Thumbheed

5 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I think you're missing the fact that it's obvious the people to be tested should be decided before the test is applied.

This answer doesn't offer as much substance as you think. 

15 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Does it really need to be written down that who should be tested is decided before any test is applied?

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, then yes, surely it must be as important if not more important than any other of the rules that are written down. 

It also leads us into a bizarre situation where the 2 parties need to agree on who gets tested before the test can progress to the stage where the PL can disqualify said party for not disclosing someone(or something in this case) who should have been tested. That just makes no sense to me. 

Where's the provision that states that the PL need to agree on who to test before the test can begin?

Surely that must be written down somewhere?

So has disclosure been given for the arbitration case? 

Cynical me says this is just a stab in the dark article.

Optimistic me says this is the club signalling the strength of their hand with disclosure now in hand. 

15 hours ago, Froggy said:

This isn't what it is at all. While we're discontent with our owners we're still realistic and understand we're in an extremely fortunate position to still have the spending power that we do, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that our owners are only interested in lining their own pockets.

Managers have wanted players in the past that would be a clear improvement to the squad and the deals are never sanctioned because there isn't much resale value. Alderweireld is an example. Mourinho wanted him and the cost was £40m which wasn't approved. The Glazers will spend money, but the wellbeing of the team is secondary. It's why the likes of Haaland and Sancho are realistic signings, but someone like Kane is highly unlikely, even though it would be one of the best signings in our history.

The condition of Old Trafford is certainly something that needs addressed, and we realise that lot of stadiums need refurbishment, but the Glazers have taken £800m out of the club just to service interest payments. We've spent more on financing over 16 years than we have on players. Since the Glazers have taken us over we've generated £6b in revenue, yet in 2021 our debt remains at £500m+. Only Spurs have more debt than us, which is due to a new stadium.

It's not arrogance, or entitlement to say we are the biggest club in the country. That is true, in terms of stature and revenue. We should not be in the position we are in financially. It's something I try not to go into too much on this board, as if there's another team who has an owner worse than ourselves, it's you. But to look at our position with the Glazers and think our animosity solely comes from us not spending enough, it's a bit baffling. 

-

Decent article here for some light reading which should explain the ill feeling better than I have above:

https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/nine-shocking-figures-from-the-glazers-ownership-of-manchester-united/#:~:text=– The club have spent over,(net) on buying players.&text=– In 2020%2C Manchester United received £140million in broadcasting revenue.&text=– Manchester United's infrastructure spending between,amounts to just £118million.

We're basically the Aldi version of this, minus any expenditure. 

Pop him on ignore, like.

The biggest irony is that the ones that are wound up by him are the only ones quoting him. 

I just fancy a thread on the takeover where we discuss the takeover. Seems simple enough.

No doubt Keith is an egg, but Jacobs is defo more suss to me now. 

If the PL were sure of their position and wanted to reject the takeover on the basis that PIF and KSA were one and the same, then why didn't they do just that? 

I dont understand where the PL's supposed confidence comes from if they were in such a strong position to reject the takeover in the first place. 

I don't even know if the point is relevant to the arbritation case, but I just don't understand how it can be argued that the PL needed to agree with who should be tested before the test can progress to the stage where they can disqualify said party for not disclosing a Director as per Jacob's point? 

Any ideas?

Can someone clarify Jacob's point about why rule F.1.1.1 is not applicable? 

From what I gather, he's saying the test never got to that stage because the 2 sides couldn't agree on who/what should be tested.

Is that right? 

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

You’ve got such an odd take on everything.

The takeover is currently off, PIF pulled out. That’s the definition of being off. And I do think it is is unlikely to go through, based on what we’ve heard to date.

I’m not sure what your point is. There is no ‘shameless transition’. 

What about those who have moved from ‘the takeover is happening’ to ‘it’s looking unlikely’. Have they had a shameless transition? Is it not possible for people to change their viewpoint based on the information in front of them?

The opposite is the problem. Some people are unwilling to change their viewpoints, even with overwhelming noise of the deal being in bother. I’d argue it’s more of an issue for those people, rather than those who are happy to assess what is in front of them.

I'll give a proper response to this post a wide berth if that's Ok, Fanny?

But perhaps you should let Mike know the takeovers off as he seems to think otherwise. 

Mad seeing the same people who've shamelessly transitioned from "the takeovers off" to "the takeover won't go through" still have the balls to try and call out someone else's judgement/opinions.  

7 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

It’s no-lose in reality for him, isn’t it?

£17m to spend, not a single penny is his own. Lose the case? Drags on for two years and keeps him away from the pressure of doing anything remotely ambitious.

Small chance of winning? Great. The takeover happens.

All of the £17m belongs to him...

39 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I don't think "the big 6" is a legally recognised term.

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. 

16 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

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) then it'd be further proof of a clear of obvious cartel we can all acknowledge is present. This would contravene completion 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 The action of attempting to get others to essentially lobby on beins behalf which is the issue. 

Edit: *same

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. 

51 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

They’re certainly allowed to ask the PL to ‘thoroughly investigate’ piracy. As they have done multiple times pre the proposed takeover. That letter is no different.

BeIN will probably be able to produce several other letters from years ago which say a similar thing - proving there is no anti-competition element to it and they’re only concerned about the piracy.

That’s not directly comparable though - if Asda were selling fake Coca Cola in their stores, would Coca Cola be able to convey concerns then? I think they would. They’re protecting their own brand.

That’s not what the letter says.

 

Edit - all of this is with the caveat of they are my own opinions and I’m by no means an expert. Hopefully one of the legal chaps on here will be able to shed some light on it.

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

24 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

They’re not asking them to do anything. 

They’re suggesting it’s in the clubs’ interests to protect their own commercial revenues by asking the PL to consider the impact of Saudi piracy.

It certainly doesn’t ask the clubs to block the takeover, nor does it ask them to join a secret group.

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. 

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

What difference does it make?

BeIN are the business partner who have been directly affected by the piracy. They have every right to raise a concern with it.

I just don’t see anything wrong with that letter. They’re not even calling for the clubs to block it.

 

What are they asking the clubs to do? 

8 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Because the PL will probably say, they want to be balanced and give the consortium every opportunity to buy their club and remain open to them doing so - subject to all shadow directors going through the process.

Sounds a bit like they’re not being anti-competitive then...

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

15 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 You get someone’s point of view wrong and then throw a strop. 

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. 

8 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

My own opinion? A bit like you’re basing your posts on your own.

As I said, you don’t have to agree with the PL to think it won’t go through.

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?

5 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Are you okay? I don’t see how you can’t understand it.

I’m not saying the PL are correct - I’m saying they’re corrupt enough to have covered their own arses sufficiently for the case to not be proven.

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.

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

That’s not true. I don’t believe the PL acted fairly, but I also don’t think it’ll go through.

Reason being, the PL are unlikely to have left themselves open to lose in court. I suspect it would’ve been done very privately.

If the PL believed they were open to lose in court, they wouldn’t be challenging it and we’d have new ownership by now.

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.