Thumbheed

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.

Yeh, agree with this. Its even more farcical when you consider that they haven't deemed Sheik Mansour at Man City as a person of control when that structure is even more blatant.

This is true, but to be honest it's the type of shithousery from Ashley that I'd be all for, for once.

Not that I'm advocating James' theory but wouldn't he be able to say uncertainty around the takeover restricted his ability to make a long term decision? Thus impacting the clubs status? Could the PL actually argue in court that they didn't have grounds to make a decision either way? From what I've seen, they've had ample opportunity to reject the takeover.

Yeh but do you have proof of this? Where is this written down in black and white?

So have we decided where I can go to read things that make me all warm and fuzzy inside or are we all still measuring dicks?

He'll have 1 eye on the takeover. Don't think he's got the heart to face into another relgation battle, he's been called out by too many people.

I don't think he'll have the bottle for another season.

I see, but what if the other person is brandishing the people's elbow?

Where do we stand on Stone cold stunners? Aye or nay?

Fair enough, as in the edit above, it's worth noting DIC tried to buy Liverpool but for Hicks and Gillet. At the end of the day it's mindless speculation on something which is not even close to having any grounding in reality, but I do stand by my belief that there would be a risk should it be a viable option and I only do so against the backdrop of the type of person MBS is and more specifically what he's trying to achieve with his flagship Vision2030 policy.

Yeh agree with that, and certainly not disputing what a great investment we would be, in fact I'd go as far as saying we were a better investment than both those clubs (reckon Qatar regret investing in PSG personally), all I'm saying is would wealth funds have invested in PSG and Man City if they knew Man Utd was available? Rhetorical question obviously but a relevant one all the same. Edit: worth nothing that Staveley herself tried to facilitate the purchase of Liverpool by DIC...

Well this is fundamentally where we disagree. We've established that £4bn would be nothing to them so the financial viability angle doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. You have to look at their investments in F1 and major boxing events to see what they're trying to do with sport. It's to showcase KSA on the world stage and as much as I hate saying this, but having Man Utd as the centrepiece of Vision2030 with their ready made global fanbase and their well estabilshed commercial positioning makes them a much more appealing investment imo. It'd be akin to them purchasing Man City over Man Utd pre Sinawatra. Culturally speaking I think they will always want the very best, I think the public talk of seeking value is as misleading as there 'we've pulled out because it's no longer economically viable' statement.

I don't think there's anything in the law that could force PIF to purchase us though, which means any subsequent legal case would be nothing to do with them. Can only hope that there's some agreement with Ashley in place in light of the efforts he's going to to force through this takeover which makes PIF investing in another club unviable but even then I'd imagine there's a limit on that. Agree, investment in the city is a big plus point in our favour, but again, I think there's more value in what Man Utd brings to their image.

Financially it obviously makes perfect sense to purchase us over Man Utd, but you have to offset this with what they're trying to achieve with Vision2030 which appears to be about diversifying their economy as well as reestablishing their image on the world stage. Sadly, you only need to look at this very board to see how easily their less savoury antics are forgotten at the slightest hint of investment in a football club, now multiply that impact by the substantially larger Man Utd fanbase. That's where the real value is.