Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

[gdm]

I said months and months ago before James about Ashley keeping Bruce on only made sense if relegation strengthend a compensation claim and got shot down immediately so never mentioned it again but Kennedy saying this has been in the wings since October and I believe it’s still the only reason Bruce wasn’t replaced 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

4 minutes ago, gdm said:

I said months and months ago before James about Ashley keeping Bruce on only made sense if relegation strengthend a compensation claim and got shot down immediately so never mentioned it again but Kennedy saying this has been in the wings since October and I believe it’s still the only reason Bruce wasn’t replaced 

Is that more likely than Ashley just not caring about who the manager is?

[Thumbheed]

11 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

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

Yeh, agree with this. Its even more farcical when you consider that they haven't deemed Sheik Mansour at Man City as a person of control when that structure is even more blatant. 

[Candi_Hills]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Is that more likely than Ashley just not caring about who the manager is?

It might be more... "I'll leave him in charge because I'll be claiming anyway"

rather than... "I'll leave him in charge to bolster my claim."

Or aye, it could be what you said. He just doesn't care.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Candi_Hills

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Candi_Hills said:

It might be more... "I'll leave him in charge because I'll be claiming anyway"

rather than... "I'll leave him in charge to bolster my claim."

Or aye, it could be what you said. He just doesn't care.

Yeah, that is possible I suppose.

[Thumbheed]

11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

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)."

Yep, this is what I was referring to although I couldn't remember the actual rule. 

I'm not sure how they'd argue against that very policy in court, it seems clear cut to me, although my legal knowledge only stretches to Bird Law.

[gdm]

Yeah just something not right about having 2 wins in 21 games or what ever it was and Bruce’s position wasn’t under the slightest threat 

[Rosenrot]

53 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

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

The PL will have to disclose everything relating to the substantive issues in the claim. They can't pick and choose.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Thumbheed said:

Yep, this is what I was referring to although I couldn't remember the actual rule. 

I'm not sure how they'd argue against that very policy in court, it seems clear cut to me, although my legal knowledge only stretches to Bird Law.

But if that's the case, why didn't they reject it? They actually delayed it for as long as possible so the buyers would withdraw. 

I think we've said loads of times, it would be fair enough if they'd just failed the test. Then we could move on, or go to whatever the next legal step is.

The problem is they've tried to avoid applying the proper process.

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Is that more likely than Ashley just not caring about who the manager is?

I think it's more likely that:

a) they couldn't think of anyone else that would take the job, Bruce was their 9th choice or something, when the club were in a much stronger position.

b) his past experience is that changing an unpopular manager = relegation, sticking with an unpopular manager = survival.

[Robster]

2 minutes ago, gdm said:

Yeah just something not right about having 2 wins in 21 games or what ever it was and Bruce’s position wasn’t under the slightest threat 

We saw with Pardew that despite horrific runs of form, his position was never under threat.

[Thumbheed]

13 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

But if that's the case, why didn't they reject it? They actually delayed it for as long as possible so the buyers would withdraw. 

I think we've said loads of times, it would be fair enough if they'd just failed the test. Then we could move on, or go to whatever the next legal step is.

The problem is they've tried to avoid applying the proper process.

*Sorry, as in how the PL could argue against that very rule.

I think they'd parrot what they've said in public which is PIF withdrew blah blah blah, but even then I think it'd be a flimsy argument if it can be shown that PIF had provided sufficient information up to the point of withdrawal. 

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

*Sorry, as in how the PL could argue against that very rule.

I think they'd parrot what they've said in public which is PIF withdrew blah blah blah, but even then I think it'd be a flimsy argument if it can be shown that PIF had provided sufficient information up to the point of withdrawal. 

Extremely flimsy, especially if what Staveley said about them asking the PL to just make a formal decision and them refusing to is true. 

[andyc35i]

You could also see the PL arguing that they give us every opportunity to provide the information they asked for and we did not. As I said before, I just don’t see how they can demand such information!

