et tu brute Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Well listening to this cheered me up no end. NOT. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/nufc-podcast-takeovers-treason-what-is-going-on-at/id922005191?i=1000511743132 The special guest basically took a gigantic dump over today's procedings and pretty much wrote the takeover off. If you listen to the gallowgate shots podcast, the female lawyer (Shell) gives a different interpretation as to why it was done. There is 2 lawyers, neither involved, neither really knowing what’s happening giving two different views. Best to wait for the official lines not opinions. Tbf Shell doesn't really know anything. She is a newly qualified solicitor and has zero experience in this field of law as she's never practised in it. Before last August she was telling everyone there was no way this takeover could fail (and in her own words explained why) then it did fail and she's now spent the last 6 months telling everyone why it won't come off. She's built a big social media following off the back of it I'll give her that. My wife has been a solicitor for almost 20 years and practises in similar fields of law to Shell and would be first to admit she wouldn't have a clue how this might play out. I agree what I’m trying to say is neither know what’s going on as they’re not involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danh1 Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 I find it difficult to see how the deal could go through before the result of any legal action. It just seems that the PL are adamant they don’t want it to go through, unless something seriously changes with the Saudi’s I cannot see that changing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Well listening to this cheered me up no end. NOT. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/nufc-podcast-takeovers-treason-what-is-going-on-at/id922005191?i=1000511743132 The special guest basically took a gigantic dump over today's procedings and pretty much wrote the takeover off. If you listen to the gallowgate shots podcast, the female lawyer (Shell) gives a different interpretation as to why it was done. There is 2 lawyers, neither involved, neither really knowing what’s happening giving two different views. Best to wait for the official lines not opinions. Tbf Shell doesn't really know anything. She is a newly qualified solicitor and has zero experience in this field of law as she's never practised in it. Before last August she was telling everyone there was no way this takeover could fail (and in her own words explained why) then it did fail and she's now spent the last 6 months telling everyone why it won't come off. She's built a big social media following off the back of it I'll give her that. My wife has been a solicitor for almost 20 years and practises in similar fields of law to Shell and would be first to admit she wouldn't have a clue how this might play out. I agree what I’m trying to say is neither know what’s going on as they’re not involved. Yeah that's pretty much it. My point was directed more at her pre August when she was adamant she knew exactly what was going to happen just because she's a solicitor when in reality she had no more of an idea than you or I. She was wrong back then and now she's totally changed her narrative. She's gained around 15k followers on Twitter though so I'm sure she's not too bothered! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 The PL are so determined to stop it that I just can't see us getting our way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 The PL are so determined to stop it that I just can't see us getting our way. Doesn’t matter what they want it’s what is legally correct. We will just have to wait and see as none of us know, however I will say if they were so sure on their legal stand why didn’t they just reject it initially. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 I'd feel a fuck tonne better if we had official confirmation from the ME that the piracy issues are put to bed and they are all friends again. If that happened before any further legal proceedings you'd like to think the PL back down and almost gift us the case (to then state to any club 'we tried') Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 The PL are so determined to stop it that I just can't see us getting our way. Doesn’t matter what they want it’s what is legally correct. We will just have to wait and see as none of us know, however I will say if they were so sure on their legal stand why didn’t they just reject it initially. The thing is, legally or not, if there's enough corruption at the top it won't matter, who's going to stop them from doing whatever they want? Grease the palm of the right person and the PL can do whatever they want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 So can anyone explain to me, as if I was a six year old, what's going on? Is the takeover any closer or more far away than it was yesterday? I'm back for one statement and then Im off again A bit of pre-amble - bare with me: Crystal Palace On 18 December 2015, it was announced that a new deal had been signed with American investors Josh Harris and David Blitzer.[103] The club stated that Steve Parish would continue as chairman alongside Harris and Blitzer as general partners in a new structure, and that Browett, Long and Hosking would also retain a substantial investment.