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

[Dokko]

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.

 

IDK how or where this ends, but if it goes beyond this week then its probably going on without my investment. I know you cannot see legal action, i just cannot see how it doesn't end up in the courts somewhere down the line.

 

To contest:

 

* £17m deposit (if true the PL encouraged the bid early doors, before interference from Bein. If there is any evidence of that, the PL will be paying that £17m back to the bidders + legal fees)

* Ashley unable to sell an asset (restriction of trade has been mentioned, no idea if valid, but sounds like there's something in it)

* Devaluation of asset (Can't sell it to specific people, therefore the value plummets. Only a certain % can afford a club and to run it, the pool isn't huge to begin with)

* Sporting competition/fair playing field (Dice is loaded in favour of the big 6, meaning this is no longer a fair competition. Surely has impact on gambling in PL games with interference from the body keeping the big 6 better than the rest)

* Time, money and effort gone in to bid and test (Millions will have been spent getting this bid together and going through the test. If they aren't allowed to pass due to other clubs interference then this is money they could possibly as back in a legal case)

 

From what i gather the £17m alone could bankrupt the league. Ashley could claim his asset is £100m worse off now and has to drop the price to that to sell it. Probably another £10m or so on putting the bid together. All this is money i'd be looking at claiming back once it goes tits up, and they will, even if its years down the line.

 

[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

 

Imagine taking a driving test. You've prepped for it, fully ready, and a week before the DVLA decides to change the criteria. It's TS, and you certainly couldn't sue them for it if you failed

 

EDIT. I wish to retract this as its not the same thing at all, as you probably could sue if the conditions changed during the test. However, even if you won, you'd still have to re-take the new one

[Dokko]

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

 

Imagine taking a driving test. You've prepped for it, fully ready, and a week before the DVLA decides to change the criteria. It's TS, and you certainly couldn't sue them for it if you failed

 

Yeah but they couldn't change it while you are in the middle of the exam.

[Rosenrot]

Proactive Sports Management Limited v Wayne Rooney is another good English sport case where a contractural agreement has been declared void after the fact.

[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

 

Imagine taking a driving test. You've prepped for it, fully ready, and a week before the DVLA decides to change the criteria. It's TS, and you certainly couldn't sue them for it if you failed

 

Yeah but they couldn't change it while you are in the middle of the exam.

 

Yeah just realised it was a stupid analogy

[TRon]

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.

 

IDK how or where this ends, but if it goes beyond this week then its probably going on without my investment. I know you cannot see legal action, i just cannot see how it doesn't end up in the courts somewhere down the line.

 

To contest:

 

* £17m deposit (if true the PL encouraged the bid early doors, before interference from Bein. If there is any evidence of that, the PL will be paying that £17m back to the bidders + legal fees)

* Ashley unable to sell an asset (restriction of trade has been mentioned, no idea if valid, but sounds like there's something in it)

* Devaluation of asset (Can't sell it to specific people, therefore the value plummets. Only a certain % can afford a club and to run it, the pool isn't huge to begin with)

* Sporting competition/fair playing field (Dice is loaded in favour of the big 6, meaning this is no longer a fair competition. Surely has impact on gambling in PL games with interference from the body keeping the big 6 better than the rest)

* Time, money and effort gone in to bid and test (Millions will have been spent getting this bid together and going through the test. If they aren't allowed to pass due to other clubs interference then this is money they could possibly as back in a legal case)

 

From what i gather the £17m alone could bankrupt the league. Ashley could claim his asset is £100m worse off now and has to drop the price to that to sell it. Probably another £10m or so on putting the bid together. All this is money i'd be looking at claiming back once it goes tits up, and they will, even if its years down the line.

 

 

As far as I can see it, there are two likely parties who would be motivated to sue the PL.

 

PIF as they have lost £17m due to the PL dithering and failure to make a decision. But I'm not convinced they would be arsed enough about £17m to go to court for it seeing as they are swimming in cash so it's a drop in the ocean for them.

 

Ashley himself. But again I'm not sure he's that arsed about it either as he's made £17m from nothing and he can still continue to operate the club on a shoestring. If anything he can now justify being even tighter with his money.

 

I suppose the Reubens and Stavely might be a factor, but I'm not sure if it's their money which was put down as a deposit, much more likely to have been the Saudis I'd have thought.

