Jump to content

Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition


Jinky Jim

Recommended Posts

Just now, HaydnNUFC said:

Posting Burnsie tweets should be a ban worthy offence imo. Guy is an absolute cunt and weirdo to boot. Hope he gets ran owa.

 

Just somthing to laugh at / discuss to keep people busy imo.

 

If you get wound up or take it serious you need to maybe stay away until this is all over.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wilson said:

Can anyone knock a quick timeline up of what is (officially) happening and when?  Ie, legitimately sourced info. 

 

I'm honestly still swaying positive about it going through but can't don't really give any credence to the twitter shite that pops up. Just looking for a lazy bastards way of seeing what's actually going on tbh. 

 

The only thing we know officially is that the arbitration hearing is in July. Although, there seems to be an ITK consensus that it starts on monday.

 

In relation to the CAT case the PL's jurisdiction challenge was submitted on 11th June and there should be a date set for the jurisdiction hearing anytime soon.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Slim said:

 

Just somthing to laugh at / discuss to keep people busy imo.

 

If you get wound up or take it serious you need to maybe stay away until this is all over.

 

 

 

Been on the whole staying away from this since August. :lol:

 

Don't get wound up or take him seriously either though, he's just a total attention seeker feigning to be ITK (which is hilarious when he gets things wrong, backpedals and blocks people for pulling him up on it :lol: ) and he's not a nice person either. Add on the fact he shags aliens and yeah you may have someone to laugh at, but contributing to the takeover debate? Sorry, like.

 

 

Edited by HaydnNUFC

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The only thing we know officially is that the arbitration hearing is in July. Although, there seems to be an ITK consensus that it starts on monday.

 

In relation to the CAT case the PL's jurisdiction challenge was submitted on 11th June and there should be a date set for the jurisdiction hearing anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

Cheers for that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

Any suggestions how long arbitration might last?

 

It's a single issue, I doubt the hearing would be more than a week. Not sure whether it was true but I've seen someone claim that this is the arbitration service that is being used https://www.sportresolutions.com/services/arbitration their website says:

 

"Arbitration awards are normally given in writing, with detailed reasons, within three weeks of the conclusion of the hearing. They are distributed by e-mail to the parties. The parties may request a verbal decision with written reasons to follow if the matter is urgent. E.g. where an important sporting event is directly related to the decision."

 

The FA and EFL use them so it seems feasible that the PL would too.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1964 said:

Can you use an out of court settlement offer as evidence?  I doubt it aren't they usually prefaced with a phrase like 'without prejudice' to stop that?

 

Could be talking out of my hoop however 

 

Someone on Twitter summed it up, the first rules of sales, when you get what you want, shut your mouth.

 

If a deal had been offered to Ashley that he was happy with, it would be signed by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The PL's rules state that the arbitration decision is final and binding, but they haven't got a great track record of following their own rules.

 

But the arbitration is only to decide if the rules were applied correctly & fairly right?  If we "win" that there's absolutely nothing to stop them finding other grounds to deny the takeover right?  Wonder how strong their resolve is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

 

But the arbitration is only to decide if the rules were applied correctly & fairly right?  If we "win" that there's absolutely nothing to stop them finding other grounds to deny the takeover right?  Wonder how strong their resolve is.

 

The arbitration is to decide whether the KSA should be disclosed as a director by virtue of being a person in control of the club.

 

If the club win the arbitration the KSA don't need to be disclosed but, yes, PIF and the rest of the consortium would then have to go through the O&D test and that could find grounds to fail them. Although, that seems very unlikely and dangerous for the PL to do given the CAT case hanging over them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The arbitration is to decide whether the KSA should be disclosed as a director by virtue of being a person in control of the club.

 

If the club win the arbitration the KSA don't need to be disclosed but, yes, PIF and the rest of the consortium would then have to go through the O&D test and that could find grounds to fail them. Although, that seems very unlikely and dangerous for the PL to do given the CAT case hanging over them.

I thought all the declared directors had already passed the O&D test.  That's why the EPL came up with idea that KSA would be an undeclared director or shadow director in order to block the takeover !

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said:

I thought all the declared directors had already passed the O&D test.  That's why the EPL came up with idea that KSA would be an undeclared director or shadow director in order to block the takeover !

 

The PL didn't even start assessing the declared directors under the O&D test because they said the KSA should be declared before they do that.

 

The PL's preliminary decision letter, from 12/06/2020, included in the high court judgement confirmed that:

 

"Following receipt of any submissions, [PLL] will fully consider them before reaching a final decision on the issues. If [PLL] then decides that KSA will not become a Director, then it will proceed to a decision on the application of Section [F] to the individuals who have been declared, including PIF. However, should the Board decide that KSA is also to be regarded as a future Director, then there will have to be a declaration in respect of KSA and the Board’s decision on the application of [Section F] will have to be made in respect of KSA also."

 

I think that's procedurally incorrect from the wording of their rules, which state that the rules apply to any declared directors from the point that they are declared, but that's how they did it.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The PL didn't even start assessing the declared directors under the O&D test because they said the KSA should be declared before they do that.

 

The PL's preliminary decision letter, from 12/06/2020, included in the high court judgement confirmed that:

 

"Following receipt of any submissions, [PLL] will fully consider them before reaching a final decision on the issues. If [PLL] then decides that KSA will not become a Director, then it will proceed to a decision on the application of Section [F] to the individuals who have been declared, including PIF. However, should the Board decide that KSA is also to be regarded as a future Director, then there will have to be a declaration in respect of KSA and the Board’s decision on the application of [Section F] will have to be made in respect of KSA also."

 

I think that's procedurally incorrect from the wording of their rules, which state that the rules apply to any declared directors from the point that they are declared, but that's how they did it.

 

 

 

There was stories around at the time that Staveley & the Ruebens had passed it

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gdm said:

There was stories around at the time that Staveley & the Ruebens had passed it

 

I remember seeing that too. Either the PL have been inconsistent in their position (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) or the stories were wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought everyone had passed it as they didn't have any grounds to fail them on. In order to stall they (The PL) then decided to say we need proof that the KSA government have no involment at all which led to the hand delivered letter etc and the start of nothing actually being decided. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

I thought everyone had passed it as they didn't have any grounds to fail them on. In order to stall they (The PL) then decided to say we need proof that the KSA government have no involment at all which led to the hand delivered letter etc and the start of nothing actually being decided. 

 

The high court documents show that was not the case, they didn't even start the O&D test for any of the proposed directors. And they would have grounds to fail them on, that they hadn't disclosed another person teat the PL had determined would have control of the club.

 

 

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...