Fantail Breeze

Glad we’ve reverted back to our normal game plan:

Defend -> give the ball to ASM and hope for something special -> defend

No atmosphere, the away team controlling the game, a lack of discontent with the Ashley ownership, Alex Hurst having the time of his life.

It’s like Covid never happened.

Just need them to boo ASM off the pitch because he’s not defended enough.

1 minute ago, Sima said:

What kind of question is this, man? FA Cup all of the way.  Which cunt is going to remember you finishing 4th in 25 years time?

Oh I’d take the FA Cup in a heartbeat for us.

I was probably talking about/looking at it from Leicester’s ‘plan’ point of view. What would help them continue to progress more?

Just now, HTT II said:

I’d rather, as a fan, see my club win the FA Cup than qualify for the CL, still hoping Leicester make it though, fuck Liverpool!

Answered before I even posted

Win the FA Cup or qualify for the CL? What would people prefer?

For us, I’d say the FA Cup. But Leicester recently tasted success with the PL win. Would the CL allow them to grow that little bit more? More money, attract better players/keep the ones they have?

2 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

I went with Werner at 7/1 as he’s such a petulant little fucker.

He’s had two cards in his last six (including against Leicester the other day).

Useless twat could’ve at least thrown a punch at the end there.

What’s this goal going to be disallowed for then?...

1 minute ago, Wullie said:

Blatant shenanigans at Lazio. Two sides obviously playing out a draw to keep Torino up, ref gives a pen with 5 mins left, Immobile places it carefully off the post.

Surely those involved in Italian football, being the beacons of integrity, would never do such a thing.

Lampard has always rubbed people up the wrong way imo. Comes across as a smarmy know-it-all.

That said, I have no feelings about wanting him to suceed or not.

Just now, Robster said:

Cheers @Jackie Broon
That F.4.2 rule seems to tie their hands, although I can almost hear the PL saying "but they never made their declaration so the five day period never started".
The complexity hurts my head.

Yup. The club never declared MBS as a director, so that’s not applicable.

Just now, bealios said:

Ha, I'm definitely not - I suspect Chris doesn't spend his evenings catching up on takeover news he has missed! 

On first name terms with Chris though... 

1 minute ago, Dancing Brave said:

He knew, the daft twat

Could’ve fucking booked him though. 7/1 ffs.

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

How many times does this point need to be addressed?

Rule F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

F.6. Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will:

F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and F.6.2. give written notice to the relevant Club that the Person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from his office as such.

 

The PL Board made "a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition" in June. Therefore the PL board 'became aware' that the proposed directors had failed to provide all relevant information relating to someone who the PL board determined would qualify as a director. Rule F.6. required the PL board to give written notice to the proposed directors that they were disqualified, which could then have been appealed.

The PL did not need that information to make a decision, in fact their rules require that without that information they disqualify the proposed directors immediately.

If you’re right - why do the PL believe they are in a position to defend? They’d have folded by now, if it was that straightforward.

12 minutes ago, Big Geordie said:

Few boos at Chelsea, for the taking of the knee. Thankfully drowned up by applause pretty quickly.

I thought I heard the same before the FA Cup final too. Obviously was the case.

Really like Pulisic, don’t understand why he’s not consistently starting at Chelsea. The ball just sticks to his feet when he’s dribbling at players.

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

Mr Justice Roth, who granted the extra time on behalf of the CAT, noted in his reasons for doing so: "As of present, it is not known whether the defendant will be granted the separate extensions of time which it is currently seeking from the arbitral tribunal but in any event, the extension which it is there seeking for disclosure is to 26 May, 2021, which is also its current deadline for filing its evidence.

 

Their evidence submission, not the actual hearing, right? Unless I’ve interpreted that wrong.

They can delay their evidence submission all they like as long as the hearing goes ahead in July.

4 minutes ago, reefatoon said:

Wonder why Fantail gets super vocal when he hears anything he portrays as negative news. He’s absolutely fizzing with energy in both threads. It’s like he get a massive kick out of bad news.

Two posts in this thread = “absolutely fizzing”.

I’ve shared my opinion and then responded to posts quoting me. That’s usually how a discussion/forum works. I’ve also posted in various other threads tonight about other subjects... Let’s just ignore that though.

6 minutes ago, Ben said:

Any card tips for Chelsea Leicester 

I went with Werner at 7/1 as he’s such a petulant little fucker.

He’s had two cards in his last six (including against Leicester the other day).

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

Are they though ? I’m just seeing delay, they’re even trying to delay arbitration.

The same arbitration where it is supposedly clear cut in their favour according to some.

Delay is not fighting, it is delaying.

They’re not trying to delay arbitration, where is that from?

They’re trying to get the CAT case thrown out before it’s even been heard though.

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

They should have just applied their own rules and rejected the consortium if they though they hadn't provided all information. 

 

But they didnt as they were up to something. Time will tell...

I don’t disagree they’re bent as fuck. But they’re also bent and snide enough to know what to do to cover their tracks and make them look like the innocent party.

Just now, Whitley mag said:

The consortium told them they would not be submitting the state as a director. I’d like to see them try and argue a timeline to the above.

It’s clear as day it should have been rejected.

Looks like you’ll only need to wait until July to hear them argue their case.

It’s so ‘clear as day’ that the PL are willing to fight it in court. Rightio.

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

 

The Premier League will disqualify potential directors – and in effect block a takeover – if any of these below applies to the individual:

 

 

- They failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a director but has not been disclosed.

- They provided false, misleading or inaccurate information.

 

 

Howwa Thicko, read that.

 

 

 

What’s the timescales for that? Is there one? If not, have they failed do that yet? Or are they still open for the takeover and objectively applying their rules to give the consortium every opportunity to comply...?

I’m not claiming to be an expert, but the PL’s lawyers wouldn’t be defending it if it was as simple as you’re suggesting. 

Just now, Robster said:

It's not an unreasonable thought.
Thing is though, by not making the decision, they've brought on a multi million pound court case. If they knew they couldn't approve it, but wanted to avoid court with all of the associated costs (which everyone wants, surely), then they could nip it in the bud and formally reject it.
They've chosen not to.
 

But then they’re open to a court case for rejecting it... so either way they cannot avoid it.

They can win this case though and have all of their costs covered. Maybe they thought it’d be easier to win this one, than defend a rejection.

2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

The PL are keen for people to believe that they couldn’t make a decision, but the rule book is quite clear on this matter. They should have rejected it. The reason they didn’t reject it is because we would have been in court by now, and they weren’t confident enough in their position.

I’ve read the post in question and we’ll see how it plays out in next few weeks. It’s all legal games at this point but I see nothing to be concerned with in relation to today’s developments.

 

Where does the rule book say they have to reject it?

They look incredibly uncertain of their decision. So much so they’re willing to fight it all the way (which we’ve been repeatedly told by you, they wouldn’t).