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

[Shearergol]

Golfmag[/member] was convinced it was ready to be passed. Assume that was mis-information being fed to him from the PL or FMA?

[gdm]

Was rocker just on the wind up then ?

[Shearergol]

Was rocker just on the wind up then ?

 

Nah, think he's just keeping his cards (reputation) close to his chest. Assume we'll see something on twitter before he backs it up.

[Jackie Broon]

Golfmag[/member] was convinced it was ready to be passed. Assume that was mis-information being fed to him from the PL or FMA?

 

Unless it's that it was ready to be passed subject to them agreeing to include MbS and/or the KSA as a director.

[Shearergol]

Golfmag[/member] was convinced it was ready to be passed. Assume that was mis-information being fed to him from the PL or FMA?

 

Unless it's that it was ready to be passed subject to them agreeing to include MbS and/or the KSA as a director.

 

True, hadn't thought of it that way.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Was rocker just on the wind up then ?

 

Nah, think he's just keeping his cards (reputation) close to his chest. Assume we'll see something on twitter before he backs it up.

 

He has a reputation?

[Robster]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

[Scotty66]

Golfmag[/member] was convinced it was ready to be passed. Assume that was mis-information being fed to him from the PL or FMA?

 

Unless it's that it was ready to be passed subject to them agreeing to include MbS and/or the KSA as a director.

 

I thought the whole point of them trying to get KSA as a director was so they then had valid grounds to reject it. Although surely you can't ask for that and then say no we're not happy with that, it's rejected.

Maybe just to cover the legal side of it? ?‍♂️

[healthyaddiction]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

It wouldn't be the first time football sets it's own rules that are then overturned by law. Man City's ban for example.

[gjohnson]

Legal stuff 'might' only start once this has been rejected.  And that will probably PIF trying to get their deposit back only

 

First there has to be a decision made either way. Unless I'm wrong, the PL is not a publicly listed company?

 

I very much doubt it's possible to sue a private company for breaking their own rules, unless someone has been physically injured due to them breaking them.  More than likely the PL are probably sitting re-writing the test right now, and will come out with something like this

 

"Following a comprehensive review of the OD Test for Football club ownership, we have announced the following changes which will apply retrospectively from January this year"....changes which will actively prevent PIF involvement.

 

 

Or they'll just keep quiet and hope it goes away. After the external pressure over the last week, any self respecting company would have issued a response or even an acknowledgement

[Robster]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

It wouldn't be the first time football sets it's own rules that are then overturned by law. Man City's ban for example.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see the PL get shafted in court but no matter how much I try, I just can't see it happening.

[Jackie Broon]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

 

I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal).

[gjohnson]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

 

I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal).

 

So if it does go to court it will be so they can get the deposit/damages/costs back. Can't see it forcing them to approve

[Robster]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal).

I bow to other people's knowledge of course but surely, seeing as though we are in week 18 (?), surely they would have gone down that route already?

[Jackie Broon]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

 

I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal).

 

So if it does go to court it will be so they can get the deposit/damages/costs back. Can't see it forcing them to approve

 

I don't think it would be within the remit of a an English court to influence the actual decision (it would possibly be within the remit of the Court of Arbitration for Sport though).

 

But, from my point of view, this is more about speculation of what might be going on behind the scenes and the pressure that might be put on the PL to make a decision. I think if it does get as far as legal action that would probably mean the deal is dead, because it could go on for years.

[Robster]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

 

I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal).

 

So if it does go to court it will be so they can get the deposit/damages/costs back. Can't see it forcing them to approve

 

I don't think it would be within the remit of a an English court to influence the actual decision (it would possibly be within the remit of the Court of Arbitration for Sport though).

 

But, from my point of view, this is more about speculation of what might be going on behind the scenes and the pressure that might be put on the PL to make a decision. I think if it does get as far as legal action that would probably mean the deal is dead, because it could go on for years.

Agreed. As Dokko also said, if there was some legal angle that could taken, I don't know how many of us would have the emotional energy to wait for that to end. The last 18 weeks have been bad enough.

[Jackie Broon]

Next up would be legal battles, not sure I have it in me to keep caring that long though.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself.

I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all.

I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up.

I just don't see this going legal.

I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal).

I bow to other people's knowledge of course but surely, seeing as though we are in week 18 (?), surely they would have gone down that route already?

 

They probably thought that they could work with the PL to get a satisfactory conclusion and didn't want to antagonise them, but they finally reached deadlock with them and have clearly changed tactics. I would expect that they are being much more aggressive in terms of threatening legal action since that change.

[The Prophet]

You'd imagine if/when its rejected they'll have an appeal, if that comes to nothing that will be that.