[104] The company accounts later showed that the ownership figures were: Steve Parish 18%, Steve Browett 5%, Jeremy Hosking 5% and Martin Long 2.5% with the remainder being owned by Palace Holdco LP (a limited partnership registered in Delaware) 67.5% and Palace Parallel LLC (a company also registered in Delaware) 1.5%. Both Palace Holdco and Palace Parallel have 180 preference shares each. As the Delaware companies do not have to reveal their owners the exact ownership of the club is therefore unknown but Steve Parish confirmed that each of Harris and Blitzer had an 18% share to match his own. So the Premier League doesn't know who owns 67.5% of Crystal Palace as Delaware companies don't have to reveal their owners. The Premier League accepted this as they can't argue against the rule of Law in the USA. Remember this as its important. Now onto NUFC and PIF. Premier League are arguing that they can't separate PIF from KSA and as such the KSA is a potential director of NUFC. This, as has been said previously could then allow them to link MBS to owning NUFC and the state piracy of Bein, Beout. PIF apparently sent details stating that PIF is separate to KSA in Saudi Law but PL didn't accept this. So the PL approved a Delaware Company which doesn't disclose its owners/Directors because in US law where the company is based,that is its right but on the NUFC takeover, wont accept that PIF is separate under Saudi Law and choses to ignore/reject. This is the crux of the matter and why Shaheed Fatima is on the case with Nick. How can PL accept US Law and not even know who owns Crsytal Palace (For all they know, it could be MBS) but reject Saudi Law stating PIF is separate to the state? In essence, they shouldn't be able to and hopefully this will come out in Court. Im off again, enjoy your baiting of each other, you sad f***s! That’s the most positive post for months. Much better than the Keith shit being touted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 I'd feel a fuck tonne better if we had official confirmation from the ME that the piracy issues are put to bed and they are all friends again. If that happened before any further legal proceedings you'd like to think the PL back down and almost gift us the case (to then state to any club 'we tried') Hasn't this shown that the piracy issue is moot anyway? MBS is never going to allow himself to be entered as an owner or director anyway, and piracy isn't linked to PIF, except via MBS. This is about treating them separately, if we win that, then piracy is irrelevant. If we lose, then MBS etc need to be tested, and that isn't happening either way. I think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 So can anyone explain to me, as if I was a six year old, what's going on? Is the takeover any closer or more far away than it was yesterday? I'm back for one statement and then Im off again A bit of pre-amble - bare with me: Crystal Palace On 18 December 2015, it was announced that a new deal had been signed with American investors Josh Harris and David Blitzer.[103] The club stated that Steve Parish would continue as chairman alongside Harris and Blitzer as general partners in a new structure, and that Browett, Long and Hosking would also retain a substantial investment.[104] The company accounts later showed that the ownership figures were: Steve Parish 18%, Steve Browett 5%, Jeremy Hosking 5% and Martin Long 2.5% with the remainder being owned by Palace Holdco LP (a limited partnership registered in Delaware) 67.5% and Palace Parallel LLC (a company also registered in Delaware) 1.5%. Both Palace Holdco and Palace Parallel have 180 preference shares each. As the Delaware companies do not have to reveal their owners the exact ownership of the club is therefore unknown but Steve Parish confirmed that each of Harris and Blitzer had an 18% share to match his own. So the Premier League doesn't know who owns 67.5% of Crystal Palace as Delaware companies don't have to reveal their owners. The Premier League accepted this as they can't argue against the rule of Law in the USA. Remember this as its important. Now onto NUFC and PIF. Premier League are arguing that they can't separate PIF from KSA and as such the KSA is a potential director of NUFC. This, as has been said previously could then allow them to link MBS to owning NUFC and the state piracy of Bein, Beout. PIF apparently sent details stating that PIF is separate to KSA in Saudi Law but PL didn't accept this. So the PL approved a Delaware Company which doesn't disclose its owners/Directors because in US law where the company is based,that is its right but on the NUFC takeover, wont accept that PIF is separate under Saudi Law and choses to ignore/reject. This is the crux of the matter and why Shaheed Fatima is on the case with Nick. How can PL accept US Law and not even know who owns Crsytal Palace (For all they know, it could be MBS) but reject Saudi Law stating PIF is separate to the state? In essence, they shouldn't be able to and hopefully this will come out in Court. Im off again, enjoy your baiting of each other, you sad f***s! That’s the most positive post for months. Much better than the Keith s*** being touted. You do realise Mitch, Steve Hastie and Keith have been talking about Delaware companies and the Palace ownership for weeks ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Perhaps if you posted it instead of your Twitter bombing it may have got noticed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 The PL are so determined to stop it that I just can't see us getting our way. Doesn’t matter what they want it’s what is legally correct. We will just have to wait and see as none of us know, however I will say if they were so sure on their legal stand why didn’t they just reject it initially. The thing is, legally or not, if there's enough corruption at the top it won't matter, who's going to stop them from doing whatever they want? Grease the palm of the right person and the PL can do whatever they want. Exactly, this is where I'm at. They simply don't want it to happen, and I fully expect them to get their way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 The PL are so determined to stop it that I just can't see us getting our way. Doesn’t matter what they want it’s what is legally correct. We will just have to wait and see as none of us know, however I will say if they were so sure on their legal stand why didn’t they just reject it initially. The thing is, legally or not, if there's enough corruption at the top it won't matter, who's going to stop them from doing whatever they want? Grease the palm of the right person and the PL can do whatever