Thumbheed

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?

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?

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.

All of the £17m belongs to him...

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.

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.

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

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.

What are they asking the clubs to do?

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

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.

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?

And you're basing that on?