Jump to content

Takeover Thread - Expedited Arbitration to Begin in July


Will the takeover be complete by this summer?  

290 members have voted

  1. 1. Will the takeover be complete by this summer?

    • Yes
      85
    • No
      163


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

 

What? It's written in the rules that they're not allowed to know who to test before commencing?

 

This makes it clear that the rules apply to anyone who is declared as a proposed director from the point they are declared: 

 

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;

 

That includes rule F.1.1.1 which, as detailed above, applies to any proposed director from the point they are declared and requires that they be disqualified if any other directors (including new owners) have not been disclosed:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:

 

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

This makes it clear that the rules apply to anyone who is declared as a proposed director from the point they are declared: 

 

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;

 

That includes rule F.1.1.1 which, as detailed above, applies to any proposed director from the point they are declared and requires that they be disqualified if any other directors (including new owners) have not been disclosed:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:

 

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

I feel like you've been spamming this for months now. I thought the entire argument was about whether SA [or whoever] would qualify as a director.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I feel like you've been spamming this for months now. I thought the entire argument was about whether SA [or whoever] would qualify as a director.

 

And yet people are still coming back with the same erroneous stuff about the PL not having been able to carry out the test because they didn't agree on the directors. If people stop posting that I'll stop showing that they're wrong.

 

That's the argument for arbitration, but for the CAT case I think the fact that the PL haven't properly followed their own rules is going to seriously weaken their defence, which could increase the chances that they will settle the arbitration to get out of the CAT case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Wrong. Again. The PL does need to be satisfied the correct people have been tested.

 

F26. No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
F.26.1. the Board provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule F.24.1.1 and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1;
F.26.2. the Board provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule F.24.1.2; and
F.26.3. the Club and Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule F.25.


So what should happen when rule F.26.1. cannot be satisfied. What you have quoted there only details what is required at -


F.24.1.2.
submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of each Person who will become a Director upon the proposed acquisition of Control;

 

So when this has not been complied with what should happen next. You still haven’t shown a reg that satisfies your argument.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Well their statement has been damaging to the club’s case, that’s the whole point. 

 

See above.


Who’s said their statement is damaging apart from Jacobs ? I’m not sure anyone knows if that will be the case or not. Once again your hanging off Jacobs every word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Wrong. Again. The PL does need to be satisfied the correct people have been tested.

 

F26. No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
F.26.1. the Board provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule F.24.1.1 and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1;
F.26.2. the Board provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule F.24.1.2; and
F.26.3. the Club and Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule F.25.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but rules F.24 to F.27 didn't exist in April 2020, they were inserted in January 2021.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

Do we know for sure that the PIF submitted its signed director declaration? I honestly can't remember. 

Not sure it matters now mate, it'll just add more fire on the aids that this discussion ends up being.

 

 

Edited by Bimpy474

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

Do we know for sure that the PIF submitted its signed director declaration? I honestly can't remember. 

 

They must have, from the PL's 'decision letter' letter in the High Court judgement "PIF expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of “Director” under [PLL’s] Rules".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

And yet people are still coming back with the same erroneous stuff about the PL not having been able to carry out the test because they didn't agree on the directors. If people stop posting that I'll stop showing that they're wrong.

 

That's the argument for arbitration, but for the CAT case I think the fact that the PL haven't properly followed their own rules is going to seriously weaken their defence, which could increase the chances that they will settle the arbitration to get out of the CAT case.


That’s literally what everyone (including Jacobs) have been talking about though :lol: 
 

That’s what the entire arbitration case is built on; that we (Mike Ashley) missed out on hundreds of millions because the Prem never even did the test/never gave a verdict.

 

The CAT case is completely different and has nothing to do with the ODT. 

 

 

Edited by cubaricho

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

They must have, from the PL's 'decision letter' letter in the High Court judgement "PIF expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of “Director” under [PLL’s] Rules".

 

That's ambiguous, though, and leaves open the possibility it was done through informal correspondence. I'm wondering if they actually submitted the formal declaration. Hopefully they weren't stupid enough not to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cubaricho said:


That’s literally what everyone (including Jacobs) have been talking about though :lol: 
 

That’s what the entire arbitration case is built on; that we (Mike Ashley) missed out on hundreds of millions because the Prem never even did the test/never gave a verdict.

 

The CAT case is completely different and has nothing to do with the ODT. 

 

From the summary of the CAT claim:

 

"The Claim states that the Defendant exercised its power to block the Proposed Takeover when it decided between June and September 2020 that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a director exercising “control” over NUFC, for the purposes of the Rules (“the Director Decision”). In reaching the Director Decision, the Defendant failed to apply the Rules in a fair, objective and non-discriminatory fashion and/or used its powers under the Rules for the improper purpose of promoting its own commercial interests and/or the interests of its business associates and/or certain of the PL member-clubs in a manner that was detrimental to competition and consumers."

 

For the CAT case the club probably need to demonstrate something like that, on the balance of probabilities, there was some kind of anticompetitive influence and the PL acted on that to block the takeover.

If the club can show that the PL didn’t correctly follow their own O&D process, which they clearly haven’t, that probably puts the PL in a very weak position on the second part of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B-more Mag said:

 

That's ambiguous, though, and leaves open the possibility it was done through informal correspondence. I'm wondering if they actually submitted the formal declaration. Hopefully they weren't stupid enough not to. 

 

They must have done, we certainly would have heard about it from the likes of Jacobs had they not submitted their declaration properly and that hasn't been even alluded to anywhere from what I've seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

From the summary of the CAT claim:

 

"The Claim states that the Defendant exercised its power to block the Proposed Takeover when it decided between June and September 2020 that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a director exercising “control” over NUFC, for the purposes of the Rules (“the Director Decision”). In reaching the Director Decision, the Defendant failed to apply the Rules in a fair, objective and non-discriminatory fashion and/or used its powers under the Rules for the improper purpose of promoting its own commercial interests and/or the interests of its business associates and/or certain of the PL member-clubs in a manner that was detrimental to competition and consumers."

 

For the CAT case the club probably need to demonstrate something like that, on the balance of probabilities, there was some kind of anticompetitive influence and the PL acted on that to block the takeover.

If the club can show that the PL didn’t correctly follow their own O&D process, which they clearly haven’t, that probably puts the PL in a very weak position on the second part of that.


Correct, for the CAT case.

 

To be real, I think the club is throwing both of these cases at the PL to try and get them to blink and just wave the whole thing through. It’s pretty clear that the club is not 100% sure they’re going to “win” either one in the end though. I think they’re banking on the PL not wanting their dirty laundry aired publicly and eventually just lifting the gate for the Saudis to walk through after some negotiations on how the optics will look publicly.

 

 

Edited by cubaricho

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

They must have done, we certainly would have heard about it from the likes of Jacobs had they not submitted their declaration properly and that hasn't been even alluded to anywhere from what I've seen.

 

Looks like one of those things we don't know for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, cubaricho said:


Correct, for the CAT case.

 

Now what about the arbitration case that Jacobs was talking about?

 

To be real, I think the club is throwing both of these cases at the PL to try and get them to blink and just wave the whole thing through. It’s pretty clear that the club is not 100% sure they’re going to “win” either one in the end though. I think they’re banking on the PL not wanting their dirty laundry aired publicly and eventually just lifting the gate for the Saudis to walk through after some negotiations on how the optics will look publicly.

 

Yeah, I completely agree. I think the club are worried the arbitration might not go their way (so am I) and the CAT case is there now to try to force the PL into a settlement on both.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Looks like one of those things we don't know for sure.

 

Reading further down the letter: "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."

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Yeah, I completely agree. I think the club are worried the arbitration might not go their way (so am I) and the CAT case is there now to try to force the PL into a settlement on both.


That’s my take on it too.

 

Although the thought has occurred to me that we do win the arbitration but then the club isn’t valued at the same price as before. So the CAT case is actually all about compensation to Mike Ashley, and that’s why the judge didn’t disclose the commercial document about where St James Holdings came to a specific figure.

 

There could be up to a 100 million drop in price and he’s making sure he gets it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Reading further down the letter: "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."

 

Good. Looks like they probably did then. (Though that's really awkward language, since PIF doesn't get declared -- it's making declarations of fact to the PL). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

And yet people are still coming back with the same erroneous stuff about the PL not having been able to carry out the test because they didn't agree on the directors. If people stop posting that I'll stop showing that they're wrong.

 

That's the argument for arbitration, but for the CAT case I think the fact that the PL haven't properly followed their own rules is going to seriously weaken their defence, which could increase the chances that they will settle the arbitration to get out of the CAT case.

Does that mean you think they could wave the takeover through before Friday 5pm. (I know the answer is probably not, but it's a nice thought until you reply confirming no).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

Does that mean you think they could wave the takeover through before Friday 5pm. (I know the answer is probably not, but it's a nice thought until you reply confirming no).

 

Friday is just the deadline for the submission of the CAT jurisdiction challenge, I don't think there'll be a decision on that for at least a couple of weeks. I'm pinning my hopes on the PL settling shortly after if that challenge fails. Although, I know fuck all and that's just pure speculation.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:


That’s my take on it too.

 

Although the thought has occurred to me that we do win the arbitration but then the club isn’t valued at the same price as before. So the CAT case is actually all about compensation to Mike Ashley, and that’s why the judge didn’t disclose the commercial document about where St James Holdings came to a specific figure.

 

There could be up to a 100 million drop in price and he’s making sure he gets it back.

 

That thought has crossed my mind too, but then it would probably be easier to start the CAT case after arbitration if that were the reason, the timing suggests to me that at least part of the reason is to put pressure on the PL to settle the arbitration. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

That thought has crossed my mind too, but then it would probably be easier to start the CAT case after arbitration if that were the reason, the timing suggests to me that at least part of the reason is to put pressure on the PL to settle the arbitration. 


oh it’s definitely a reason too. I think if the PL get knocked back on their jurisdiction claim they will settle. There’s no way they’ll want all this information in the public domain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Disco locked this topic
  • Disco unlocked this topic

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...