[Ankles Bennett]

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.

The £17m deposit was paid by the consortium in the knowledge that if the takeover was rejected by the PL they would get their £17m refunded, if the takeover was passed then all they had to do was hand over the balance of £283m so there was no risk at all to the deposit.  By refusing to give a decision the PL are effectively withholding the £17m that was, in the minds of the consortium, ringfenced.  Having said that, for all we know, they may have had their deposit refunded by the PL/the top 6 clubs, to ensure there was no legal comeback in refusing to make a decision. 

[Penn]

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?

 

It's irrelevant.

 

Ashley purchased an entity he knew was subject to the governance of the Premier League.

 

The idea that clubs aren't subject to new Premier League rules because they weren't in place at the time the club was purchased by their current owners is absurd.

 

Recourse to the courts is extremely limited for both Ashley and the consortium. All this talk about the PL being dragged through the courts etc. is a comforting thought for some, but isn't grounded in any legal reality.

[Jackie Broon]

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

 

Firstly, how do you know that? Secondly, I would imagine that for the purposes of contract law the PL's rules are the terms of a contract between the club/proposed owners and the PL.

[Armchair Pundit]

All this highly impressive contractual knowledge aside, would it be fair to assume that unless PIF officially retract their withdrawal statement or say they're making a new bid, the Prem could just sit there and assume there's nothing to approve or reject anymore?

[loki679]

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.

 

IDK how or where this ends, but if it goes beyond this week then its probably going on without my investment. I know you cannot see legal action, i just cannot see how it doesn't end up in the courts somewhere down the line.

 

To contest:

 

* £17m deposit (if true the PL encouraged the bid early doors, before interference from Bein. If there is any evidence of that, the PL will be paying that £17m back to the bidders + legal fees)

* Ashley unable to sell an asset (restriction of trade has been mentioned, no idea if valid, but sounds like there's something in it)

* Devaluation of asset (Can't sell it to specific people, therefore the value plummets. Only a certain % can afford a club and to run it, the pool isn't huge to begin with)

* Sporting competition/fair playing field (Dice is loaded in favour of the big 6, meaning this is no longer a fair competition. Surely has impact on gambling in PL games with interference from the body keeping the big 6 better than the rest)

* Time, money and effort gone in to bid and test (Millions will have been spent getting this bid together and going through the test. If they aren't allowed to pass due to other clubs interference then this is money they could possibly as back in a legal case)

 

From what i gather the £17m alone could bankrupt the league. Ashley could claim his asset is £100m worse off now and has to drop the price to that to sell it. Probably another £10m or so on putting the bid together. All this is money i'd be looking at claiming back once it goes tits up, and they will, even if its years down the line.

 

 

As far as I can see it, there are two likely parties who would be motivated to sue the PL.

 

PIF as they have lost £17m due to the PL dithering and failure to make a decision. But I'm not convinced they would be arsed enough about £17m to go to court for it seeing as they are swimming in cash so it's a drop in the ocean for them.

 

Ashley himself. But again I'm not sure he's that arsed about it either as he's made £17m from nothing and he can still continue to operate the club on a shoestring. If anything he can now justify being even tighter with his money.

 

I suppose the Reubens and Stavely might be a factor, but I'm not sure if it's their money which was put down as a deposit, much more likely to have been the Saudis I'd have thought.

 

Ashley is losing the chance to snap up some undervalued businesses while this is going on.  He's standing there with his plate and his little bib tucked into his shirt but the manager won't open the buffet.

[TRon]

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.

 

IDK how or where this ends, but if it goes beyond this week then its probably going on without my investment. I know you cannot see legal action, i just cannot see how it doesn't end up in the courts somewhere down the line.

 

To contest:

 

* £17m deposit (if true the PL encouraged the bid early doors, before interference from Bein. If there is any evidence of that, the PL will be paying that £17m back to the bidders + legal fees)

* Ashley unable to sell an asset (restriction of trade has been mentioned, no idea if valid, but sounds like there's something in it)

* Devaluation of asset (Can't sell it to specific people, therefore the value plummets. Only a certain % can afford a club and to run it, the pool isn't huge to begin with)

* Sporting competition/fair playing field (Dice is loaded in favour of the big 6, meaning this is no longer a fair competition. Surely has impact on gambling in PL games with interference from the body keeping the big 6 better than the rest)

* Time, money and effort gone in to bid and test (Millions will have been spent getting this bid together and going through the test. If they aren't allowed to pass due to other clubs interference then this is money they could possibly as back in a legal case)

 

From what i gather the £17m alone could bankrupt the league. Ashley could claim his asset is £100m worse off now and has to drop the price to that to sell it. Probably another £10m or so on putting the bid together. All this is money i'd be looking at claiming back once it goes tits up, and they will, even if its years down the line.

