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

[Wandy]

Ashley is not just seeking compensation, that is clear. But what about if the court decision awards in his favour, but only grants him the financial compensation. Is that a possibility?

[ToonArmy1892]

9 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Ashley is not just seeking compensation, that is clear. But what about if the court decision awards in his favour, but only grants him the financial compensation. Is that a possibility?

Course it is, we are NUFC and we don't get nice things.

[Wilson]

3 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Ashley is not just seeking compensation, that is clear. But what about if the court decision awards in his favour, but only grants him the financial compensation. Is that a possibility?

I would imagine it's a possibility, and for me it's probably the most likely outcome. 

But don't say it too loud. 

[Shearergol]

23 minutes ago, Wilson said:

I would imagine it's a possibility, and for me it's probably the most likely outcome. 

But don't say it too loud. 

It's ok though, someone else will be interested in buying the club next summer. Give us something to #wait for.

[Abacus]

21 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Ashley is not just seeking compensation, that is clear. But what about if the court decision awards in his favour, but only grants him the financial compensation. Is that a possibility?

I don't think they can force the PL to change their decision on the takeover, so yes that's surely a possibility.

The action asks them to reconsider it, which they could pretend to do, and still say no, or just delay.

That said, then you've got arbitration afterwards.

And if you've publicly lost a case about acting uncompetitively, and the arbitration panel has to publish their reasons (due to the previous legal case about possible bias), I'd say you'd think hard.

You see, this is why I'm not a lawyer.

[manorpark]

35 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

Course it is, we are NUFC and we don't get nice things.

We are NUFC, the club that I have supported through "all types" of times since 1967.

We do frequently get (to use your words) "nice things", of course we do.

Soon, we will get VERY nice things That is inevitable, as I am sure most of us now realise.

[Alberto2005]

1 minute ago, manorpark said:

We are NUFC, the club that I have supported through "all types" of times since 1967.

We do frequently get (to use your words) "nice things", of course we do.

Soon, we will get VERY nice things That is inevitable, as I am sure most of us now realise.

You get the impression most of the fans on here think the takeover will happen?

[Wandy]

12 minutes ago, Abacus said:

I don't think they can force the PL to change their decision on the takeover, so yes that's surely a possibility.

The action asks them to reconsider it, which they could pretend to do, and still say no, or just delay.

That said, then you've got arbitration afterwards.

And if you've publicly lost a case about acting uncompetitively, and the arbitration panel has to publish their reasons (due to the previous legal case about possible bias), I'd say you'd think hard.

You see, this is why I'm not a lawyer.

The arbitration decision will come a long time before the CAT case is resolved though. The CAT case could drag on into next year. Which will no doubt be exactly what the PL intend to do.

To be honest, I think the odds are massively, massively stacked against us in the arbitration. Not because we do not have a strong case, but because Beloff, the supposedly "neutral" QC who has the final say, is very obviously going to side with them. I mean he literally re-wrote the O&D test for the PL to exclude buyers with a link to piracy so he is hardly going to go in hard against the very rules that he came up with himself, is he?

We just have to hope that the CAT case is approved, the evidence that Ashley holds is extremely strong and also that the court has the power to force the takeover to happen because I'm not holding out much hope of arbitration going our way. I think the odds are generally stacked against us, to be honest. But I maintain that nobody outside of the claimant & defendant has a clue on the intricate details of what is happening in the background.

 

 

[manorpark]

22 minutes ago, Alberto2005 said:

You get the impression most of the fans on here think the takeover will happen?

Everything worth taking into account points towards the logical outcome of a successful takeover, and a VERY exciting future for NUFC.

[Alberto2005]

5 minutes ago, manorpark said:

Everything worth taking into account points towards the logical outcome of a successful takeover, and a VERY exciting future for NUFC.

That's not what I asked Matt Hancock.

[ToonArmy1892]

1 hour ago, manorpark said:

We are NUFC, the club that I have supported through "all types" of times since 1967.

We do frequently get (to use your words) "nice things", of course we do.

Soon, we will get VERY nice things That is inevitable, as I am sure most of us now realise.

Well, you've seen us win a trophy, so you have seen something nice, most of us haven't.

[Jinky Jim]

57 minutes ago, Wandy said:

The arbitration decision will come a long time before the CAT case is resolved though. The CAT case could drag on into next year. Which will no doubt be exactly what the PL intend to do.

To be honest, I think the odds are massively, massively stacked against us in the arbitration. Not because we do not have a strong case, but because Beloff, the supposedly "neutral" QC who has the final say, is very obviously going to side with them. I mean he literally re-wrote the O&D test for the PL to exclude buyers with a link to piracy so he is hardly going to go in hard against the very rules that he came up with himself, is he?

We just have to hope that the CAT case is approved, the evidence that Ashley holds is extremely strong and also that the court has the power to force the takeover to happen because I'm not holding out much hope of arbitration going our way. I think the odds are generally stacked against us, to be honest. But I maintain that nobody outside of the claimant & defendant has a clue on the intricate details of what is happening in the background.

 

 

Mind you Arbitration is only about one issue,I’m led to believe, and that “is PIF separate  from Saudi State”…piracy should only come into the discussion if Arbitration came down against this. The 3 judges have to decide if, based on the evidence, PIF is a separate entity, and again,I’m led to believe, there is plenty of evidence out there to confirm that is the case. If the judges agree with this point, then there should be no reason for the PL to block the takeover……we just have to hope the evidence convinces the judges on this count.

