Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

[Candi_Hills]

People keep mentioning jail and massive fines but I’m convinced these people are above the law. I reckon Werner or Levy just has to make one phone call to Cliff Richard and go, “I’d don’t want to get fined because I’m a billionaire and that”, and then it’s sorted before you can say Elm Guest House.

[manorpark]

1 minute ago, Candi_Hills said:

People keep mentioning jail and massive fines but I’m convinced these people are above the law. I reckon Werner or Levy just has to make one phone call to Cliff Richard and go, “I’d don’t want to get fined because I’m a billionaire and that”, and then it’s sorted before you can say Elm Guest House.

From everything I have seen and read about these people at the Premier league, they are NOT spectacularly intelligent or capable.

They have bitten off (far) more than they can chew here. 

[Montey]

3 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

People keep mentioning jail and massive fines but I’m convinced these people are above the law. I reckon Werner or Levy just has to make one phone call to Cliff Richard and go, “I’d don’t want to get fined because I’m a billionaire and that”, and then it’s sorted before you can say Elm Guest House.

In a manner of speaking I agree with you.  Specifically, left to its own devices, the Crown Prosecution Service would not likely go after the PL for alleged violations of the Competition Act.

 

But... if the Competition Appeal Tribunal finds, in a civil case, against the PL then it would potentially (likely?) provide strong evidence of criminal violations of the Competition Act which the CPS would have difficulty ignoring.

[LV]

I just don’t believe the PL will submit the documents that will incriminate them.

Dickie has probably been in all weekend shredding stuff and spamming F5 on CCleaner 

[Montey]

2 minutes ago, manorpark said:

From everything I have seen and read about these people at the Premier league, they are NOT spectacularly intelligent or capable.

They have bitten off (far) more than they can chew here. 

Many criminals have been brought down by their own arrogance (over-confidence) rather than by any investigative brilliance (which, by the way, is why the earlier comments, about how easy it is to forensically destroy evidence, were ridiculous.  Plenty of white-collar criminals have been undone by their belief they didn't need to delete/shred things because they were smarter than everyone else; or they deleted/shredded things in a way that was clear destruction of evidence, which can also be a criminal offence or cause the loss of a civil case.)

[Montey]

Just now, LV said:

I just don’t believe the PL will submit the documents that will incriminate them.

Dickie has probably been in all weekend shredding stuff and spamming F5 on CCleaner 

But a court (probably the CAT) can be convinced to order the PL (and associated parties, including member clubs and those with a commercial relationship with the PL) to hand over materials and/or allow the Claimant to send in their own forensic investigation team (to search paperwork, emails, hard drives, etc).  If the CAT's order was ignored then there would be criminal sanctions against those disobeying the directions of the tribunal.  If the PL, member clubs, or anyone else so-ordered was found to have destroyed evidence then that would likely face a separate prosecution, possibly under a criminal code.

[Rosenrot]

3 minutes ago, LV said:

I just don’t believe the PL will submit the documents that will incriminate them.

Dickie has probably been in all weekend shredding stuff and spamming F5 on CCleaner 

We've already covered this. It isn't that simple.

[LV]

1 minute ago, Montey said:

But a court (probably the CAT) can be convinced to order the PL (and associated parties, including member clubs and those with a commercial relationship with the PL) to hand over materials and/or allow the Claimant to send in their own forensic investigation team (to search paperwork, emails, hard drives, etc).  If the CAT's order was ignored then there would be criminal sanctions against those disobeying the directions of the tribunal.  If the PL, member clubs, or anyone else so-ordered was found to have destroyed evidence then that would likely face a separate prosecution, possibly under a criminal code.

What’s the fine for that though? Could they be willing to suck it up to avoid submitting the documents and also avoid passing the takeover?

I’m concerned it’ll be like £50 and a rap on the knuckles for being naughty 

[LV]

2 minutes ago, Rosenrot said:

We've already covered this. It isn't that simple.