they want. Then the club will have a field day in court if that’s the case and again why have they not rejected it already then. I’ve always been 50/50 on the takeover going through as I don’t know the legal stand regards separation. I do think the stopper will be if we get relegated as I’ve mentioned before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 If it was that straightforward why wouldn’t the consortium just set up an investment vehicle through a Delaware company? Something tells me things have changed since 2015, or the PL do know exactly who owns Palace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Came in to post this. Very interesting points and if true, it's really clever from NDM etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 If it was that straightforward why wouldn’t the consortium just set up an investment vehicle through a Delaware company? Something tells me things have changed since 2015, or the PL do know exactly who owns Palace. Because PIF's sports investments are probably about branding and promotion, so they won't want to hide their involvement. The issue that is highlights legally is that the PL seem to be applying their rules and UK law to the relationship between PIF and the Saudi state when it can probably only be a matter of Saudi law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 If he wasn’t biased before this, surely he will be a bit cheesed off now we’ve taken to the High Court to try and remove him from the panel? Exactly the opposite of this. His possible bias (and I do not think he would have ever been so) has been totally exposed into the public domain by De-Marco . . so (if anything) he will have to show to the maximum externt that he has bent over backwards to NOT be biased. Great move by De-Marco, probably everything he wanted . . ie, far better than having another 'unknown quantity' as a replacement Chairman. Brilliant. Confirmation of this . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 If he wasn’t biased before this, surely he will be a bit cheesed off now we’ve taken to the High Court to try and remove him from the panel? Exactly the opposite of this. His possible bias (and I do not think he would have ever been so) has been totally exposed into the public domain by De-Marco . . so (if anything) he will have to show to the maximum externt that he has bent over backwards to NOT be biased. Great move by De-Marco, probably everything he wanted . . ie, far better than having another 'unknown quantity' as a replacement Chairman. Brilliant. Confirmation of this . . . That is just a theory that people are coming out with. The reason they went through this legal process to have him taken off the board is because they believe he would either be biased, or most likely would know the rules too well (because he wrote them) in order to create a good argument against him and that he is probably the 1 individual they don’t want on the board for that reason. There would have been no ‘If we fail to get him kicked off then at least it puts pressure on him to appear unbiased’ conversation. It may very well be that it helps our cause, but losing this ruling would not have been part of the plan. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Yeah Trying to claim it as a victory is weird. They didn’t pursue a High Court judgement intending to lose it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Yeah Trying to claim it as a victory is weird. They didn’t pursue a High Court judgement intending to lose it. Strangely, obviously they did. These legal cases are 'complex' and very often the "easy assumption" (the obvious assumption) seen from the outside . . . is the opposite of the truth. As in this case! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Yeah Trying to claim it as a victory is weird. They didn’t pursue a High Court judgement intending to lose it. Na. Thinking about it then it’s very possible they knew they wouldn’t win this battle but sets them up nicely to go to war. Sacrificed a pawn as this guys biased is now in focus and he can’t exert it over proceedings or they’ll be all over it making the judgement to not replace him look the wrong one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Yeah Trying to claim it as a victory is weird. They didn’t pursue a High Court judgement intending to lose it. Na. Thinking about it then it’s very possible they knew they wouldn’t win this battle but sets them up nicely to go to war. Sacrificed a pawn as this guys biased is now in focus and he can’t exert it over proceedings or they’ll be all over it making the judgement to not replace him look the wrong one. It may be a decent secondary outcome, but the overall aim was to remove him. That didn’t happen. His bias may be in focus, but on the flip side you could say it makes him/PL very aware of it so if there is any dodgy dealings, they’ll be very carefully covered up rather than an accidental mishap caused by complacency. This wasn’t a win. It was a loss. It’s good to see the club are intent on progressing it and it’s clear the club are willing to push this all of the way. All of which is good news. But we don’t need to try and twist/seek out positive news from every development Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 There may be benefits but people are trying to spin every set back through this lockdown saga as positive news. The hint that a lot of the news has been bad is that we are still owned by Ashley. Equally, this arbitration is to decide if the chairman of the investment fund trying to buy us would have any control over his own investment and so would have to pass a fit and proper person test. If he was going to pass it he would have been submitted for the test already. This all feels very tenuous. I know we all hope it happens but i wish people would stop stringing everyone along with 'actually this failure is yet another win' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Cracking artwork especially the milk carton Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts