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

[Jackie Broon]

22 minutes ago, Robster said:

Cheers @Jackie Broon
That F.4.2 rule seems to tie their hands, although I can almost hear the PL saying "but they never made their declaration so the five day period never started".
The complexity hurts my head.

The issue is that it's silent on what happens if they don't and there's a catch-all clause in F.4.3. "he shall not become a Director until the Club has received confirmation from the Board pursuant to Rule F.4.2 above that he is not liable to be disqualified as a Director".

But it's clearly completely unreasonable behaviour by the PL and is probably not going to look good for them in the CAT case, if it comes to that.

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[B-more Mag]

2 minutes ago, Robster said:

To be fair, this is where we have no knowledge of what was done. We can't say what they did and didn't do.

True. I would say, though, that the way the High Court opinion characterizes the issue in the arbitration and the Notice of Claim and extension judgment characterize the CAT claim (at least as I recall them), the pivotal "thing" is framed as the PL decision that KSA would be a director, not anything flowing from that decision.

[Jackie Broon]

17 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Yup. The club never declared MBS as a director, so that’s not applicable.

You haven't read the rules properly, the other proposed directors are liable for disqualification under rule F.1.1.1. if the PL board determines another person who would be a director has not been decaled (which it did in June).

And it's not MbS, it's the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that they determined should be disclosed as a director.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[bealios]

2 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Why would the PL know that? What is the value of a club?

This isn't a normal business, where it's the discounted future cash flows it will generate.

Nor can you just say that it's the cost of the bricks and mortar, because that's not all you're buying.

It's basically what someone is prepared to pay, there's not much logic to what that is in a lot of cases - such as owning a trophy asset, like a PL club.

My reading of the PL asking for that document or documents, is that they're just asking exactly how much they are being sued for. 

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the value of NUFC - it will be to support the argument that the seller (which I think is still MASH Holdings) has suffered losses as a result of the sale not going through. Although what will be relevant is (for example) they have an alternative proceedable bid at £200m. If that were the case, then you would argue that this is the market value of NUFC now, and if the PL hadn't breached their obligations, Ashley would have had £310m.

If you exchanged contracts to sell your house in a hot market, and managed to exchange at £100,000, and the buyer pulled out after you signed contracts, but before you completed, and then the market completely crashed and it was worth £50,000, you would have a potential claim for £50,000. Same logic here. 

[Abacus]

1 minute ago, bealios said:

It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the value of NUFC - it will be to support the argument that the seller (which I think is still MASH Holdings) has suffered losses as a result of the sale not going through. Although what will be relevant is (for example) they have an alternative proceedable bid at £200m. If that were the case, then you would argue that this is the market value of NUFC now, and if the PL hadn't breached their obligations, Ashley would have had £310m.

If you exchanged contracts to sell your house in a hot market, and managed to exchange at £100,000, and the buyer pulled out after you signed contracts, but before you completed, and then the market completely crashed and it was worth £50,000, you would have a potential claim for £50,000. Same logic here. 

Well, I agree with all that. As I say, there's no conventional way to value a football club anyway.

So, we don't know how the lawsuit has determined the extent of their claimed loss, or on what basis.

What I find interesting, is that this is the thing the PL seem most keen to find out. To me, it's as if they're trying to figure out what's at stake.

[bealios]

1 minute ago, Abacus said:

Well, I agree with all that. As I say, there's no conventional way to value a football club anyway.

So, we don't know how the lawsuit has determined the extent of their claimed loss, or on what basis.

What I find interesting, is that this is the thing the PL seem most keen to find out. To me, it's as if they're trying to figure out what's at stake.

You're right - that is interesting, on the face of it it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction strike out defence. Although what you/we need to bear in mind, is that whilst we are all thinking that the CAT proceedings were started because it means that the PL have to disclose a lot of damaging evidence to MA, it also works both ways, and MA has to disclose all of the relevant evidence to the PL. What we call a "fishing expedition" in the trade!

[Abacus]

14 minutes ago, HTT II said:

I think they will, if they do their own due diligence, more than likely know the value of NUFC real or otherwise to say Ashley in terms of losses, profits etc. In reality, I genuinely think this is just a delaying tactic of theirs and more about testing the judge to see what they can try their luck with, I expect more of the same to come. Totally see your standpoint though and have no arguments against your POV.

It's a delaying tactic, and an attempt to find out more information in my opinion too. That doesn't suggest confidence on the PL's part, to me. Perhaps I'm in the wrong thread.

I don't think we actually disagree too much, except about how you might value a football club.

What were Man City worth when they were in League 1, for instance? Well, something is only worth as much as you're prepared to pay, and why you're prepared to pay it.

[GWN]

It's all a bit like the FIFA organisation, everyone knows its corrupt but keep ya head down and eventually it will go away .

That is what's happening before our eyes here. 

Look at the big 6 , going to get away with murder. They (PL) clearly dont want this so will keep dodging and piss around till it goes away .

Bookmark this fuker 

[Whitley mag]

58 minutes ago, Abacus said:

It's a delaying tactic, and an attempt to find out more information in my opinion too. That doesn't suggest confidence on the PL's part, to me. Perhaps I'm in the wrong thread.