 

 

As far as I can see it, there are two likely parties who would be motivated to sue the PL.

 

PIF as they have lost £17m due to the PL dithering and failure to make a decision. But I'm not convinced they would be arsed enough about £17m to go to court for it seeing as they are swimming in cash so it's a drop in the ocean for them.

 

Ashley himself. But again I'm not sure he's that arsed about it either as he's made £17m from nothing and he can still continue to operate the club on a shoestring. If anything he can now justify being even tighter with his money.

 

I suppose the Reubens and Stavely might be a factor, but I'm not sure if it's their money which was put down as a deposit, much more likely to have been the Saudis I'd have thought.

 

Ashley is losing the chance to snap up some undervalued businesses while this is going on.  He's standing there with his plate and his little bib tucked into his shirt but the manager won't open the buffet.

 

I have no doubt he would prefer to sell, but will he be up for a fight with the PL which would prove very expensive without any real confidence he could win? I doubt he would tbh, and his legal experts will probably tell him the same.

 

Plus as I already said, he's still got £17m bonus to compensate for the loss of the sale so he's not exactly been hard done by.

[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

 

Firstly, how do you know that? Secondly, I would imagine that for the purposes of contract law the PL's rules are the terms of a contract between the club/proposed owners and the PL.

 

Just a guess, but I've not seen any reports anywhere that you have to pay to take the OD test, or in fact entering in to the test forms a contract

[The Prophet]

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?

 

It's irrelevant.

 

Ashley purchased an entity he knew was subject to the governance of the Premier League.

 

The idea that clubs aren't subject to new Premier League rules because they weren't in place at the time the club was purchased by their current owners is absurd.

 

Recourse to the courts is extremely limited for both Ashley and the consortium. All this talk about the PL being dragged through the courts etc. is a comforting thought for some, but isn't grounded in any legal reality.

 

This.

[Minhosa]

Pl's partners are getting battered on social media and on review sites such as Trustpilot etc :lol: .

 

The Money Mike Account coordinating it brilliantly. Whoever is behind that account is a total legend.

[GWN]

Pl's partners are getting battered on social media and on review sites such as Trustpilot etc :lol: .

 

The Money Mike Account coordinating it brilliantly. Whoever is behind that account is a total legend.

 

Pretty sure it’s a Mackem that runs that twitter account

[Dokko]

Pl's partners are getting battered on social media and on review sites such as Trustpilot etc :lol: .

 

The Money Mike Account coordinating it brilliantly. Whoever is behind that account is a total legend.

 

Pretty sure it’s a Mackem that runs that twitter account

 

I'm pretty sure it's not.

[Darth Crooks]

Nah they’re too veiled pro nufc

[Jackie Broon]

All this highly impressive contractual knowledge aside, would it be fair to assume that unless PIF officially retract their withdrawal statement or say they're making a new bid, the Prem could just sit there and assume there's nothing to approve or reject anymore?

 

I think you're putting too much weight on what a press statement represents, it has no actual real weight, it doesn't mean that they have formally withdrawn from any process and they certainly wouldn't need to retract it to continue.

 

Completely different circumstance but if a developer going through the planning process put out a press statement that they were no longer planning to go ahead with the development the Council would still be required to make a decision unless the applicant directly requested in writing that it is withdrawn. This is a very different circumstance because the provision for that are set out in legislation but I think the PL would be in vary shaky ground making the assumption that they don't need to continue based on a press statement.

 

We don't know what is actually going on behind the scenes, from what is dripping out it seems like discussions around the O&D test are still going on.

 

 

[Montey]

It's important for people to know how commercial & civil court cases work - commercial & civil law is as much about bullying the opponent as it is about whether or not you could win a court case.  The reason for this is as a way to get leverage over the opponent, to bring them to the negotiation table and to get them to be willing to compromise.

