Fantail Breeze Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 10 minutes ago, Wandy said: All in your opinion. Clearly, you are on the negative side of the fence. Fair enough, but there is fuck all to show that the PL will win. Nobody, absolutely nobody, knows what is going on behind closed doors. I don’t consider myself to be negative at all. I want the takeover to go through. My opinion is based on the news in front of me & the previous 16 months. Weird to have a pop at me about Jacob’s knowing fuck all when people are adamant NDM is delivering subliminal messages about the ‘highly sensitive’ court case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWN Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 7 minutes ago, Robster said: Yep. Allow it or reject it. If they are so confident, tell the Consortium that they've failed the ODT test. This is what I don’t get from the PL , it’s a pisstake Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 24 minutes ago, RS said: Feels like PL are check-mating our every move. It’s more a timing issue. The club brought the wrong case forward first. There’s a more detailed breakdown of it in the other thread.. pissing on chips again I am. A win for the PL today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 46 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: Happy for you to print it out and fan my naked body with it if I’m wrong. Truly hope I am. Sad reality is, despite all of your confidence and ‘waiting’, we’re still nowhere near a resolution. Jacobs tweeting that MA is effectively stabbing around in the dark hoping to get a solid piece of evidence through disclosure. Ben Jacobs is on a par with Matt Slater fed by his PL source. The fact is one of the top 5 anti competition QC’s in the country believes we’d have won this case before club added any evidence. If the PL are so confident why did they not follow their own rule book and reject it. There that confident that they delay at every opportunity. Nothing has changed today apart from the PL have been given a couple of extra weeks. They can’t delay forever and if arbitration goes ahead in July, we could be under new ownership very soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 1 minute ago, Whitley mag said: Ben Jacobs is on a par with Matt Slater fed by his PL source. The fact is one of the top 5 anti competition QC’s in the country believes we’d have won this case before club added any evidence. If the PL are so confident why did they not follow their own rule book and reject it. There that confident that they delay at every opportunity. Nothing has changed today apart from the PL have been given a couple of extra weeks. They can’t delay forever and if arbitration goes ahead in July, we could be under new ownership very soon. This point gets trotted about a lot, but doesn’t actually make sense. The PL’s whole argument is they can’t make a decision to approve or reject because the consortium are refusing to comply. If the PL rejected it, that’d bring down a huge piece of their point. As for your final paragraph, there’s a really good post in your positive thread about why this ‘few weeks’ delay is actually quite important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 I’m beginning to think they should complete the sale and see what the PL do next. I’d prefer being thrown out the league than another season of this limbo shit. Think it’s worth a gamble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Weren't people on here saying they MUST reply by Friday (or something) and couldn't delay it? The fact is nee-one knows man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Linton Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Another (admittedly minor) setback being presented as a positive by the same old people. We go again eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 3 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: This point gets trotted about a lot, but doesn’t actually make sense. The PL’s whole argument is they can’t make a decision to approve or reject because the consortium are refusing to comply. If the PL rejected it, that’d bring down a huge piece of their point. As for your final paragraph, there’s a really good post in your positive thread about why this ‘few weeks’ delay is actually quite important. If the consortium were "refusing to comply" that would give the PL the right to reject them. But the didn't. Corrupt cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Scoot said: If the consortium were "refusing to comply" that would give the PL the right to reject them. But the didn't. Corrupt cunts. Because the PL will probably say, they want to be balanced and give the consortium every opportunity to buy their club and remain open to them doing so - subject to all shadow directors going through the process. Sounds a bit like they’re not being anti-competitive then... Edited May 18, 2021 by Fantail Breeze Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL7777 Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 10 minutes ago, Whitley mag said: Ben Jacobs is on a par with Matt Slater fed by his PL source. The fact is one of the top 5 anti competition QC’s in the country believes we’d have won this case before club added any evidence. If the PL are so confident why did they not follow their own rule book and reject it. There that confident that they delay at every opportunity. Nothing has changed today apart from the PL have been given a couple of extra weeks. They can’t delay forever and if arbitration goes ahead in July, we could be under new ownership very soon. Matt Slater has twisted the ‘facts’ to suit his own narrative throughout this process .. His favourite one is ‘the premier league contacted seven different Saudi law firms re instigating legal action against BeIN’ .. which quickly morphed into, ‘The premier league tried to take legal action against BeIN on seven occasions’ .. this he has then repeated for the last 18 months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 4 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: This point gets trotted about a lot, but doesn’t actually make sense. The PL’s whole argument is they can’t make a decision to approve or reject because the consortium are refusing to comply. If the PL rejected it, that’d bring down a huge piece of their point. As for your final paragraph, there’s a really good post in your positive thread about why this ‘few weeks’ delay is actually quite important. The PL are keen for people to believe that they couldn’t make a decision, but the rule book is quite clear on this matter. They should have rejected it. The reason they didn’t reject it is because we would have been in court by now, and they weren’t confident enough in their position. I’ve read the post in question and we’ll see how it plays out in next few weeks. It’s all legal games at this point but I see nothing to be concerned with in relation to today’s developments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbheed Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: Because the PL will probably say, they want to be balanced and give the consortium every opportunity to buy their club and remain open to them doing so - subject to all shadow directors going through the process. Sounds a bit like they’re not being anti-competitive then... So they're not applying their own test "objectively"... