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

[Jackie Broon]

As I've speculated before, the PL board probably won't be the ones who decide whether to fight or settle this, their insurers will.

This move might essentially take the decision out of PL board's hands.

[wiseman]

Isn't the arbitration about the separation of PIF and the Saudi state, while this case is saying the EPL is corrupt, which would make these definitely separate cases and completely independent of each other but both applying uncomfortable pressure to the EPL. Especially with all the talk of Masters meeting big 6 before meetings and any link they can draw between him and ESL and project big picture will just be further evidence. 

 

I could be wrong here, but if he wins this case there could be some serious implications for the premier league

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by wiseman

[Candi_Hills]

32 minutes ago, RS said:

So it’s either a master stroke or the last throw of the dice (depending on which thread your in!)

Hopefully he has one

[cubaricho]

18 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

Sort of unrelated, but live tweeting your legal strategy is almost always not a good move. Maybe it works out for Keith and the rest of us here, and, if so, fair play. But as a rule, fuck no.

 No way man, he’s just on fire tonight. Basking some would say. 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by cubaricho

[Teasy]

1 hour ago, Shearergol said:

How is he wrong though? Is arbitration is ongoing, this is counter-productive, regardless of Ashley's intent.

He's wrong because NUFC can drop the case at any time.  So it doesn't have to be counterproductive at all. Meaning it can be used as leverage.  It's ubeliecsbly naive of him to think that NUFC should leave this entirely to a PL controlled arbitration panel (I mean common the chairman advised the PL on the OD test for god sake, it's fixed clearly) without bringing any pressure to bare..  this seems to be the pressure imo.

 

[Consortium of one]

Full disclosure?  You bet its pressure.

[cubaricho]

1 hour ago, cubaricho said:

The fact that this isn't even on the BBC just goes to show how little other clubs even think about us. This is only a big deal to us because it is us. Otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about it on this board, I'd imagine.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57017152

There is it.

[Hhtoon]

From a legal simpleton, I assume there are significant penalties for not disclosing, but what can be done to actually prove you haven't disclosed. This isn't a criminal case so assume no-one is going to go kicking doors in and stealing computers ala HMRC on poor old Lee.

E.g. if Masters has emails and a box of cash with written incrimination from Bein/Qatar, what's to stop him deleting everything and burning the letters? Apart from their good faith and sense of morality obvs.

[Candi_Hills]

Perhaps we’ll present our evidence - 150 damning emails between Glazer and Hoffman, plus 20 photos of Masters interfering with bairns - and then the PL will go, “So what? We’ll just have Sky and the BBC talk about VAR that week.”

[RS]

It may be that the Saudi government have assisted in providing evidence of traffic between the big 6, Qatar and the PL?

[LFEE]

8 minutes ago, Hhtoon said:

From a legal simpleton, I assume there are significant penalties for not disclosing, but what can be done to actually prove you haven't disclosed. This isn't a criminal case so assume no-one is going to go kicking doors in and stealing computers ala HMRC on poor old Lee.

E.g. if Masters has emails and a box of cash with written incrimination from Bein/Qatar, what's to stop him deleting everything and burning the letters? Apart from their good faith and sense of morality obvs.

I’d imagine our evidence would be of the nature of the type they’d want to delete but not much point if we have a copy already in our hands.

[Hhtoon]

4 minutes ago, LFEE said:

I’d imagine our evidence would be of the nature of the type they’d want to delete but not much point if we have a copy already in our hands.

Yeah good point sorry, can't imagine we've progressed this without any evidence in hand.

[1964]

11 minutes ago, Hhtoon said:

From a legal simpleton, I assume there are significant penalties for not disclosing, but what can be done to actually prove you haven't disclosed. This isn't a criminal case so assume no-one is going to go kicking doors in and stealing computers ala HMRC on poor old Lee.

E.g. if Masters has emails and a box of cash with written incrimination from Bein/Qatar, what's to stop him deleting everything and burning the letters? Apart from their good faith and sense of morality obvs.

I think I read they can ask for computers as evidence which may sound like its pointless as things can deleted but it's pretty difficult to completely delete something without evidence that you've tried to completely delete something if that makes sense.  So full disclosure could well be a significant thing 

[Robster]

This is probably a naive question but how would NUFC and their legal team have access to communications between the PL, BEIN and 6 other PL clubs?
Whistleblower ?

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Robster

[LFEE]

No expert but EPL probably can’t even go down the inadmissible route regardless how we’ve managed to obtain the evidence. The top and bottom of it all they will not want anything publicly revealed which is I’m guessing our hope for a quick settle.

[InspectorCoarse]

So , its a two pronged attack then 

 

[RS]

7 minutes ago, Robster said:

This is probably a naive question but how would NUFC and their legal team have access to communications between the PL, BEIN and 6 other PL clubs?
Whistleblower ?

https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-big-tech-spy-on-dissidents-twitter-2019-11?r=US&IR=T
 

just saying like

[andyc35i]

I will never understand how the PL can tell the business that is buying the club that they are not who they say they are. It’s not for them to decide who is on the board of PIF and who should be tested. I will never understand how this is allowed to happen
 

[Jinky Jim]

6 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

I will never understand how the PL can tell the business that is buying the club that they are not who they say they are. It’s not for them to decide who is on the board of PIF and who should be tested. I will never understand how this is allowed to happen
 

As well as the takeover happening, I want everything about Masters,Hoffman, BEIN, and the “supposed” Big 6 to come out..the PL can not be allowed to get away with this monstrous violation of power.

[madras]

11 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

I will never understand how the PL can tell the business that is buying the club that they are not who they say they are. It’s not for them to decide who is on the board of PIF and who should be tested. I will never understand how this is allowed to happen
 

And, as I understand it, who they consider could be on the board in the future.

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by madras

[jdckelly]

so laymans understanding of this but I take it arbitration is not going well if Ashleys resorting to this 

[andyc35i]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

And, as I understand it, who the consider could be on the board in the future.

It’s just completely illogical to me. What does it have to do with the PL who has influence over our owners now or in the future. As long as the people put forward aren’t criminals then it doesn’t have anything to do with them.

Are we going to test the husband or wife of each board member?!? I mean we all know they will have influence over their spouse’s decisions and actions, but come on!

[manorpark]

1 minute ago, jdckelly said:

so laymans understanding of this but I take it arbitration is not going well if Ashleys resorting to this 

No, that is not correct.

It is simply a two-pronged attack, with hopefully one speeding up the inevitable Premier League capitulation, so that the second is not needed.

[andyc35i]

I really hope we actually have some good evidence just so we can see it destroy the PL

[B-more Mag]

6 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

It’s just completely illogical to me. What does it have to do with the PL who has influence over our owners now or in the future. As long as the people put forward aren’t criminals then it doesn’t have anything to do with them.

Are we going to test the husband or wife of each board member?!? I mean we all know they will have influence over their spouse’s decisions and actions, but come on!

Ultimately, you have to go through layers of definitions and cross-reference different sections, but it boils down to the term "Director" not being limited to a literal director for corporate governance purposes but also encompassing people who have a level of control that the rules deem sufficient for them to be treated as such:

Quote

A.1.54.Subject to Rule A.1.55, “Director” means any Person occupying the position of director of a Club whose particulars are registered or registrable under the provisions of section 162 of the Act and includes a shadow director, that is to say, a Person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the Club are accustomed to act, or a Person having Control over the Club, or a Person exercising the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company;

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by B-more Mag