Thumbheed

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.

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.

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?