 

The purpose of Mike Ashley or the buyers threatening legal action against the Premier League would not be about getting the court to order the Premier League to overturn any decision the League has (or has not) made (the court likely couldn't do this).  Any court case would be about obtaining a ruling for compensation for losses/earnings incurred due to the decision the Premier League has made (where a decision to not act is also an active decision by the League).  In this context losses (or lost earnings) would include costs incurred during the deal negotiation, lost potential profits, and/or the appreciation/depreciation of assets caused by that decision/action/inaction - in other words a HUGE amount of money.

 

Now, it is not necessary to actually prosecute such a case in court, as it is often enough for the party(ies) threatening legal action to convince their opponent that should it go to court they would lose and would face a substantial financial penalty.  In the case of Ashley and/or the buyers it would be to convince the Premier League that should the Premier League lose the case they are likely to have a substantial penalty awarded against them (e.g. £300m of lost revenue by Mike Ashley, or the difference between that and any new valuation of the club; £17m lost deposit by the buying consortium; legal costs of running such a case; etc).

 

If the Premier League could be convinced that they are facing such a large financial penalty then they might be convinced to be more compromising - i.e. the intent of threatening legal action would be to convince the Premier League that if they do not approve the takeover then they face the prospect of a lengthy, expensive court case, and they face the prospect of a massive ruling against them that could devastate the financial viability of the league (could the League afford a court case costing them up to £500m?)  If the League is convinced that this outcome is even moderately likely then the League is more likely to engage properly with the buyers & seller to see the deal approved and completed.

 

This is, in my opinion, why Staveley has asked fans to get involved - the idea is to show the Premier League that should the case end up in court there is a substantial chance the League could lose and that the court would receive substantial support from the public in ruling against the League (courts are sensitive to public opinion too).

 

So, all of this (the public campaigning, the threats of legal action, etc) is about mounting substantial pressure on the Premier League to convince them that should they persist as they have and/or formally reject the takeover then they face the prospect of financial destruction at the hands of the courts.

[Dokko]

https://twitter.com/MoneyMikeAshley/status/1292816837852516353?s=20

[loki679]

It's amazing that a parody account of Mike Ashley has emerged as one of the leaders of the revolution

[AyeDubbleYoo]

All this highly impressive contractual knowledge aside, would it be fair to assume that unless PIF officially retract their withdrawal statement or say they're making a new bid, the Prem could just sit there and assume there's nothing to approve or reject anymore?

 

I think you're putting too much weight on what a press statement represents, it has no actual real weight, it doesn't mean that they have formally withdrawn from any process and they certainly wouldn't need to retract it to continue.

 

Completely different circumstance but if a developer going through the planning process put out a press statement that they were no longer planning to go ahead with the development the Council would still be required to make a decision unless the applicant directly requested in writing that it is withdrawn. This is a very different circumstance because the provision for that are set out in legislation but I think the PL would be in vary shaky ground making the assumption that they don't need to continue based on a press statement.

 

We don't know what is actually going on behind the scenes, from what is dripping out it seems like discussions around the O&D test are still going on.

 

 

We probably need to change the title if this is the case, if we believe it's not officially off.

 

[SteV]

All this highly impressive contractual knowledge aside, would it be fair to assume that unless PIF officially retract their withdrawal statement or say they're making a new bid, the Prem could just sit there and assume there's nothing to approve or reject anymore?

 

I think you're putting too much weight on what a press statement represents, it has no actual real weight, it doesn't mean that they have formally withdrawn from any process and they certainly wouldn't need to retract it to continue.

 

Completely different circumstance but if a developer going through the planning process put out a press statement that they were no longer planning to go ahead with the development the Council would still be required to make a decision unless the applicant directly requested in writing that it is withdrawn. This is a very different circumstance because the provision for that are set out in legislation but I think the PL would be in vary shaky ground making the assumption that they don't need to continue based on a press statement.

 

We don't know what is actually going on behind the scenes, from what is dripping out it seems like discussions around the O&D test are still going on.

 

 

We probably need to change the title if this is the case, if we believe it's not officially off.

 

Official: Saudi-backed consortium withdraws bid to buy NUFC (or does it....)

[Guest]

Will be interesting to see if they bring this up in conversation.