is issued. They clearly haven't carried out this process in accordance with their rules. In accordance with their rules they should have issued a written decision and the buyers would have had the right to appeal to a judicial panel.

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action? Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million). So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs. Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League. So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford? Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves? The PL have assets of around £400,000 and a turnover of around £3m (their acounts are freely available on Companies House). It could be that the clubs would be asked to step in to bail them out but the Premier League Ltd would not be likely to be able to afford to pay out much.

I won't say where, but it really isn't difficult to find and is public information.

Closer to what? I’m not going to be tedious and claim to be ‘in the know’, but I’m relatively confident this takeover will happen. Maybe not this week as others have suggested, but certainly within the next two. So where's the confidence coming from then? Positive noise, really. I may be proven completely wrong, but I’m more confident now then I have been through the whole takeover period. Happy to hold my hands up and say my ‘confidence’ is shit in a couple of weeks if it’s proven to be, but hopefully I’ll be right. Ask manorpark[/member] where the positive thoughts get you. Positive thinking (reality, as I always felt it was) will prove to be correct in the end. My goodness though . . it is taking its time happening!! Even a broken clock is right once a day. Twice a day... we are indeed drifting into the arena of the unwell.

I think you're putting too much weight on what a press statement represents, it has no actual real weight, it doesn't mean that they have formally withdrawn from any process and they certainly wouldn't need to retract it to continue. Completely different circumstance but if a developer going through the planning process put out a press statement that they were no longer planning to go ahead with the development the Council would still be required to make a decision unless the applicant directly requested in writing that it is withdrawn. This is a very different circumstance because the provision for that are set out in legislation but I think the PL would be in vary shaky ground making the assumption that they don't need to continue based on a press statement. We don't know what is actually going on behind the scenes, from what is dripping out it seems like discussions around the O&D test are still going on.

Private or not, you cannot change the agreed contractual obligations of either side after the process has begun, unless agreed by both sides. The PL, even as a private company, will have to have followed their own rules by the letter as this is contractually agreed between 2 parties. If the consortium feel there is any grey area in the PLs actions during this test which has prevented a purchase, caused financial loss, not just the deposit but the costs of an on going investigation and legal representation then they have a case to make. Happens all the time. Plus neither PIF nor Ashley had contracts with PL. Just with each other Firstly, how do you know that? Secondly, I would imagine that for the purposes of contract law the PL's rules are the terms of a contract between the club/proposed owners and the PL.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself. I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all. I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up. I just don't see this going legal. I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal). I bow to other people's knowledge of course but surely, seeing as though we are in week 18 (?), surely they would have gone down that route already? They probably thought that they could work with the PL to get a satisfactory conclusion and didn't want to antagonise them, but they finally reached deadlock with them and have clearly changed tactics. I would expect that they are being much more aggressive in terms of threatening legal action since that change.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself. I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all. I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up. I just don't see this going legal. I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal). So if it does go to court it will be so they can get the deposit/damages/costs back. Can't see it forcing them to approve I don't think it would be within the remit of a an English court to influence the actual decision (it would possibly be within the remit of the Court of Arbitration for Sport though). But, from my point of view, this is more about speculation of what might be going on behind the scenes and the pressure that might be put on the PL to make a decision. I think if it does get as far as legal action that would probably mean the deal is dead, because it could go on for years.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself. I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all. I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up. I just don't see this going legal. I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal).