nufcnick

Do you think he’s heard it’s close and is now shitting himself that he might not get any FaceTime with the new directors of our club

As someone pointed out earlier, if there was little the buyers could do if turned down, this would have been rejected months ago

yes because of t***s such as luke edwards who comes across as being as thick as 2 short planks , basicly he,s stealing a living Your not wrong there, isn’t it ethically wrong to post other peoples stories and try to pass them off as your own

Don’t know about you guys, but I get up on a morning full of optimism and confidence that the deals going to go through and today might be that day, and as the day goes on and the propaganda is broadcast, I get a sinking feeling more and more that it’s going to be knocked back.

What I will say the amount of propaganda and reporting of one sided stories from the British press is a disgrace, considering everything they report should be balanced journalism according to the rules and regulations. It would be funny if Edward’s was banned from SJP for his propaganda spouting.

its still not immune to litigation. They have to give their reasons and apply their ODT fairly. Exactly this, they can’t just say “we can’t find any reason not to accept you, but because we don’t like you and one of our partners is objecting, we’re not going to let you in our club”. If the consortium meet the criteria and were rejected anyway, lawyers for them will have a field day.

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable. See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833 And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/ "The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed. The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute. Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3. However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4." I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism. Don't know who is right but if you are Greg, then could the PL just turn round and go - takeover denied because......well we can't be arsed with the hassle? Or we don't like NUFC as we love Sunderland....... and PIF wouldn't be able to legally challenge. Seems ridiculous if true The PL do seem to have it in for us TBH, if they do turn it down the court battle should be quite entertaining Nothing about this sorry saga is entertaining Yeah sorry, what I ment was it would be entertaining watching the PCP/PIF lawyers rip the PL’s case apart

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable. See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833 And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/ "The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed. The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute. Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3. However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4." I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism. Don't know who is right but if you are Greg, then could the PL just turn round and go - takeover denied because......well we can't be arsed with the hassle? Or we don't like NUFC as we love Sunderland....... and PIF wouldn't be able to legally challenge. Seems ridiculous if true The PL do seem to have it in for us TBH, if they do turn it down the court battle should be quite entertaining

Do yourself a favour mate and go back to lurking, there's some mad buggers on here :D :D, I have noticed but it seems good fun and all in good humour, mostly anyway

I said something else, I think it will be an initial no followed by a yes on appeal

Hi guys, long time lurker first time poster, just want to say hi as this seems the most active thread :D :D