Fantail Breeze

14 minutes ago, Sima said:

You’d think they’d address it if they have lost over 20% of their subscribers and see if there is anything more they can do.

 

Yet nothing so far…

It’s their statement of purpose isn’t it?

Jump on the back of a storm ->do nothing

Just have to sit back and wait now until the next uproar (probably arbitration not going our away) and then Alex will think of his next crazy scheme to try and benefit himself.

54 minutes ago, LFEE said:

 

Weird how that works. A rival bidder comes in and they secure the rights at a cheaper right.

Then I realise it’s UEFA and I immediately understand it’ll be due to the backhanders and Saudi hate.

£2bn for Arsenal is insane.

Well at least we can probably buy the mackems with the current pot.

Blimey. How far down the list was he for Spurs?

4 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

This is old news Joey, gdm beat you to the punch earlier. Welcome aboard though choo choo, I won’t tell Fanny if you don’t.

Player valuations are so random these days. No sense to them whatsoever.

Wonder at what point they’ll have to stop being so ridiculous.

22 hours ago, Kaizero said:

Given the clubs he's been linked to, and his success rate in the Scottish League, as well as his stats on the Norwegian national team - he's quite clearly at least low to mid Premier League standard and young enough to improve in the right environment. It's the move to the better league that will be the make or break issue, in that is his current level his roof or can he take the step up in intensity on a weekly level. He might not, I don't know that, but as with any player with potential you won't know until you try. 

 

That said, he'd be a lot better off at a club that knows how to bring through players.

Sounds ideal to be fair. Sign a young player with potential who needs proper coaching and development to work under Steve Bruce.

Signing him would be a mistake if your assessment is accurate. Bruce can’t work with players who need actual coaching and needs the ready made products to bail him out.

Imagine idolising Cattermole ffs.

It wouldn’t be so bad if he actually contributed well. But he was their captain through their demise and put in pathetic performance after pathetic performance against crap opposition.

39 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

 

Good to hear positive noises (albeit through MA’s favourite PR wagon of Sky).

Seems like the thoughts that both sides will start leaking positive/negative noises ahead of arbitration was a correct one. It’s a full on soap opera.

I’m assuming if arbitration is now expected to start in June rather than July, documents etc. have all been submitted (or will be submitted shortly) without any further requests for delays. Great news that we’ll finally get closure.

12 minutes ago, Awaymag said:

 

You're a nobody if you haven't had ban on this forum.  Sort of like 'a rights of passage'.   Just wish Fanny Batter would get a ban but he's too much of a...........! 

I’ll repeat for the 1000th time. If you feel the need to get all upset, so much so that you’re posting childish gibber like above, just put me on ignore.

You won’t need to worry about a ban then.

Amazing.

Wonder if Sky etc. will all be totally outraged by this and calling for toughing sanctions? Maybe a tweet or two and then it’ll all be forgotten. Still can’t get my head around how this has just been waved through with none of the other 14 clubs seemingly (or publicly) outraged.

£3m each  May as well have asked them to not bother.

If we were going to go down the route of fines, £20m each would be more sensible. The £120m could then be distributed down the football league ladder to support clubs in the way they refused to 12 months ago.

15 minutes ago, gdm said:

strange unwarranted unprovoked dig but ok. 
 

I’m balanced I post both positive and negative stories/tweets and opinions. The positive v negative battles on here are as boring and embarrassing as the Ben jacobs v ncsl shite on twitter. Fuckin pack it in

Ignore him. He doesn’t recognise that people can change their opinion as the information in front of us changes.

Weird how a positive PR piece always seems to come out directly before or after a stonking bit of news.

3 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

I don't see how we win against this corruption, i'm very worried for the takeover now.

 

This is why I ultimately think it’ll fail.

I have no doubt it’s been done incorrectly  and fucked us right over - but I think they’ll be too good at covering their arse. 

Would be amazed if they’ve left themselves open to CAT succeeding. Our only hope, imo, is that we win arbitration… somehow.

43 minutes ago, Paully said:

Agreeing their own punishment 

 

corrupt as!

 

 

Surely the other 14 clubs must be opposing this utter tripe?

3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

There statement wasn’t going to read we’ve pulled out because the PL think we are basically the Saudi state now was it ? 
 

No it hasn’t been explained, show us the reg in the PL rule book where they have acted accordingly.

 

Well their statement has been damaging to the club’s case, that’s the whole point. 

See above.

46 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

There isn't one, quite the opposite.

 

It's clear that the test starts on submission of the declaration: F.4.1. "submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration" "at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules".

