Thumbheed

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.

No comment on the need for transparency either.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What an odd comment. Moving on then, still interested to hear what I'm missing.

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.

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