Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Shays Given Tim Flowers said:

Neither has she. 

:lol: Nobody's reached out to me for an American lawyer's entirely irrelevant opinion, but I'd happily supply it...at a completely reasonable hourly fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So she’s a criminal lawyer working in corporate law.  Which means she never deals in arbitration ever, it doesn’t exist in her practice area. It also has a pretty different legal system (criminal as opposed to civil). 
 

Im a criminal lawyer, Wullie works for the CPS, OpenC worked in prisons, b-more is a lawyer in America. Think there are some other lawyers on here or people with spouses who are practicing lawyers. 
 

I don’t chime in with detailed views of the takeover litigation because I wouldn’t have the first clue other than being able to explain what the parties are trying to achieve. The areas being discussed are highly niche areas of practice. 

 

 

Edited by Shays Given Tim Flowers

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Is there? It has to be a bit of leap, from a sovereign wealth fund providing some of the money for a deal, to the country itself being ordered to be assessed as a director of the company. Very complex and strange at the very least. 

True. And I mean, it's all obviously arguable -- thus, people arguing about it. To me -- grain of salt time -- the rules make it clear that this issue is not one of PIF being a body/entity that is legally "separate" and distinguishable from KSA: I think it can be admitted that it is. The issue is rather whether KSA has the raw power, whether exercised or not, to control the PIF. That's where I see potential problems and haven't seen anything that convinces me that KSA couldn't exercise control over PIF if it decided it wanted to. It's also where I don't have enough insight into the underling facts or applicable law to be particularly helpful. :lol:   

 

 

Edited by B-more Mag
Missing articles and verbs and shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gdm said:

So this was NCSLs big news? Meh

Not quite. His big news (I think) was that he had information that exposes Masters and PL corruption. He's now saying he's handed over his information to the club who've taken up the anti-competition case, so we still don't know what dirt he may or may not have on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

Yes

 

 

It doesn't say it was the same thing. At all.

 

Just it was an anti-competition claim.

 

 

Edited by Rocker

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

True. And I mean, it's all obviously arguable -- thus, people arguing about it. To me -- grain of salt time -- the rules make it clear that this issue is not one of PIF being a body/entity that is legally "separate" and distinguishable from KSA: I think it can be admitted that it is. The issue is rather whether KSA has the raw power, whether exercised or not, to control the PIF. That's where I see potential problems and haven't seen anything that convinces me that KSA couldn't exercise control over PIF if it decided it wanted to. It's also where I don't have enough insight into the underling facts or applicable law to be particularly helpful. :lol:   

Yep, I mean I don't doubt that KSA can make PIF do what they want. Guess layman questions would be stuff like whether that can be proven in law, or whether them nominating directors to the fund should mean that those people should be assessed instead. I don't even understand what gives the PL the ability to ask for other directors which the buyers haven't nominated themselves. 

Also I doubt whether that was the real reason for delaying the takeover, or just an excuse because of pressure from clubs and Qatar. 

They should just allow the takeover, it's a lot simpler :lol:

 

 

Edited by AyeDubbleYoo

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rocker said:

Was it?

Judging from twitter yeah. He’s back slapping Liam Kennedy over it. 

I thought he said if it didn’t come out it would be great news 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rocker said:

It doesn't say it was the same thing. At all.

 

Just it was an anti-competition claim.

What a lot of fucking rubbish :lol:

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II
3 minutes ago, gdm said:

What a lot of fucking rubbish :lol:

Aye, he had nowt, and is now claiming this news as his (own) big news, that he conveniently never released... The man is a gobshite, and as one myself, I should know!

 

 

Edited by HTT II

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheHoob said:

A hard man to please [emoji38]

It just doesn’t really follow on what they were saying? How would that info need to be legally checked? Why weren’t they allowed to announce it and they said not announcing would mean it was great news. Obviously that hasn’t come to pass and the PL just aren’t giving in. So no time for celebrating yet 

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

So it's bad news because it's been released?

Read it both ways. I would hazard a guess you could say he hasn’t released the story as the club has went first which is what he meant by it’s even better if he doesn’t have to reveal anything. He hasn’t. The club are taking it on his behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't sully the positive-optimism thread with this, but the crowing from the Consortium Supporters dude is a bit much to take. Seems pretty clear-ish the reason the case was "transferred" was because the club had a lot clearer standing to bring it than he did--despite him going on about how standing wasn't an issue. Ultimately kind of neither here nor there, I guess, just a bit ... much.

 

 

Edited by B-more Mag

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...