It’s like me going into McDonald’s to buy a Big Mac but I am demanding that they give me a list of ingredients before I do. They provide the ingredients to me which are clearly stated in all their literature, but I dispute that they are using British beef so make my own assumptions that they’re lying to me. I decide to purchase a McChicken instead. 
 

All in all, it’s just nonsense - like my attempt at an analogy 

[Bishops Finger]

There's also the fact that the PL told the Government to expect an announcement very soon (or words to that effect) of our pending takeover and then nothing. 

What happened in those few hours to change things. It had to be interference from an outside source so they could use that against the PL aswell

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, andyc35i said:

You could also see the PL arguing that they give us every opportunity to provide the information they asked for and we did not. As I said before, I just don’t see how they can demand such information!

It’s like me going into McDonald’s to buy a Big Mac but I am demanding that they give me a list of ingredients before I do. They provide the ingredients to me which are clearly stated in all their literature, but I dispute that they are using British beef so make my own assumptions that they’re lying to me. I decide to purchase a McChicken instead. 
 

All in all, it’s just nonsense - like my attempt at an analogy 

In which case they should have just made a formal decision refusing the takeover (or more precisely disqualified the proposed directors under rule F.6 for breach of rule F.1.1.1).

The process as set out in the rules is this:

The club submits a declaration with the details of the directors it is proposing to appoint (including anyone taking control of the club).

The PL board have five working days to respond confirming whether any of them are liable to be disqualified as a director under the provisions of Rule F1 (which includes where they believe details of another director haven't been provided).

If so, the board will issue a notice disqualifying those directors under the provisions of rule F.6. Rule F.6 requires that notice is issued immediately.

No allowance for going back and asking for more information, no allowance for months of indecision, if the declaration isn't adequate the proper process in rules is to formally disqualify the proposed director/s immediately. Then the club can either submit a new declaration with those details or appeal.

There's also no explicit consequence for not following that process, there is no rule that says for example if a decision is not made within five working days the directors are automatically approved. Which the PL have obviously taken as a green light to take as long as they want. But the issue here is going to be whether they have behaved reasonably or appear to have deliberately blocked the deal (and right of appeal) by refusing to actually make a decision that their rules explicitly state will be made within five working days. I think they are probably going to have a very hard time defending their actions.

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Consortium of one]

13 hours ago, andyc35i said:

Is it fact? Or are taking what Amanda told The Athletic as the only real information 

its been revealed that Masters would regularly speak to reps of the Big 6 before the general PL meeting involving all the clubs so there has been a precedent set for the more exclusive meeting to discuss PL issues

[Whitley mag]

 

[andyc35i]

2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

 

I really can’t wait to see this evidence 

[Scotty66]

What happens about evidence once its released? 

Could it remove masters from his role? 

Could it help with arbitration? 

It looks as though at the moment we want the PL to say "ok keep it quiet, drop the case and here is the green light", but if they don't and the shit hits the fan how and who can we get the takeover forced through. A new PL CEO perhaps? 

[Jackie Broon]

No one here could know that. For all we know Masters may have recommended that the board approve the takeover and been outvoted, it seems possible that something like that happened given the positive noises that were made to the government followed by an opposite non-decision.

[Ankles Bennett]

Do we know whether MBS has been made a director of any of PIF investments.  If not then its difficult to see how the EPL could argue he would be an undisclosed director of the consortium.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Just now, Ankles Bennett said:

Do we know whether MBS has been made a director of any of PIF investments.  If not then its difficult to see how the EPL could argue he would be an undisclosed director of the consortium.

I wouldn't think so, or at least not at the direction of a pseudo-governing third party.

That power they used to require KSA to be named as a director is very strange. I know they have that O&D test line about people who are acting as representatives etc, but it's confusing either so.

[Whitley mag]

Looking forward to hearing from the man of the moment tonight.

 

[Slim]

Would donate £100 for Wraith to fuck off for good