Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

[Wandy]

7 minutes ago, Pilko said:

 

Where abouts? I'd be interested to have a read.

 

https://www.not606.com/threads/takeover-covid-19-20.383026/page-2194

 

Can't link directly to the post but its halfway down the page. Claim was only made this morning so the debate around it hasn't really took off. I read the thread a lot though and the guy never comes across as a bullshitter. 

[Robster]

19 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

https://www.not606.com/threads/takeover-covid-19-20.383026/page-2194

 

Can't link directly to the post but its halfway down the page. Claim was only made this morning so the debate around it hasn't really took off. I read the thread a lot though and the guy never comes across as a bullshitter. 

It is most likely bollocks but still, the words on the page are nice to read if not just to dream for just a second.

[Wandy]

20 minutes ago, Robster said:

It is most likely bollocks but still, the words on the page are nice to read if not just to dream for just a second.

 

Exactly why I posted it. And we will likely know the truth of it very soon anyway. At this late stage in the game I am clinging to anything I can.

 

That thread is pretty much like the ones on here, full of extreme optimists/pessimists and lots of nonsense in between. They do tend to flip flop a bit though whereas the mob on here tend to stay entrenched in their positions.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Wandy

[Fantail Breeze]

It’d be the first bit of good news in a long time if true  

[Guest]

What would that mean?

[Espio]

I'd assume it'd mean the big rubber fist is about to be inserted into the PL

[et tu brute]

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

What would that mean?

that Ashley’s legal team do actually have incriminating evidence of enough substance for a judge to allow the case to proceed. IF it is true on the other forum, then that is pretty significant. 

[nufcnick]

I wouldn’t think something like this would come out on a weekend TBH

[Abacus]

I'm not sure it would really mean anything. The PL were trying to argue that the courts had no jurisdiction in an anti-competition claim, if i've understood it correctly. I may well not have.

 

If they do have the authority to look at the claim, then the challenge can go ahead, but it says nothing about the strength of the actual case on either side.

 

The positive would be, if that rumour was true, that the PL don't get to pick the judges in this one, unlike with the arbitration.

[FloydianMag]

2 minutes ago, nufcnick said:

I wouldn’t think something like this would come out on a weekend TBH

The decision could have been made yesterday.

[BergenMagpie]

"Confirmed" by De Marco. Full surveillance on the PL now:

 

 

[Dokko]

'Very reliable. I've been told that the PL attempt failed and full disclosure has been ordered.' 

[et tu brute]

4 minutes ago, Abacus said:

I'm not sure it would really mean anything. The PL were trying to argue that the courts had no jurisdiction in an anti-competition claim, if i've understood it correctly. I may well not have.

 

If they do have the authority to look at the claim, then the challenge can go ahead, but it says nothing about the strength of the actual case on either side.

 

The positive would be, if that rumour was true, that the PL don't get to pick the judges in this one, unlike with the arbitration.

Was it not the Premier League were stating that the issue was already being dealt with within the arbitration case?

[Wandy]

2 minutes ago, BergenMagpie said:

"Confirmed" by De Marco. Full surveillance on the PL now:

 

 

 

I'm saying nowt about that one. 

 

He seems to have gone as crackers with his tweets as the NUFC fans have in analysing them. It was much simpler when he was posting photos of bread.

[nbthree3]

"Materially identical issues" covered by PL arbitration, which begins within the next 6 weeks or so 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by nbthree3

[FloydianMag]

Just now, nbthree3 said:

"Materially identical issues" covered by PL arbitration, which behind within the next 6 weeks or so 

 

 

 

Didn’t Ashley’s CAT action include compensation and injunctive relief against the PL O&D test? Does arbitration include agreeing compensation? I assumed, maybe wrongly, that it was whether PIF was a separate entity from the Saudi state?

[Wandy]

3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Didn’t Ashley’s CAT action include compensation and injunctive relief against the PL O&D test? Does arbitration include agreeing compensation? I assumed, maybe wrongly, that it was whether PIF was a separate entity from the Saudi state?

 

From what I have read, arbitration is simply to deternine whether or not the O&D test is robust enough to make a judgement on seperation.

[nbthree3]

CAT case does because the Competition Act allows you to seek three types of claims. Damages, claims of any other sum of money (relief) and a claim for an injunction. He's asked for all three of course. Whereas the PL arbitration is solely whether, using section A of the O+D test to apply the definitions of "director" and "control" would the KSA become a shadow director of Newcastle.

 

From the High Court judgment which sets out the PL position:

 

“… PIF expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of “Director” under [PLL’s] Rules, even though it would not be formally appointed as a director of [NUFC]. [PLL] agrees.

 

Having taken external legal advice, [PLL] is also provisionally minded to conclude that KSA would become a Director under the Rules as well.

 

Pursuant to [Section A], the definition of “Director” includes any “Person” (as defined under [Section A]) that will have “Control” over [NUFC] (as defined in [Section A]). [PLL] has accordingly been considering the scope of those two words, “Person” and “Control”, under the Rules. The definition of “Person” under [Section A] includes “any … legal entity”.

 

[PLL]’s provisional view is that KSA … is a legal entity under English law. As such, it is a Person under the Rules, and thus capable of being a Director.

 

(If you disagree, [PLL] would welcome a reasoned explanation) (sent to the club) 

 

[FloydianMag]

8 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

From what I have read, arbitration is simply to deternine whether or not the O&D test is robust enough to make a judgement on seperation.

If it isn’t who then decides, CAT, Courts? Remember they can only decide on the O&D test that existed in April 2020 as I believe they now have a more robust test in place.

[B-more Mag]

While it would be great if the PL loses the jurisdictional challenge, it wouldn't really say anything about the strength of either side's substantive case in the CAT proceeding.

[Wandy]

9 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

If it isn’t who then decides, CAT, Courts? Remember they can only decide on the O&D test that existed in April 2020 as I believe they now have a more robust test in place.

 

Basically if the three arbitrators decide that the test isnt strong enough to hold up the takeover in the way it has, then they have to pass it. And they cant make the buyers stick to new and updated rules either as it would be impossible to say whether the buyers would ever have even attempted the purchase if the new rules were in place back then.

 

That's my understanding of it anyway.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Wandy

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, B-more Mag said:

While it would be great if the PL loses the jurisdictional challenge, it wouldn't really say anything about the strength of either side's substantive case in the CAT proceeding.

No, however it would mean full and open disclosure, something the PL might not want.

[B-more Mag]

The arbitration is actually about whether the PL appropriately decided KSA would be a director under the definitions in the PL rules.

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Basically if the three arbitrators decide that the test isnt strong enough to hold up the takeover in the way it has, then they have to pass it. Thats my understanding anyway. And they cant make the buyers stick to new and updated rules either as it would be impossible to say whether the buyers would ever even attempted the purchase if the new rules were in place back then.

 

That's my understanding of it anyway.

 

I don't think the arbitration about the strength of the test as such, in fact it's not about the O&D test at all, from what is publicly known it's about the whether the KSA meet the definition in the PL's rules of a 'person' that would 'control' the club.

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I don't think the arbitration about the strength of the test as such, in fact it's not about the O&D test at all, from what is publicly known it's about the whether the KSA meet the definition in the PL's rules of a 'person' that would 'control' the club.

Then that assumes the PL have decided that PIF and the Saudi state are one and the same thing despite there being legal opinion indicating that PIF is a separate entity.