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Out of curiosity, is there already precedence of the EPL letting sales go through under worse circumstances? I'm sure I read somewhere someone saying about Crystal Palace's owners not being divulged for example. I'm feeling a bit negative about it all today (hence I'm in this thread), I'm just fed up with it and my fear is that money and corruption in the PL reign supreme. What with the recent bullshit with the ESL and the those clubs involved still being bummed by the league and media, without any punishment given. Then the obvious concerns that people in power (judges, etc) being able to be bought for the right price, I'm not feeling optimistic at all. ... then again, it could be lack of sleep putting me on a downer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said: The PL are keen for people to believe that they couldn’t make a decision, but the rule book is quite clear on this matter. They should have rejected it. The reason they didn’t reject it is because we would have been in court by now, and they weren’t confident enough in their position. I’ve read the post in question and we’ll see how it plays out in next few weeks. It’s all legal games at this point but I see nothing to be concerned with in relation to today’s developments. Where does the rule book say they have to reject it? They look incredibly uncertain of their decision. So much so they’re willing to fight it all the way (which we’ve been repeatedly told by you, they wouldn’t). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Here we go again.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 50 minutes ago, RS said: Feels like PL are check-mating our every move. They might be putting us in check but certainly not checkmate. We are just luring them in then just when they think they have won, it will be BOOM!!! they will find themselves in checkmate!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: Because the PL will probably say, they want to be balanced and give the consortium every opportunity to buy their club and remain open to them doing so - subject to all shadow directors going through the process. Sounds a bit like they’re not being anti-competitive then... It's not an unreasonable thought. Thing is though, by not making the decision, they've brought on a multi million pound court case. If they knew they couldn't approve it, but wanted to avoid court with all of the associated costs (which everyone wants, surely), then they could nip it in the bud and formally reject it. They've chosen not to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 11 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: Because the PL will probably say, they want to be balanced and give the consortium every opportunity to buy their club and remain open to them doing so - subject to all shadow directors going through the process. Sounds a bit like they’re not being anti-competitive then... The Premier League will disqualify potential directors – and in effect block a takeover – if any of these below applies to the individual: - They failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a director but has not been disclosed. - They provided false, misleading or inaccurate information. Howwa Thicko, read that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 Just now, Robster said: It's not an unreasonable thought. Thing is though, by not making the decision, they've brought on a multi million pound court case. If they knew they couldn't approve it, but wanted to avoid court with all of the associated costs (which everyone wants, surely), then they could nip it in the bud and formally reject it. They've chosen not to. But then they’re open to a court case for rejecting it... so either way they cannot avoid it. They can win this case though and have all of their costs covered. Maybe they thought it’d be easier to win this one, than defend a rejection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 This thread is actually cheering me up after all, I thought today was a loss Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 1 minute ago, Scoot said: The Premier League will disqualify potential directors – and in effect block a takeover – if any of these below applies to the individual: - They failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a director but has not been disclosed. - They provided false, misleading or inaccurate information. Howwa Thicko, read that. What’s the timescales for that? Is there one? If not, have they failed do that yet? Or are they still open for the takeover and objectively applying their rules to give the consortium every opportunity to comply...? I’m not claiming to be an expert, but the PL’s lawyers wouldn’t be defending it if it was as simple as you’re suggesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 10 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: Where does the rule book say they have to reject it? They look incredibly uncertain of their decision. So much so they’re willing to fight it all the way (which we’ve been repeatedly told by you, they wouldn’t). Seems Scoot beat me to it. If you class fighting all the way as delaying I’ll give you that. Let’s just see where this ends up, I suspect not in court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 They should have just applied their own rules and rejected the consortium if they though they hadn't provided all information. But they didnt as they were up to something. Time will tell... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 18, 2021 Share Posted May 18, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: What’s the timescales for that? Is there one? If not, have they failed do that yet? Or are they still open for the takeover and objectively applying their rules to give the consortium every opportunity to comply...? I’m not claiming to be an expert, but the PL’s lawyers wouldn’t be defending it if it was as simple as you’re suggesting. The consortium told them they would not be submitting the state as a director. I’d like to see them try and argue a timeline to the above. It’s clear as day it should have been rejected. Edited May 18, 2021 by Whitley mag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts