Takeover Thread - July 1st statement, Staveley letter to Tracey Crouch (and response) in OP

[Broadsword]

I

So, to summarise.

 

PIF feel they have submitted enough evidence to prove that they are independent from state and have supplied names of I volved people's.

 

Prem think state can exert power over PIF and therefore want to test higher ranking people within the state.

 

PIF don't like that and are p*ssed off their answers aren't sufficient for prem.

 

PIF have pulled out in a strop and prem are just not entertaining explaining the situation as they think they've done enough on their part.

 

So pretty much as it has been for weeks haha

 

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director.

 

So, to summarise.

 

PIF feel they have submitted enough evidence to prove that they are independent from state and have supplied names of I volved people's.

 

Prem think state can exert power over PIF and therefore want to test higher ranking people within the state.

 

PIF don't like that and are p*ssed off their answers aren't sufficient for prem.

 

PIF have pulled out in a strop and prem are just not entertaining explaining the situation as they think they've done enough on their part.

 

So pretty much as it has been for weeks haha

 

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director.

 

I will bow down to a more knowledgable person who can show me in company law where a country can be a director. You are hanging on to this as if it’s gospel when it is so clearly not right it’s laughable.

 

As I said all parties except PL are saying this is the case. PL is silenced.

 

Go ahead. You are wasting my time.

 

Some things make sense and somethings don’t make sense. That doesn’t make sense and when there are solicitors involved they will know what can and cannot be done. So while those words came out of her mouth, they were said for impact. The only thing that makes sense is that they want the SA government to be the owners. What you you are suggesting doesn’t make sense. So you can continue to believe the misinformation at face value or try to make some sense out of the nonsense that is said about this deal.

[Slim]

Would be fantastic for this to hit 100k.

 

Where are the Russian bots when you need them

[loki679]

They had to have known that MBS as chairman - regardless of whether he's actually actively involved in decision making or if it's some figurehead or ceremonial type title/position - could end in something like that though.

 

It's horseshit.  The whole thing is just a flimsy smokescreen to hide the fact that the PL are taking orders from Qatar and the 'big' clubs.

[Jackie Broon]

So, to summarise.

 

PIF feel they have submitted enough evidence to prove that they are independent from state and have supplied names of I volved people's.

 

Prem think state can exert power over PIF and therefore want to test higher ranking people within the state.

 

PIF don't like that and are p*ssed off their answers aren't sufficient for prem.

 

PIF have pulled out in a strop and prem are just not entertaining explaining the situation as they think they've done enough on their part.

 

So pretty much as it has been for weeks haha

 

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director.

 

I will bow down to a more knowledgable person who can show me in company law where a country can be a director. You are hanging on to this as if it’s gospel when it is so clearly not right it’s laughable.

 

Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

[TRon]

They should just buy it and deal with the consequences, it would mean the PL would have to take action, even if it is expulsion from the league.

 

Yes I agree with this. If the PL want to play hardball, then let's see how far they can take it. I don't mind NUFC being excluded from the Premier, think at this point we are a waste of space anyhow. But it would definitely damage the Premier's brand if one if it's iconic cities was missing from their competition for this reason while City and Chelsea fly on with their state sponsored backing.

[OpenC]

Would love the focus to be how it can possibly be right for member clubs to have a say in the running of other member clubs. Absolutely fucking disgraceful.

 

[Raconteur]

 

Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

 

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound.

 

There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that...

[nufcjb]

The Qatar factor certainly does not help PL's image in all of this. The PL should have kept away from that influence and rejected the deal and people would probably accept it.

[Ankles Bennett]

I

So, to summarise.

 

PIF feel they have submitted enough evidence to prove that they are independent from state and have supplied names of I volved people's.

 

Prem think state can exert power over PIF and therefore want to test higher ranking people within the state.

 

PIF don't like that and are p*ssed off their answers aren't sufficient for prem.

 

PIF have pulled out in a strop and prem are just not entertaining explaining the situation as they think they've done enough on their part.

