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

[Thumbheed]

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"...

[Armchair Pundit]

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.

[Fantail Breeze]

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).

[Guest neesy111]

Here we go again....

[Ankles Bennett]

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!!!

[Robster]

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.
 

[Scoot]

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.

 

 

 

[Fantail Breeze]

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.

[Armchair Pundit]

This thread is actually cheering me up after all, I thought today was a loss 

[Fantail Breeze]

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. 

[Whitley mag]

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.

[Scoot]

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...

[Whitley mag]

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

[Fantail Breeze]

Just now, Whitley mag said:

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.

Looks like you’ll only need to wait until July to hear them argue their case.

It’s so ‘clear as day’ that the PL are willing to fight it in court. Rightio.

 

[Armchair Pundit]

I guess there could be an argument to be had over clarification of what is a reasonable timescale to reject if someone flat out refuses to provide further information from the buying party, but then, does that lead to an argument over what is deemed as reasonable proof of the division between state and PIF? 

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

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...

I don’t disagree they’re bent as fuck. But they’re also bent and snide enough to know what to do to cover their tracks and make them look like the innocent party.

[Hhtoon]

Only real positive from today is that it shows arbitration tribunal hearing is July. Though I thought that was now the weaker case and CAT was the killer blow.

I'm confused ?

[Whitley mag]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

Looks like you’ll only need to wait until July to hear them argue their case.

It’s so ‘clear as day’ that the PL are willing to fight it in court. Rightio.

 

Are they though ? I’m just seeing delay, they’re even trying to delay arbitration.

The same arbitration where it is supposedly clear cut in their favour according to some.

Delay is not fighting, it is delaying.

[Scoot]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

I don’t disagree they’re bent as fuck. But they’re also bent and snide enough to know what to do to cover their tracks and make them look like the innocent party.

Let's just wait and see. All I know is the PL stink of corruption and hopefully it all comes out.

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

Are they though ? I’m just seeing delay, they’re even trying to delay arbitration.

The same arbitration where it is supposedly clear cut in their favour according to some.

Delay is not fighting, it is delaying.

They’re not trying to delay arbitration, where is that from?

They’re trying to get the CAT case thrown out before it’s even been heard though.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Fantail Breeze

[Whitley mag]

12 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

They’re not trying to delay arbitration, where is that from?

They’re trying to get the CAT case thrown out before it’s even been heard though.

Mr Justice Roth, who granted the extra time on behalf of the CAT, noted in his reasons for doing so: "As of present, it is not known whether the defendant will be granted the separate extensions of time which it is currently seeking from the arbitral tribunal but in any event, the extension which it is there seeking for disclosure is to 26 May, 2021, which is also its current deadline for filing its evidence.

 

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

Mr Justice Roth, who granted the extra time on behalf of the CAT, noted in his reasons for doing so: "As of present, it is not known whether the defendant will be granted the separate extensions of time which it is currently seeking from the arbitral tribunal but in any event, the extension which it is there seeking for disclosure is to 26 May, 2021, which is also its current deadline for filing its evidence.

 

Their evidence submission, not the actual hearing, right? Unless I’ve interpreted that wrong.

They can delay their evidence submission all they like as long as the hearing goes ahead in July.

[Robster]

I totally get why there's doubt.
Every day we watch the government flaunting corruption right in front of our faces and it feels like those people are untouchable. The powerful are tough to beat and bring to task.
We've just got to hope that Ashley has the bit between his teeth and is prepared to be as nasty as possible in return.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Robster
Crap typing

[Whitley mag]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

Their evidence submission, not the actual hearing, right? Unless I’ve interpreted that wrong.

They can delay their evidence submission all they like as long as the hearing goes ahead in July.

Yeah that’s the evidence submission, lets see what they’re next delaying tactic is though.

They can try and get the CAT case thrown out, but even the Athletic conceded this morning that the case is far more encompassing than arbitration so don’t like there chances.

The real question here is do the club want arbitration to go ahead before disclosure, as that may be their breaking point.

 

[bealios]

There's really far too much being read into that judgement - it is just normal procedure, and it is neither good nor bad. 

The first thing you consider in any claim like this is whether you can knock the claim out with a jurisdiction argument - i.e. that the claim is such that it doesn't cover things that the CAT have authority to decide upon. You would try that even if you thought you only had a 1 in 4 (or less) chance - when you consider the sums at stake, there is no reason not to do that. It means you can try and get rid of a claim before spending time and money arguing against its actual merits. All that this judgement does is recognise that because the PL have arbitration proceedings happening at the same time, which happens to have the same submission deadline as the CAT claim, it is reasonable to think they have a lot on their plate and it would be unfair if they lost the chance to defend it - so the judge was willing to give them an extra couple of weeks. 

The "win" for NUFC in this is the confidential memo which goes to damages doesn't need to be disclosed at this stage. I know someone mentioned this earlier, but this isn't really relevant to a "win" or "lose" decision, it is something NUFC have submitted to support its claim for damages IF they win. And it probably does contain confidential information for example, Ashley might be saying that if the takeover had gone through, he would have bought Debenhams, and as such lost out on £100m - that's just an example, I don't think that is true! But you can see why any evidence submitted by Ashley as to what he has lost as a result of the takeover not going though is going to be confidential (and also why that isn't relevant to PL's ability to argue why CAT don't have jurisdiction).

The other useful information is confirmation that the arbitration hearing itself is likely to happen in July, and it will be on an expedited basis. I know it won't seem like this to the long-suffering members of this forum, but that genuinely is a really short/expedited timeline. That doesn't mean nothing has been happening in the background until now - plenty will be happening in terms of gearing up for the arbitration in terms of disclosure and expert reports/opinions. That tends to be the long part of an arbitration process - the short part is the hearing itself, which in my experience can take a week or two. And then you have a short period of time whilst arguments are considered and awards are made. So essentially on the arbitration both sides are in a final 6/8 week push to put themselves in the best position possible before the hearing, you have the hearing in July, and then you would expect an award in August. 

The CAT case is completely separate to that - but assuming PL lose the jurisdiction argument and the claim proceeds, you would expect that the PL will use the same argument to extend relevant filing deadlines i.e. they have a parallel case so it would be reasonable to have more time to deal with any filings in the CAT case. 

It is worth saying that although the proceedings are separate, there is always scope for tactics to effectively link the two. So if (as others have said) the CAT claim was taken on because there is a heavier disclosure obligation on the PL, then it is in the PL interest to push that out so that any disclosure comes much later in the day to be able to assist NUFC with the arbitration claim.