Do tell

[Rosenrot]

7 minutes ago, LV said:

What’s the fine for that though? Could they be willing to suck it up to avoid submitting the documents and also avoid passing the takeover?

I’m concerned it’ll be like £50 and a rap on the knuckles for being naughty 

Contempt of court, which lying on a statement of truth or breaching a court order would be, is potentially punishable with up to 2 years' in prison. It's incredibly serious.

Furthermore no law firm worth their salt would go near such a thing. Any solicitor involved with destruction of evidence or misleading the court is liable to be struck off.

It's also self defeating. If NUFC allege that X was said at Y meeting and have circumstantial evidence for that fact and the PL could easily refute the allegation by reference to the meeting minutes but they happen to have been deleted "conveniently", the judge will likely believe NUFC.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Rosenrot

[Wilson]

It definitely sounds positive to me, then I've got the completely cynical and negative part of me saying it won't happen simply because it's us. 

Interested to see how it all plays out.... Eventually. 

[LV]

1 minute ago, Rosenrot said:

Contempt of court, which lying on a statement of truth or breaching a court order would be, is potentially punishable with up to 2 years' in prison. It's incredibly serious.

Furthermore no law firm worth their salt would go near such a thing. Any solicitor involved with destruction of evidence or misleading the court is liable to be struck off.

It's also self defeating. If NUFC allege that X was said at Y meeting and have circumstantial evidence for that fact and the PL could easily refute the allegation by reference to the meeting minutes but they happen to have been deleted "conveniently", the judge will likely believe NUFC.

The PL could do it without involving the solicitor. Do it all on the sly and their solicitors have plausible deniability.

I just don’t see how anyone would find out unless as you say a third party or our side could go in to have a look at the records and see if anything has been deleted. Even then, is it guaranteed they’d find anything. 
 

It wouldn’t be the Police going in or anyone doing it evidentially as it’s a civil case. 
 

Im really hoping that this is something significant but really want to understand if the PL can wriggle out of this and just take the legal version of a smacked bum. 

 

 

[FloydianMag]

18 minutes ago, LV said:

I just don’t believe the PL will submit the documents that will incriminate them.

Dickie has probably been in all weekend shredding stuff and spamming F5 on CCleaner 

Someone already commented that the PL use AWS cloud services which makes it difficult to get rid of files etc or destroying hard drives on computers.

[Rosenrot]

Just now, LV said:

The PL could do it without involving the solicitor. Do it all on the sly and their solicitors have plausible deniability.

I just don’t see how anyone would find out unless as you say a third party or our side could go in to have a look at the records and see if anything has been deleted. Even then, is it guaranteed they’d find anything. 
 

It wouldn’t be the Police going in or anyone doing it evidentially as it’s a civil case. 
 

Im really hoping that this is something significant but really want to understand if the PL can wriggle out of this and just take the legal version of a smacked bum. 

 

 

Like I said before, if NUFC raises an allegation based on SOME evidence and the PL can't refute it because they've deleted everything, that's not necessarily a good defence.

Furthermore if evidence has been deleted, for example minutes of meetings, witnesses can be called and lying under oath brings personal liability to those involved, including low-level staff such as secretaries.

This whole "lets delete all the evidence with CCleaner" is not as simple as you think.

[Rosenrot]

Also hearsay evidence is allowed in civil proceedings. NUFC can present evidence that W told X that at meeting Y, Z was said. If the PL can't refute that because the records have been "conveniently" been deleted then the judge will perhaps put more weight on the hearsay evidence.

[Guest HTT II]

‘We’ or rather Ashley/the club definitely has a strong case against the PL like. It’s in their best interests now to pass the takeover surely?!

[LV]

3 minutes ago, Rosenrot said:

Like I said before, if NUFC raises an allegation based on SOME evidence and the PL can't refute it because they've deleted everything, that's not necessarily a good defence.

Furthermore if evidence has been deleted, for example minutes of meetings, witnesses can be called and lying under oath brings personal liability to those involved, including low-level staff such as secretaries.

