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

[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

[Candi_Hills]

1 minute ago, andyc35i said:

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

Even with the most incriminating evidence ever, I worry that it won’t matter. Are Sky and the BBC going to nail them? 

[andyc35i]

1 minute ago, B-more Mag said:

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:

 

Well, we are screwed then

[jdckelly]

1 minute ago, B-more Mag said:

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

 

theres also this from the owners and directors test in the premier league handbook

 

Quote

G.5. Each Club shall publish the identities of the ultimate owner of each Significant Interest in the Club.

 

[andyc35i]

Do you think they have subjected LaBron James to the O&D?

[Guest neesy111]

2 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

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:

 

Yeap, shadow directors are a big issue in business in general.  E.g.  people are banned from being directors in business just get family/friends to be directors in name but it's the person banned who's running things behind the scenes.

[Wilson]

3 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

The uncomfortable truth for some tonight. Keith’s anti competition case will now probably get heard before Arbitration. I think John Lennon wrote a song called ‘working class hero’ once upon a time. Chin up lads I’ll get back to the positive thread.

 

Get a fuckin grip man.

[The Prophet]

If it was a solid 'no' at the time, why didn't the Premier League just reject it there and then?

 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by The Prophet

[Guest neesy111]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

If it was a solid 'no' at the time, why didn't the Premier League just reject it there and then?

This is the main question for me.  I suspect their legal advice on the matter didn't conclude what the decision should be + other interference issues.

[LFEE]

On 27/10/2020 at 13:18, LFEE said:

 

Definitely coordinated. Slowly cornering the EPL. This initial letter is just the stalking horse before it gets taken to court. If they need to go that far.

Was thinking how today has played out when sharing my thoughts what the aim was of NCSL. Seven months later and finally confirmed ? Glad when this is all concluded successfully ???

[Wilson]

3 hours ago, Jinky Jim said:

He hasn’t a clue…..knows no more than us and makes sure he leaves all avenues open.

 

Unless he says something blindly optimistic.

[B-more Mag]

3 minutes ago, jdckelly said:

theres also this from the owners and directors test in the premier league handbook

 

 

Yep. Which creates a duty to publish, but doesn't necessarily mean that publishing a person as such, or not publishing them as such, has any effect on whether the person actually falls within the definition of "Director". 

I'm not saying it's right, or good, or perfect, or anything -- just that's how you can have a person be a "Director" without being a director.

[Ashley17]

6 minutes ago, jdckelly said:

theres also this from the owners and directors test in the premier league handbook

 

 

So is it possible the outcome of this will be that they can point out that other clubs are in breach of the O&D rules and either risk upsetting them all or have a change of heart over ours?