Thumbheed

Me neither. What's your point?

I was certain this would be it; last year of his contract, potential takeover, universally hated by the fans with some of the media starting to call him out, but that end of season finish has me thinking the bean bag faced cunt thinks he's earned that 12th place finish on merit.

Then put this in the context of: - ESL -Project Big picture and the PL's alleged approval of it. -Spurs seemingly engaging PIF themselves for investment in the club - the fact the ODT is confidential and supposedly completely free from outside influence. Then you probably have quite an array of issues which the PL have to address.

I agree, I think they probably are allowed to raise their concerns to the PL, but the question is whether they're allowed to raise their concerns via the clubs. If only a select number of clubs received those letters (as is being suggested) and those clubs were the big 6 (as in being implied) and they acted on it, then it'd be further proof of a clear of obvious cartel we can all acknowledge is present. This would contravene competition law. Re: the supermarket analogy, again, the reasoning is irrelevant in the context of a multimillion pound transaction for the purchase of a business. They categorically would not be allowed to lobby the other supermarkets to raise concerns on behalf of Coca Cola, irrespective of whether they're selling the real stuff or not. It's It's the action of attempting to get others to essentially lobby on Cokes behalf that is the issue, not the fact that the new owners of Asda sell Rola Cola themselves. Edit: *same

My understanding is they don't have to stipulate the takeover be blocked for it to be a breach of competition law. The question is whether the clubs are legally allowed to ask that PL 'thouroughly investigate' as per competition law. It'd be like Coca Cola writing to the Aldi, Sainsbury's, Waitrose and Lidl asking them to convey their disapproval to the CMA of an Asda takeover (to James point, the reason why doesn't materially matter), they legally wouldn't be allowed to do that.

What are they asking the clubs to do?

So they're not applying their own test "objectively"...

Eh? Strop? I'll ignore the fact you're trying to divert the conversation and crack on with my day. It's absolutely clear you have nothing. Edit: FYI, your point is they have the capacity to pull off an ultra precise cover up, which would weather legal scrutiny by some of the best lawyers in the UK, when they can't even carry out their own ODT. Oh and you're basing this on your opinion. "Realist" though.

Fuck all then. So you've assigned yourself as the "realist" based on fuck all. Conversely, the others see the same corruption as you do and see legs in it, thats literally it. Dunno what's so hard to understand with that and why it's pretty relasitic but here we are on a Saturday afternoon discussing it. Just boring as fuck. "Realist" though Same time next week?

And you're basing that on?

For what it's worth, I dont actually mind a discussion with people who thinks its not on, but from everything I've read (and I have been glued to this thread), I've seen fuck all in the form of actual logical reasoning as to why the PL are correct. That's literally the only singular point you have to demonstrate and yet I see fuck all.

That is literally the same thing as saying the PL are correct. It's just mental gymnastics to support a position you can't really back with anything other than supposition. "Realist" though.

I mean, for people to beleive that it won't happen means they think the PL acted appropriately and are correct. [That is literally their legal opinion]. It means they're aligning themselves with the likes of Luke Edwards ffs. Where's the evidence to support the PL's standpoint? "Realists" though.

Do you know what evidence is?

I think him checking himself is quite a tell. Imagine wishing someone well after recovering from an illness by sayin "well, they have survived.

"well....they have surv..." are the words of a man who's disappointed we survived. Seems his tone has shifted from smugness in his earlier sit down interviews to resentment in this one.

But surely the same argument could and would arise in this case?

What impact would losing the arbritarion case have on this case?

Its negative speculation based on nothing more than misplaced cynicism. Caulkin knows nothing Kennedy knows nothing Keith knows nothing PIF withdrew It hasn't happened yet therefore it must not be happening etc etc. The same views repeated ad nauseum against a backdrop of an owner who himself thinks the takeover is still on.

Here we go again.

There's reports that Hoffman was aware of Project Big 6 and communicated his approval of those plans. If Project Big 6, isn't defined as anti-competitive, then I don't know what it.

The thing is, the PL have proved they're more than willing to drag things out, and caving in would essentially be an admission of guilt. It's totally unprecedented so whilst I am and have always been confident of a takeover, I'm not so certain that they'll roll over like is being assumed and yet I can't think of a single logical and feasible reason why they wouldn't as on the surface it seems so clear cut.

This is excruciating. Feels like we're either a week away from a takeover or 2 fucking years.

*Sorry, as in how the PL could argue against that very rule. I think they'd parrot what they've said in public which is PIF withdrew blah blah blah, but even then I think it'd be a flimsy argument if it can be shown that PIF had provided sufficient information up to the point of withdrawal.

Yep, this is what I was referring to although I couldn't remember the actual rule. I'm not sure how they'd argue against that very policy in court, it seems clear cut to me, although my legal knowledge only stretches to Bird Law.