This whole "lets delete all the evidence with CCleaner" is not as simple as you think.

I understand it’s not necessarily a good defence but I want to understand what happens if they do it anyway. As in, will they see it as a better option than disclosing their incriminating documents (which could lead to further investigations and sanctions) and having to pass the takeover.

We’ll see I suppose.

Hopefully the bit about using AWS cloud is right and they can’t delete things and we will somehow be able to get our mitts on them. And hopefully that means they settle out of court and we get the takeover this club needs. 

 

[Rosenrot]

2 minutes ago, LV said:

I understand it’s not necessarily a good defence but I want to understand what happens if they do it anyway. As in, will they see it as a better option than disclosing their incriminating documents (which could lead to further investigations and sanctions) and having to pass the takeover.

We’ll see I suppose.

Hopefully the bit about using AWS cloud is right and they can’t delete things and we will somehow be able to get our mitts on them. And hopefully that means they settle out of court and we get the takeover this club needs. 

 

You're assuming that the whole case is simply a fishing exercise. I don't think it is.

I doubt NUFC would have gone ahead with this if they didn't have some evidence already of wrongdoing. Disclosure is just a bonus to settle quicker. If NUFC does have enough evidence to establish the possibility of a case, then it isn't enough for the PL to simply delete everything, they have to actively defend the case with evidence of their own.

[andyc35i]

Isn’t the only actual hard evidence that we know of the letter from BeIN urging the other 19 clubs to reject the takeover? Hopefully we have some other written proof that other individuals wanted it rejected, but you’d think nobody would be daft enough to leave a paper trail

[Guest HTT II]

2 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

Isn’t the only actual hard evidence that we know of the letter from BeIN urging the other 19 clubs to reject the takeover? Hopefully we have some other written proof that other individuals wanted it rejected, but you’d think nobody would be daft enough to leave a paper trail

Well there were a lot of people daft enough to conjure up the ESL... there are not many smart people in football, managers, owners, directors, players, the lot. 

[ianovthetoon]

Like most organisations I’d imagine the premier league have a data retention policy. Normally this is at least a couple of years. If they suddenly didn’t have evidence of emails and meeting minutes from last year I’d imagine it would be inferred that some sort of cover up is afoot and it would end up being ruled in our favour 

[Manxst]

For all we know, following the fall of the ESL, further evidence has been provided to us by other clubs maybe? Who knows? But as others have said, it’s extremely unlikely to be going ahead without the club being in receipt of evidence. 

[manorpark]

4 minutes ago, ianovthetoon said:

Like most organisations I’d imagine the premier league have a data retention policy. Normally this is at least a couple of years. If they suddenly didn’t have evidence of emails and meeting minutes from last year I’d imagine it would be inferred that some sort of cover up is afoot and it would end up being ruled in our favour 

Also, I am pretty certain that we have evidence "from the other end" that has been sent by the PL, so (to put it mildly) deleting ANY stuff at the senders end would be very, very dangerous for the PL, as they obviously will not yet know exactly what we have got !!

Basically, the Premier League will (as I have said before) have to cave in and approve the Takeover.

Fairly soon I hope, too . . . 

[LV]

Ok let’s say this does get to court and we win the case.

What sanction can the court impose on the PL?

Can they force them to approve the takeover? Or will it just be to get them to apply the O&D process again?

If so, what’s to stop the PL just doing the same again in demanding that the Saudi govt/ MBS be a director and either not making a decision or deciding they fail the test? 
 

Are we really any closer to a takeover if we win? 

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, LV said:

Ok let’s say this does get to court and we win the case.

What sanction can the court impose on the PL?

Can they force them to approve the takeover? Or will it just be to get them to apply the O&D process again?

If so, what’s to stop the PL just doing the same again in demanding that the Saudi govt/ MBS be a director and either not making a decision or deciding they fail the test? 
 

Are we really any closer to a takeover if we win? 

My gut feeling?

The final outcome will be “guess who wins again”