 

F.4.2 "within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1 and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6"

 

Rule F.1 includes having failed to provide "all relevant information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed"

 

Rule F.6 states that "upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration... that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore."

 

 

"at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules" is immediate and unequivocal.

 

"within five Working Days of receipt thereof" is unequivocal with no alternative given.

 

"upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration" is an immediate and unequivocal.

 

The rules are clear and unequivocal, there is no room for interpretation, the test starts when the declaration is submitted and should be completed within five working days. The PL have chosen to ignore that and do it their own way, and there is no easy way for the club to have required them to follow their own process as set out. But it is absolute clear that they have not properly followed their own rules.

 

Before, Penn of whoever it is behind the Fantail Linton accounts says "well they didn't provide enough information to make a decision". This is a civil law decision, balance of probabilities is the standard of proof, such decisions can and should be made on the basis of the information available at the point the decision needs to be made.  

 

 

 

Wrong. Again. The PL does need to be satisfied the correct people have been tested.

F26. No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
F.26.1. the Board provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule F.24.1.1 and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1;
F.26.2. the Board provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule F.24.1.2; and
F.26.3. the Club and Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule F.25.

19 minutes ago, Scoot said:

Let Ashley's QC's sort it out rather than argue about something we know nothing about if we're honest. 

 

Or you could be a thick twat and decide to listen to ben Jacob's and luke Edward's. They'll know...

I mean the discussion was absolutely fine until the normal group of delusional folk came in with their ramblings, which they have their own thread for.

Just now, Whitley mag said:

PIF pulled out to save face and embarrassment, simple as that. The PL had basically took the piss for 17 weeks, and the price of the deal had gone up as a result. In their eyes there was no way forward and what the PL we’re asking in relation to the state was unreasonable. They obviously believed arbitration wasn’t the answer a the time, but due to support of fans and persuasion from Ashley they agreed to wait in the background until deal pathway was cleared. To an organisation like PIF this could be damaging to reputation if linked to state, I would also think in their eyes they we’re hugely insulted by the PL’s behaviour in the end.

 

The PL did not act in accordance with their rules but we’ll agree to disagree on this, even though you still haven’t referred to the guidance where they did follow their rules.

 

 

No they didn’t, their own public statement says otherwise. Hence why it was damaging to withdraw and issue that statement.

Arbitration “wasn’t the answer”… but a year later, it is? We could have gone through arbitration a year ago. 

It’s been explained to you many times, including on this very page. But you’ve got your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen.

You’re on the wrong thread, again. 

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I've already explained why that is incorrect. I know that's how the PL looked at it, they were just very clearly wrong to do it that way.

 

That almost certainly won't have any impact on the arbitration, but it will look very bad for them in the CAT case.

 And your legal qualifications to make that determination?

I’m fairly confident the PL (you know, the people who wrote the rules) and their lawyers will have the edge on you here.

2 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

But we're expected to blindly believe what Rob Draper put in an article according to a post only a few above this one? 

You’re forgetting we blindly believe the journalists who post positive things and completely refute any journalist who posts something neutral or negative.

3 minutes ago, Robster said:

Says who for absolute certainty? Bearing in mind that this is, to quote the PL, a "Confidential Process"
 

Well why else are we heading into arbitration?

11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club):

 

F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules;

 

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6

 

Now why are you so keen to make excuses for the PL?

That doesn’t apply though, does it? Because they never agreed on who the test was going to include.

That’s the whole point, that you seem to be missing… over and over again.

14 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

I think it was the journalist Rob Draper wrote an article at the time where he claimed the PL we’re quite happy to keep asking questions and never make a decision. I think the whole point is that they thought the PL would never make a decision and basically stalled the whole process with arbitration. Obviously the consortium weren’t happy with arbitration on the one single point of separation and thought they had no other option.

The PL instigated the whole situation knowing fine well in my opinion that the deal had a sell by date, remember Ashley actually put the price up when the deadline passed. 
 

If the PL had followed the rules and made a decision, the judiciary panel would have heard the case much quicker without a years delay. For whatever reason they didn’t fancy the judiciary panel route and banked on arbitration instead. Ben Jacobs believes that the PL we’re acting fairly by offering arbitration, however I just don’t think that was their motive somehow. 
 

 

 

You’ve still not answered the question.

Why would the consortium pull out and blame COVID? How can you not see how counter-productive that is to their argument?

The PL have acted in accordance to their rules, there is no time limit on making the determinations that they did.

If the consortium had waited it out, we’d also have had some form of decision by now and the court action would have been sooner. Both sides have caused delays.