Jump to content

Positive Optimism-Saudi Takeover Edition


Recommended Posts

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
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
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
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
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
20 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

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,


Aye, think he ties himself in knots at times. Stand to be corrected, but I can’t even see anywhere that allows the PL to make a provisional determination on who should be tested ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacobs never admits the PL have done anything wrong here, when they clearly have. That tells a story of what Jacobs is about in itself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, reefatoon said:


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.


Exactly this. Eloquence does not equate to intelligence or insight. 
 

See Jenas, Simon Jordan and people like George Galloway for examples of this.

 

They just usually have a gift for speaking that makes them sound confident and as if their point is valid. It usually isn’t. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Whitley mag said:


Aye, think he ties himself in knots at times. Stand to be corrected, but I can’t even see anywhere that allows the PL to make a provisional determination on who should be tested ?


That is what is at the heart of the arbitration case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s hard to believe the PL, Bein and top 6 won’t have fallen foul of this highlighted article. If the bar is set that low the PL lawyers must be twitchy re CAT case if it gets the go ahead. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I do post positive stuff too. :)

 

No idea who this bloke is but he claims to  be a "solicitor specialising in international arbitration"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

This is old news Joey, gdm beat you to the punch earlier. Welcome aboard though choo choo, I won’t tell Fanny if you don’t.

He needs to learn to post it in the correct thread still. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

He needs to learn to post it in the correct thread still. 

It’s in a suitable thread. In reply to someone mentioning twitter rumours of the nice meeting 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gdm said:

It’s in a suitable thread. In reply to someone mentioning twitter rumours of the nice meeting 

Will they all have to isolate when they get back do we know? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/people/126949 This is Paul

 

Paul Stothard is a dispute resolution lawyer based in Dubai. He has particular experience of international arbitration and advises clients on international disputes involving construction, energy and infrastructure, financial institutions, international trade, retail, hospitality, sports and media.

Paul has experience of both commercial and investment disputes, and has acted for both investors and states. In addition to his work in international arbitration, he also has wide-ranging experience in international fraud litigation, and has led internal investigations into corruption and fraud.

 

He's spoken about the takeover before, I'll share a few posts he's made in the past. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Inclined to agree. Assume nothing's significant and if it turns out to be useful (perhaps this is according to other responses, including one saying Nick de Marco "knows his onions" (though he'd rather it be bread)) then great 

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
×
×
  • Create New...