Thumbheed

10 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

 

Nailed that imo!

4 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

 

He did

 

 

 

 

 

Ahhh after he was prompted for comment but not part of his original thread. But fair enough. 

Not exactly the most committed commentary though seeing as though it's the salient part of the club and AS's statements. 

Just now, Ben said:

 

Did you actually read his full tweet, his tone is obviously anti Staveley 

No comment on the need for transparency either. 

5 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

Could this not be to indirectly put pressure on the judge in the CAT case to not agree to the PL''s request to have the CAT case heard privately?

 Perhaps, I guess it depends on the type of argument the PL are putting up.

I'm more sold on the idea that rejecting a public hearing puts the PL in an incredibly poor position when it comes to the fan led review. 

This latest move seems quite incisive, imo. I'm actually quite buoyed by the latest developments. 

I just don't see how it's possible for the PL to demonstrate they're looking after the interests of the fans whilst rejecting their calls for a public hearing, which as @Jackie Broon has said plays right into the hands of the people who are looking to establish independent regulation. 

6 minutes ago, Robster said:

Should be the other way around in my opinion. The PL should be telling themselves that if they don't play things straight with NUFC in future, they'll come for them, all guns blazing.

Fuck playing nice with the PL. That ship has sailed.

Aye, at this point I'm just as invested in dragging the PL through the mud as I am getting this takeover done. 

22 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

She's the Chair of the review panel currently looking into English football governance, she could potentially make recommendations that could result in the PL losing its powers to self regulate. If the PL insist on this being held privately when everyone else wants it to be public it's a very bad look for them when the panel decide whether there needs to be independent regulation of the PL.

 

 

 

This is a great point.  

Arguing for the Arbritation to be held in public view undermines the PL's argument to have the CAT case held in private. 

Safe to say this account is legit. 

3 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Confidentiality whilst the legal process is underway? Any implication of ‘leaks’ from the club side would have negative consequences. 

Not necessarily leaks but the media releases were only done so by SSN and local rags. 

There seems to be a public interest, or at least we're lead to beleive that, so surely trying to engage as much of the public as possible aids their cause?

The thing I don't understand is why the club haven't really pushed this for national coverage?

If this is as sensational as they're implying, then surely they'd have the reach to stir up interest in it via the national rags too? 

If only

We ought to have a seperate thread for those that want to to mindlessly speculate in whatever rubbish is out there to keep this thread from being derailed every couple of hours for the sake of those that don't want to speculate on the rubbish. 

Just now, Wandy said:

 

Exactly what I thought. The last paragraph was a completely unnecessary bit of point scoring. All it shows to the PL is the chinks in our armour.

Yep. Already seeing alot of posts referring the hypocrisy when the focus should be on exactly what the club is trying to achieve. 

Decent enough statement, but they missed a trick not involving the wider football fraternity by alluding to the ESL and disconnect with fans. 

Also, whilst they're right about Ashley's hypocrisy, I don't think now is the time to provide an alternative narrarive to the club's statement when we should all be laser focused on what's at stake, imo, of course. 

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I thought that on first view but I think it can be interpreted either way.

Particularly with it saying "that too should be held in confidential arbitration", the CAT claim is not arbitration.

 

What I think it is most likely actually saying is that the PL are trying to prevent the CAT case, which would be public, from going ahead arguing that should be dealt with under the arbitration instead.

 

That suggests to me that the PL's jurisdiction challenge is still yet to be decided.

This is what I couldn't make fit, but that does make alot of sense. 

One point of note though, is that it seems the PL are no longer arguing for it to be 'thrown out' because of both cases being materially the same, but now arguing it should be absorbed into the arb case (I suspect to avoid public scrutiny) which does suggest a different tact and a significant come down from their initial positioning which was that this case shouldn't even be heard in the first place. 

I'm personally not invested in the idea of a settlement. Think this takeover depends entirely on the outcome of the arbritation case which could be nearly a couple of months till we hear of a decision. 

Aye, don't think Rafa going elsewhere is indicative of anything takeover wise.

At the end if the day the man's ultimately a professionas, so he's got a choice to go to a cloob which fits his profile now or wait it out for a takeover to go through (or not) at a time where the likelihood of other suitable jobs being available should the takeover not go through is minimal.

3 minutes ago, kamakazeee said:

That's not strictly the way it works - there’s a call for evidence in January for the report, then once all the information is gathered, the report is published in April.

Interesting. Where have to seen this? 

It could well be, although I'd have thought the Saudi's would be aware of this, surely?

Interestingly the SAIP have just released a statement on their latest drive to protect IP.

Just now, nbthree3 said:

I don't think anyone can answer the first, curious timing. Look forward to hearing more in the coming weeks if more comes out. As for the second, Ashley's side but we don't know why either. Yet. 

If it was Ashley, why sit on it? 

If this was done in January then why has it only made it out now? Apologies if that's been answered already.

My other question is did this make its way to the PA via one of the sides and if so, which side and why?

The ESL story is exactly the sort of thing the Trust should be speaking up on, perfect opportunity to reiterate their message of the disconnect between club owners and the fans. 

Just now, Happinesstan said:

I never thought it did. Wasn't even in my thoughts. It's a pretty straightforward comment, I'm just not as emotionally involved as you.

What an odd comment.

Moving on then, still interested to hear what I'm missing.

Just now, Joey Linton said:

In your opinion of course. 

Of course.

In fact it's been followed up with a post saying one of the written rules is pointless as the unwritten rule was not 'passed' so to speak.