I don't think we actually disagree too much, except about how you might value a football club.

What were Man City worth when they were in League 1, for instance? Well, something is only worth as much as you're prepared to pay, and why you're prepared to pay it.

An attempt to find out what there liabilities could be undoubtedly.

As Jackie Broon has previously pointed out, this may yet come down to the PL’s insurers to decide whether this gets to court.

And I completely agree there actions don’t tally with an organisation confident in their position. The PL have been through arbitration cases before, but they’ve never had to fight a court case like this from my recollection. 

The financial penalties are potentially massive for them, if the advice is it’s a 50/50 case will they take the risk or be allowed to.

 

 

 

 

[ToonArmy1892]

Wake me up, when the takeover ends.

[Dancing Brave]

I've got to be honest I haven't got a clue what all this expedited arbitration crap is all about.

I just want Ashley gone so i can go back to supporting a club that actually wants to try and win something.

[Dr Jinx]

Expedited just means that it’s happening a bit sooner than the process normally would.

They do seem very keen to know the amount the club are claiming, my worry would be that they’ll see this amount as a calculated loss if they can pay the money but not have to change their stance on the takeover.

That would be worst case scenario, Mike Ashley getting what he wants and us being stuck with no investment.. and Steve Bruce..

[Abacus]

 

47 minutes ago, Dancing Brave said:

I've got to be honest I haven't got a clue what all this expedited arbitration crap is all about.

I just want Ashley gone so i can go back to supporting a club that actually wants to try and win something.

Fingers crossed then, my friend. That's all we all want

[veriaqa]

4 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

How many times does this point need to be addressed?

...

Yeah some people have habit to ignore facts that go against their belief

[Ben]

5 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

Expedited just means that it’s happening a bit sooner than the process normally would.

They do seem very keen to know the amount the club are claiming, my worry would be that they’ll see this amount as a calculated loss if they can pay the money but not have to change their stance on the takeover.

That would be worst case scenario, Mike Ashley getting what he wants and us being stuck with no investment.. and Steve Bruce..

Talk about worst case scenarios, the only thing that could top it would be for the Saudis to go and buy Man U once the case is over 

[Candi_Hills]

2 hours ago, Ben said:

Talk about worst case scenarios, the only thing that could top it would be for the Saudis to go and buy Man U once the case is over 

Given how much they would stand to lose from a Saudi takeover I should imagine the big 6 will be willing to foot quite a hefty compensation to prevent this.

[Ankles Bennett]

2 hours ago, Ben said:

Talk about worst case scenarios, the only thing that could top it would be for the Saudis to go and buy Man U once the case is over 

It may be the EPL's insurers are wanting to know how much compo they might be liable for.  If its a lot and I expect it will be knowing Ashley, they may advise the EPL that they will only cough up a certain percentage of the compo if they lose, and the EPL will have to find the rest, or agree to settle out of court and allow the takeover to go through.  

[Ankles Bennett]

37 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

Given how much they would stand to lose from a Saudi takeover I should imagine the big 6 will be willing to foot quite a hefty compensation to prevent this.

Again surely this would be breeching the anti competition rules/regulations

[Minhosa]

4 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said:

It may be the EPL's insurers are wanting to know how much compo they might be liable for.  If its a lot and I expect it will be knowing Ashley, they may advise the EPL that they will only cough up a certain percentage of the compo if they lose, and the EPL will have to find the rest, or agree to settle out of court and allow the takeover to go through.  

You say that like it's a deal breaker for them but perhaps it's not. Perhaps many of the members would prefer to shell out a few million each for a greater likelihood of us going nowhere/being relegated under Ashley and Bruce.

Give Spurs a choice of us with Saudi or without and them having to shell out £5m of the Kane monies and I reckon they'd opt for the latter.

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, Minhosa said:

You say that like it's a deal breaker for them but perhaps it's not. Perhaps many of the members would prefer to shell out a few million each for a greater likelihood of us going nowhere/being relegated under Ashley and Bruce.

Give Spurs a choice of us with Saudi or without and them having to shell out £5m of the Kane monies and I reckon they'd opt for the latter.

As long as the fans don't get punished. 

[Pons Alias]

 

[GWN]

Imagine the scenes if this is all about compo, some will explode .

[thomas]

I'm sure there are more than a few here furiously grinding their 5 centimeter defeaters into a throw pillow with steve bruce's face embroidered on it at the thought. 

[veriaqa]

46 minutes ago, GWN said:

Imagine the scenes if this is all about compo, some will explode .

:facepalm:

Quote

The Claimant seeks:

(1)Damages for loss of profit or, alternatively, loss of opportunity.

(2)An injunction requiring the Defendant to withdraw the Director Decision and/or to reconsider the same.

(3)Interest.

(4)Costs.

(5)Such further or other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.

Whatever the end result is, this is not only about compo... This is getting ridiculous that people keep spouting bullshit like this.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by veriaqa

[Candi_Hills]

3 hours ago, Ankles Bennett said:

Again surely this would be breeching the anti competition rules/regulations

They might be above the rules