Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

[Candi_Hills]

Shout out for @James. The lad has said a couple of times that Mike Ashley would sue if we go down. Loads of posters laughed at him and gave him shit for it. He was right though. Mike’s new legal case seeks damages for the club’s progress being impeded. 

 

[The Prophet]

That's an interesting interpretation of events

[Holmesy]

If it comes to light that the 'big 6' pressured the PL to block the takeover, and correspondence between the clubs and the PL are made public, that could cause some serious trouble for the cartel. Hopefully they shit themselves at today's news and pressure Masters to push the takeover through, to avoid being dragged even further through the shit. 

[Scoot]

11 hours ago, neesy111 said:

Costs, lost of earnings etc.  It's MA, if he smells money he'll be all over it 

None of which will amount to anywhere near 340 million. No way he waving that away by a 10 or 20 million loss of earnings settlement or whatever the sum may be.

[Guest neesy111]

Just now, Scoot said:

None of which will amount to anywhere near 340 million. No way he waving that away by a 10 or 20 million loss of earnings settlement or whatever the sum may be.

Correct but he can do both.

[Candi_Hills]

2 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

If it comes to light that the 'big 6' pressured the PL to block the takeover, and correspondence between the clubs and the PL are made public, that could cause some serious trouble for the cartel. Hopefully they shit themselves at today's news and pressure Masters to push the takeover through, to avoid being dragged even further through the shit. 

I’m worried that they won’t care. You need the media to create a shit storm and the media are pro-PL pro-big6. 

[Dokko]

3 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

If it comes to light that the 'big 6' pressured the PL to block the takeover, and correspondence between the clubs and the PL are made public, that could cause some serious trouble for the cartel. Hopefully they shit themselves at today's news and pressure Masters to push the takeover through, to avoid being dragged even further through the shit. 

If they can prove that the league is biased towards the 6, including having them block a takeover, then I’d be asking for an independent review of match fixing, which I’m sure has been going on for some time. VAR is just another fancy way of doing it, but they’ll be loads of biased over the years. Pens, red cards, fergie time, kind fixtures around xmas, list will go on and on. 

[Candi_Hills]

5 minutes ago, Dokko said:

If they can prove that the league is biased towards the 6, including having them block a takeover, then I’d be asking for an independent review of match fixing, which I’m sure has been going on for some time. VAR is just another fancy way of doing it, but they’ll be loads of biased over the years. Pens, red cards, fergie time, kind fixtures around xmas, list will go on and on. 

I was thinking this too. Given that we now know how corrupt it is, the scale of match-fixing and bent refereeing must be huge. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

So Mike Ashley is basically going to bring English Football crashing down 

[Dokko]

Just now, Colos Short and Curlies said:

So Mike Ashley is basically going to bring English Football crashing down 

Might just take upsetting a cunt like him for it to happen. 

[ianovthetoon]

3 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

So Mike Ashley is basically going to bring English Football crashing down 

He’s kind of done similar before. He was responsible for highlighting price fixing on replica kits a good few years ago, hence why him and Dave Whelan never got on 

[Robster]

41 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

Shout out for @James. The lad has said a couple of times that Mike Ashley would sue if we go down. Loads of posters laughed at him and gave him shit for it. He was right though. Mike’s new legal case seeks damages for the club’s progress being impeded. 

 

James said he would sue for being relegated. I don't believe he can do that. 
There might be other reasons that Mike can claim loss of income due to the failed takeover but I believe James' idea of suing for being relegated was non sensical as the response would be (tongue in cheek of course), "why did you hire Steve Bruce and then keep him when the team was clearly struggling? "

[manorpark]

1 hour ago, Robster said:

I'm perhaps in the minority but I'm not minding Keith's Tweets.
As I look at it, my club is dead to me anyway, I care very little about football nowadays in general so if this all falls flat then I've not lost anything other than the last chance to try to get back into it all.

 

It is beyond belief that any single person comes on here and criticises Keith and his comments.

All the lazy "I'm doing nowt but I've got a big gob" types make me sick.

Actually DO something, or (at the very least) shut up with the pathetic inaccurate and un-informed criticism of someone who has done something major to help our cause, and still is.

I hope these 'armchair haters' have the decency to come out and apologise when all the truth finally comes out. 

