Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

Jinky Jim

by Jinky Jim
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Whitley mag

Whitley mag

Posted
Posted

Very true this, Caulkin always reported that the consortium felt they had answered all questions asked. It’s quite incredible to believe that the PL are implying that the test hadn't even started after 17 weeks. 
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
nbthree3

nbthree3

Posted
Posted

That's all very up in the air, but I'm excited to hear one day what that meant. Provided competition case isn't dismissed after the PL reply by Friday, a public hearing does the fans a world of good regardless of outcome because it's clarity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Very true this, Caulkin always reported that the consortium felt they had answered all questions asked. It’s quite incredible to believe that the PL are implying that the test hadn't even started after 17 weeks. 
 

 

 

 

 

F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club):

 

F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules;

 

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6; and

 

F.4.3. he shall not become a Director until the Club has received confirmation from the Board pursuant to Rule F.4.2 above that he is not liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing, in the rules states anything that could be interpreted to say that the test doesn't start until all people that the PL think will be directors have been disclosed. Quite the opposite, it's clear from the rules that the O&D test in section F applies to those people declared from the point they are declared.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Robster

Robster

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Very true this, Caulkin always reported that the consortium felt they had answered all questions asked. It’s quite incredible to believe that the PL are implying that the test hadn't even started after 17 weeks. 
 

 

 

 

Is there evidence that the PL did actually say that to the government or is just gossip ?
I can't remember where that line came from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stifler

Stifler

Posted
Posted (edited)

This whole Ben Jacobs and Keith stuff is fucking tedious to look at and spoiling every bit of news we get takeover related.

It is well known the Ben Jacobs is a BeIN mouthpiece, possibly Premier League one as well.

Keith for what good he did in the past has lost the plot in arguing with him and in the crossfire also having a dig at other fans. Credit to him for starting the legal proceedings but by his own admittance the club has taken over that, and now he’s not in a position where he knows anything, similarly Ben Jacobs as well. Taking swipes and arguing with each other is as pointless as an NUFC FA Cup match under Ashley. Just block each other and leave each other alone man.

 

 

Edited by Stifler

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted

This is what makes Ben Jacob's stuff particularly fishy, for someone who claims to be balanced he seems incredibly keen to defend how the PL have handled the process. Whether or not they have a strong case in the arbitration, it's abundantly clear that they didn't follow their own rules and used delay tactics to try to make the consortium give up and go away. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitley mag

Whitley mag

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Robster said:

 

Is there evidence that the PL did actually say that to the government or is just gossip ?
I can't remember where that line came from.

To be honest I can’t recall I where it was said that test hadn’t started. This guy is right about the DCMS correspondence though contradicting that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Strawberry

Strawberry

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Stifler said:

This whole Ben Jacobs and Keith stuff is fucking tedious to look at and spoiling every bit of news we get takeover related.

It is well known the Ben Jacobs is a BeIN mouthpiece, possibly Premier League one as well.

Keith for what good he did in the past has lost the plot in segueing with him and in the crossfire also having a dig at other fans. Credit to him for starting the legal proceedings but by his own admittance the club has taken over that, and now he’s not in a position where he knows anything, similarly Ben Jacobs as well. Taking swipes and arguing with each other is as pointless as an NUFC FA Cup match under Ashley. Just block each other and leave each other alone man.

I could not agree more. It is so tedious instead of waiting for some meaningful news we have to read this nonsense between them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

To be honest I can’t recall I where it was said that test hadn’t started. This guy is right about the DCMS correspondence though contradicting that.

 

 

 

Again, making excuses for the PL, why would a balanced independent journalist feel the need to do that?

 

What he is saying makes no sense. There is no "who to test part", if someone hasn't been disclosed it's clear that the PL has to disqualify the disclosed directors immediately as they are liable to be disqualified under F.1.1.1. They can then either disclose again including the people the PL want or appeal under F.13.

 

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,

Link to post
Share on other sites
gdm

gdm

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Stifler said:

This whole Ben Jacobs and Keith stuff is fucking tedious to look at and spoiling every bit of news we get takeover related.

It is well known the Ben Jacobs is a BeIN mouthpiece, possibly Premier League one as well.

Keith for what good he did in the past has lost the plot in segueing with him and in the crossfire also having a dig at other fans. Credit to him for starting the legal proceedings but by his own admittance the club has taken over that, and now he’s not in a position where he knows anything, similarly Ben Jacobs as well. Taking swipes and arguing with each other is as pointless as an NUFC FA Cup match under Ashley. Just block each other and leave each other alone man.

It really is embarrassing from both sides. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest reefatoon

Guest reefatoon

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Waddles mullet said:

Why would the premier league offer arbitration if the ODT hadn’t started? 


Because Ben the fuckwit Jacobs said so, he even said it in his eloquent voice to fool the befuddled into thinking he knows what he is talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...