[Shearergol]

You'd imagine if/when its rejected they'll have an appeal, if that comes to nothing that will be that.

 

I'm really not convinced that it hasn't already finished as soon as the announcement was made that PIF were withdrawing. I know people have claimed that they didn't submit a special form to the PL to tell them, so it's still ongoing, but I don't believe that for one minute.

 

The only thing I'm clutching to is the fact that the PL haven't put any form of statement out yet, but I reckon that's coming.

[Mattoon]

Legal stuff 'might' only start once this has been rejected.  And that will probably PIF trying to get their deposit back only

 

First there has to be a decision made either way. Unless I'm wrong, the PL is not a publicly listed company?

 

I very much doubt it's possible to sue a private company for breaking their own rules, unless someone has been physically injured due to them breaking them.  More than likely the PL are probably sitting re-writing the test right now, and will come out with something like this

 

"Following a comprehensive review of the OD Test for Football club ownership, we have announced the following changes which will apply retrospectively from January this year"....changes which will actively prevent PIF involvement.

 

 

Or they'll just keep quiet and hope it goes away. After the external pressure over the last week, any self respecting company would have issued a response or even an acknowledgement

 

Private or not, you cannot change the agreed contractual obligations of either side after the process has begun, unless agreed by both sides.

 

The PL, even as a private company, will have to have followed their own rules by the letter as this is contractually agreed between 2 parties. If the consortium feel there is any grey area in the PLs actions during this test which has prevented a purchase, caused financial loss, not just the deposit but the costs of an on going investigation and legal representation then they have a case to make.

[James]

I think Ashley’s core legal argument goes back to when he bought the club and when O&D was introduced.

 

When he bought the club, did he have any idea that the organisation would introduce rules that would prevent him from selling to whoever he wanted to in the future.

 

When O&D was introduced did he vote for it? Is the application of the test consistent with what was communicated to members at the time?

[Rosenrot]

An English court can certainly overturn rules of private companies in certain circumstances. Look at the case of Eastham v Newcastle United Football Club for one example.

[Dr.Spaceman]

Rocker not just happy he's engaged and posted in the wrong thread?

[gjohnson]

Legal stuff 'might' only start once this has been rejected.  And that will probably PIF trying to get their deposit back only

 

First there has to be a decision made either way. Unless I'm wrong, the PL is not a publicly listed company?

 

I very much doubt it's possible to sue a private company for breaking their own rules, unless someone has been physically injured due to them breaking them.  More than likely the PL are probably sitting re-writing the test right now, and will come out with something like this

 

"Following a comprehensive review of the OD Test for Football club ownership, we have announced the following changes which will apply retrospectively from January this year"....changes which will actively prevent PIF involvement.

 

 

Or they'll just keep quiet and hope it goes away. After the external pressure over the last week, any self respecting company would have issued a response or even an acknowledgement

 

Private or not, you cannot change the agreed contractual obligations of either side after the process has begun, unless agreed by both sides.

 

The PL, even as a private company, will have to have followed their own rules by the letter as this is contractually agreed between 2 parties. If the consortium feel there is any grey area in the PLs actions during this test which has prevented a purchase, caused financial loss, not just the deposit but the costs of an on going investigation and legal representation then they have a case to make.

 

Happens all the time. Plus neither PIF nor Ashley had contracts with PL. Just with each other

[Rosenrot]

Legal stuff 'might' only start once this has been rejected.  And that will probably PIF trying to get their deposit back only

 

First there has to be a decision made either way. Unless I'm wrong, the PL is not a publicly listed company?

 

I very much doubt it's possible to sue a private company for breaking their own rules, unless someone has been physically injured due to them breaking them.  More than likely the PL are probably sitting re-writing the test right now, and will come out with something like this

 

"Following a comprehensive review of the OD Test for Football club ownership, we have announced the following changes which will apply retrospectively from January this year"....changes which will actively prevent PIF involvement.

 

 

Or they'll just keep quiet and hope it goes away. After the external pressure over the last week, any self respecting company would have issued a response or even an acknowledgement

 

Private or not, you cannot change the agreed contractual obligations of either side after the process has begun, unless agreed by both sides.

 

The PL, even as a private company, will have to have followed their own rules by the letter as this is contractually agreed between 2 parties. If the consortium feel there is any grey area in the PLs actions during this test which has prevented a purchase, caused financial loss, not just the deposit but the costs of an on going investigation and legal representation then they have a case to make.

 

Generally yes, unless its deemed as being in restraint of trade and is therefore void unless can be justified.

 

I’m not saying there’s a restraint of trade case here what so ever, but to say that “you cannot change the agreed contractural obligations of either side” is incorrect.