 

So pretty much as it has been for weeks haha

 

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director.

 

So, to summarise.

 

PIF feel they have submitted enough evidence to prove that they are independent from state and have supplied names of I volved people's.

 

Prem think state can exert power over PIF and therefore want to test higher ranking people within the state.

 

PIF don't like that and are p*ssed off their answers aren't sufficient for prem.

 

PIF have pulled out in a strop and prem are just not entertaining explaining the situation as they think they've done enough on their part.

 

So pretty much as it has been for weeks haha

 

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director.

 

I will bow down to a more knowledgable person who can show me in company law where a country can be a director. You are hanging on to this as if it’s gospel when it is so clearly not right it’s laughable.

 

As I said all parties except PL are saying this is the case. PL is silenced.

 

Go ahead. You are wasting my time.

 

Some things make sense and somethings don’t make sense. That doesn’t make sense and when there are solicitors involved they will know what can and cannot be done. So while those words came out of her mouth, they were said for impact. The only thing that makes sense is that they want the SA government to be the owners. What you you are suggesting doesn’t make sense. So you can continue to believe the misinformation at face value or try to make some sense out of the nonsense that is said about this deal.

 

So in demanding SA becomes a director, the PL are asking consortium to do the impossible because a country cannot be a director, and the PL have effectively backed them into a corner that they can't get out of, because the PL are saying that if you don't do what we request, you have put the PL in a position where we can't complete the O&D test.  Its a win win situation for the PL whichever way you look at it.

[Raconteur]

 

So in demanding SA becomes a director, the PL are asking consortium to do the impossible because a country cannot be a director, and the PL have effectively backed them into a corner that they can't get out of, because the PL are saying that if you don't do what we request, you have put the PL in a position where we can't complete the O&D test.  Its a win win situation for the PL whichever way you look at it.

 

Problem there is that you can't make a deal contingent on something not legal. Which is why Staveley's quotes can't be taken at face value.

 

What were the exact quotes, anyway?

 

EDIT

 

The Premier League wanted the country, Saudi, to become a director of the football club," Staveley told The Athletic. "That's what this is about. They were effectively saying 'PIF wouldn't be the ultimate beneficial owner, we believe it's actually the government, therefore we want the country to become a director

 

"Country" in that context clearly means government, and is confirmed in the second sentence 

[Jackie Broon]

 

Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

 

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound.

 

There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that...

 

Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale.

 

The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days.

 

Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process.

[Raconteur]

 

Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

 

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound.

 

There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that...

 

Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale.

 

The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days.

 

Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process.

 

So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it

[James]

There was a time when I worked in the then Highways Agency in their planning department and we had the authority to force the local authority to refuse planning applications. However there was a separate option which we could fill in a form and it prevented councils from making a decision one way or another for the next 28 days and we could repeatedly file this indefinitely. Could keep a case in limbo as long as we wanted but there was also an expectation that we had to work with the applicant during that period or refuse it or else the applicant had grounds to appeal/sue

[Broadsword]

So it does beg the question, as I originally posted, why aren’t they putting up the relevant people for this test, what are they trying to hide? Do the PL know that they will fail? Do the Saudis know they will fail. All a bit strange.

 

Maybe the premier league are corrupt and are being influenced but all they can do is test the relevant people. If those people are not put forward then they can refuse to pass it.

[Wilson]

 

So in demanding SA becomes a director, the PL are asking consortium to do the impossible because a country cannot be a director, and the PL have effectively backed them into a corner that they can't get out of, because the PL are saying that if you don't do what we request, you have put the PL in a position where we can't complete the O&D test.  Its a win win situation for the PL whichever way you look at it.

 

Problem there is that you can't make a deal contingent on something not legal. Which is why Staveley's quotes can't be taken at face value.

 

What were the exact quotes, anyway?