[Candi_Hills]

8 minutes ago, Robster said:

James said he would sue for being relegated. I don't believe he can do that. 
There might be other reasons that Mike can claim loss of income due to the failed takeover but I believe James' idea of suing for being relegated was non sensical as the response would be (tongue in cheek of course), "why did you hire Steve Bruce and then keep him when the team was clearly struggling? "

The document says performance has been impeded. If he's got the cheek to pretend he's missed out on the higher up the league pay-outs, then he'll definitely be claiming his relegation costs back.  "Why did you keep Steve Bruce?" He's the cheapest manager in the league, your honour. I can't afford anything else. That's why I needed this sale.

[deejeck]

It's potentially one hell of a ruse.  All the time the PL have been dismissing this two-bob battle with some gobshite on Twitter, and overnight they suddenly find themselves hoyed into this massive battle where potentially loads of shit will be flung for all to see, with very little time to prepare on their side.  Fair fucks if this has been the strategy all along. Presumably the hope now is that the PL shit their kegs so much that they think the risk is too great and wave it through.

[Robster]

24 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

The document says performance has been impeded. If he's got the cheek to pretend he's missed out on the higher up the league pay-outs, then he'll definitely be claiming his relegation costs back.  "Why did you keep Steve Bruce?" He's the cheapest manager in the league, your honour. I can't afford anything else. That's why I needed this sale.

I'd wish him all the luck in the world if his defence was to say that he couldn't afford anyone else. We'd probably hear the PL and their legal team laughing from here.

[Dr.Spaceman]

So are our actions still aimed at proving the PL to have acted disingenuous throughout the process? It would make sense. Hit the reset button with the recent developments at the front of everyone's mind.

Would the PL have the stones to let this rumble on another 6 months?

[Dr Jinx]

What information would the PL have to freely disclose and then what would the club need a court order to see?

[James]

4 minutes ago, Robster said:

I'd wish him all the luck in the world if his defence was to say that he couldn't afford anyone else. We'd probably hear the PL and their legal team laughing from here.

Thanks Candi for the shout-out. Ashley’s team could formulate a really objective argument as per below. Fan perspectives on Steve Bruce’s ability don’t really matter in the Court context.
 

‘We appointed Steve Bruce following an extensive and fruitless search for a manager to replace Rafa Benitez and he successfully achieved expectations in the first season by producing a similar level of results to previous seasons, hence sustaining an environment that have our proposed purchasers the confidence they needed to buy the club.

However in the second season we were disappointed with results and certain off the pitch events and reached out to Agent A, Manager B etc and here are the emails we received stating that candidates to replace Bruce were not willing to take on the job due to the uncertainty relating to the takeover and the impact of this on their long-term job security. As a result we managed the situation as best as we could be appointing a highly regarded first team coach to give Bruce the required support.

in addition, during that prior summer we looked to invest in a number of players to push the team on. Key targets X and Y were not followed through due to the financial constraints in place to keep the house in order ahead of a takeover. In addition, Player Z turned the club down as they felt they would not be able to hold down a first team place following PIF investment. Here are the emails to prove it.’

[Colos Short and Curlies]

13 minutes ago, Robster said:

I'd wish him all the luck in the world if his defence was to say that he couldn't afford anyone else. We'd probably hear the PL and their legal team laughing from here.

We made £34m profit in the 2018/19 season, would be fair to expect a drop in income to show in 2019/20 and then no matchday revenue for 2020/21 (roughly £25m). Unless the Premier League want to demonstrate that they expect clubs to spend more than they earn then it would be quite easy to suggest that we 'can't' afford the additional expenditure needed in both manager and player

[Thumbheed]

13 minutes ago, Robster said:

I'd wish him all the luck in the world if his defence was to say that he couldn't afford anyone else. We'd probably hear the PL and their legal team laughing from here.

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.

[Robster]

14 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

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.

I suppose he could try to argue that but in my opinion it's a very thin argument as we all know what football is like. There is always someone willing to take the job on, regardless of the circumstances. 

[andyc35i]

They were clearly trying to make the link between PIF and the Saudi state so they could stop the takeover over state sponsored piracy. The issue I have is still with this idea of ‘control’ and that the PL can suggest who they think will have control. I just don’t see how this is a fair way of going through an ownership test

[Thumbheed]

7 minutes ago, Robster said:

I suppose he could try to argue that but in my opinion it's a very thin argument as we all know what football is like. There is always someone willing to take the job on, regardless of the circumstances. 

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

[Jackie Broon]

25 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

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.

It seems like it would be hard for the PL to argue that they couldn't have disqualified the proposed directors, rule F.1.1.1 gives them the power to do that on the basis that they have "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)."

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Jackie Broon