 

EDIT

 

The Premier League wanted the country, Saudi, to become a director of the football club," Staveley told The Athletic. "That's what this is about. They were effectively saying 'PIF wouldn't be the ultimate beneficial owner, we believe it's actually the government, therefore we want the country to become a director

 

"Country" in that context clearly means government, and is confirmed in the second sentence 

 

I would just assume the PL aren't actually saying they want them to become director, more that they believe they basically will be directors but the consortium aren't declaring that.....and therein lies the problem.  They can't say they are directors, and can't prove that they won't have influence (although they believe they have) and now it's still just the stalemate we've been at for months only now the consortium are sick of it.

 

Really wish I could just keep out of here.

[Jackie Broon]

 

Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

 

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound.

 

There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that...

 

Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale.

 

The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days.

 

Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process.

 

So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it

 

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/07/24/70ec483e-7207-42cd-89d9-576e53befedd/2019-20-PL-Handbook-240720.pdf

 

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;

[Broadsword]

 

Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

 

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound.

 

There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that...

 

Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale.

 

The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days.

 

Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process.

 

So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it

 

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/07/24/70ec483e-7207-42cd-89d9-576e53befedd/2019-20-PL-Handbook-240720.pdf

 

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;

 

That’s for a newly elected director, nothing to do with this. Different things.

[Happinesstan]

 

So in demanding SA becomes a director, the PL are asking consortium to do the impossible because a country cannot be a director, and the PL have effectively backed them into a corner that they can't get out of, because the PL are saying that if you don't do what we request, you have put the PL in a position where we can't complete the O&D test.  Its a win win situation for the PL whichever way you look at it.

 

Problem there is that you can't make a deal contingent on something not legal. Which is why Staveley's quotes can't be taken at face value.

 

What were the exact quotes, anyway?

 

EDIT

 

The Premier League wanted the country, Saudi, to become a director of the football club," Staveley told The Athletic. "That's what this is about. They were effectively saying 'PIF wouldn't be the ultimate beneficial owner, we believe it's actually the government, therefore we want the country to become a director

 

"Country" in that context clearly means government, and is confirmed in the second sentence

 

I guess it would depend on what they actually said, and not what Staveley said, on reflection.

[Guest ClintonBaptiste]

PL : " Just tell us that MBS is the real owner / director '

PL : " Just tell us , we already know anyway  "

PL : " Just tell us and it'll be alright "

PIF : " Oh ok , MBS is the real owner / director "

PL : " Takeover refused " !

PIF : " But you said you knew and it'd be alright " ! ?

PL : " We didn't know till you told us " !

PL : " Takeover refused "

[wormy]

One scroll through this creep's timeline makes it plainly obvious this is no 'football friend'. Mental it's up to 1.3k likes. Do we really have to sink to sunderland depths on top of the fucking mess that's already out of our hands?

 

[Jackie Broon]

 

Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

 

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound.

 

There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that...

 

Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale.

 

The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days.

 

Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process.

 

So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it

 

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/07/24/70ec483e-7207-42cd-89d9-576e53befedd/2019-20-PL-Handbook-240720.pdf

 

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;

 

That’s for a newly elected director, nothing to do with this. Different things.

 

Then point me to the provision that relates to this?

 

F4. relates to any person proposing to become a director of a club, including a new owner, there is no other provisions that would apply as far as I can see.

[gjohnson]

The PL could make all this issue go away simply by opening up and publishing their actual reasons for delay.  They would be judged less harshly if they just admitted it was because of other clubs, piracy, or human rights.

 

The silence just makes them look at worst corrupt, and at best cowardly

[54]

[Broadsword]

 

Then point me to the provision that relates to this?

 

F4. relates to any person proposing to become a director of a club, there is no other provisions that would apply as far as I can see.

 

Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant.

[jdckelly]

The PL could make all this issue go away simply by opening up and publishing their actual reasons for delay.  They would be judged less harshly if they just admitted it was because of other clubs, piracy, or human rights.

 

The silence just makes them look at worst corrupt, and at best cowardly

to newcastle fans maybe but to anybody else not really