 

 

 

 

[Wandy]

27 minutes ago, Jinky Jim said:

Mind you Arbitration is only about one issue,I’m led to believe, and that “is PIF separate  from Saudi State”…piracy should only come into the discussion if Arbitration came down against this. The 3 judges have to decide if, based on the evidence, PIF is a separate entity, and again,I’m led to believe, there is plenty of evidence out there to confirm that is the case. If the judges agree with this point, then there should be no reason for the PL to block the takeover……we just have to hope the evidence convinces the judges on this count.

 

 

 

 

Yeah but we know that the only judge's opinon that really counts is Beloff's. And considering he played a big part in rewriting the very test that we could not get through, I don't hold out much hope that he is going to see things from the Saudis' point of view. I honestly think the PL believe they have arbitration in the bag by securing Beloff as the deciding QC.

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Wandy

[manorpark]

1 hour ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

Well, you've seen us win a trophy, so you have seen something nice, most of us haven't.

The European Fairs Cup, before it became the UEFA Cup then the current Europa League, was a great experience . . . 

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/fairs-cup-newcastle-united-and-the-1969-fairs-cup-win-50th-anniversary-1969-to-2019.2177948/post-159296132

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by manorpark

[Jinky Jim]

7 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Yeah but we know that the only judge's opinon that really counts is Beloff's. And considering he played a big part in rewriting the very test that we could not get through, I don't hold out much hope that he is going to see things from the Saudis' point of view. I honestly think the PL believe they have arbitration in the bag by securing Beloff as the deciding QC.

I can’t disagree with your view about Beloff…..but with Arbitration only dealing with “Whether PIF are separate from Saudi State”, I think the evidence will show this to be the case and even the most biased of Judges will have to concede this point……I would like to believe that despite his leanings towards the PL, his impartiality as a judge would overcome any personal ties and accept the evidence put in front of him as beyond favouritism……At least I hope so!

[GWN]

4 minutes ago, manorpark said:

The European Fairs Cup, before it became the UEFA Cup then the current Europa League, was a great experience . . . 

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/fairs-cup-newcastle-united-and-the-1969-fairs-cup-win-50th-anniversary-1969-to-2019.2177948/post-159296132

Doesn’t count I read it somewhere on a Mackem forum 

[BeloEmre]

So have our friend Luke Edwards had anything to say about yesterdays news? He’s blocked me, so can’t check.

[B-more Mag]

I'm not sure where the idea that the issue is whether KSA and PIF are "separate" came from or why it has continued. It's not about separateness, per se, it's about ability to control (whether actually exercised or not).

[manorpark]

6 minutes ago, GWN said:

Doesn’t count I read it somewhere on a Mackem forum 

Yes, we didn't win the World Cup in 1966 either.

[Ankles Bennett]

6 hours 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.

So why didn't the other member clubs object to the Glazers takeover at ManU or the Fenway group at Liverpool or Stan Kroenki at Arsenal?

[Minhosa]

3 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said:

So why didn't the other member clubs object to the Glazers takeover at ManU or the Fenway group at Liverpool or Stan Kroenki at Arsenal?

Perhaps there wasn't the grounds.

[Jinky Jim]

8 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

I'm not sure where the idea that the issue is whether KSA and PIF are "separate" came from or why it has continued. It's not about separateness, per se, it's about ability to control (whether actually exercised or not).

Earlier this year QC Mark Pelling shone a light on what the arbitration dispute would entail, he said: "Concerned exclusively with the question whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a 'director' under the Premier League's rules and not with the question (of) whether if Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was a 'director' it would be disqualified".

 

The text of the letter makes it abundantly clear that the sole issue that the Premier League had decided - and then only provisionally - was that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia satisfied the definitions so that it was to be regarded as a director."

The judge added: "The only dispute that can or will be decided in the current arbitration is whether this conclusion is correct".
 

I might be misinterpreting that, but I read it as the dispute is whether the kingdom of Saudi would be a director…..in other words is PIF separate from the Saudi state…however I’m no lawyer and bow to professional judgements in this.

[TRon]

19 hours ago, HTT II said:

I do think that if the Saudis do pull out, that AS and the Reubens will not just go away with them and would be back together at some point to try and generate another takeover bid with others as I feel those two parties in particular are desperate to get involved in the sport/a football club and see NUFC especially as the Crown Jewels to get their hands (a percentage) on in that very ‘arena’, sportingly, property, commercially etc.

Not sure about that. I think it was the prospect of the Saudis funding a deep overhaul of not just the football club, but the city which attracted the Reubens. In a world where only super clubs call the shots, I wonder if they would be as keen with a lesser buyer? Especially in the knowledge that the Saudis would probably get rubber stamped as future Man U or Spurs owners down the line by a delighted PL. 

[B-more Mag]

11 minutes ago, Jinky Jim said:

Earlier this year QC Mark Pelling shone a light on what the arbitration dispute would entail, he said: "Concerned exclusively with the question whether the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a 'director' under the Premier League's rules and not with the question (of) whether if Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was a 'director' it would be disqualified".

 

The text of the letter makes it abundantly clear that the sole issue that the Premier League had decided - and then only provisionally - was that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia satisfied the definitions so that it was to be regarded as a director."

The judge added: "The only dispute that can or will be decided in the current arbitration is whether this conclusion is correct".
 

I might be misinterpreting that, but I read it as the dispute is whether the kingdom of Saudi would be a director…..in other words is PIF separate from the Saudi state…however I’m no lawyer and bow to professional judgements in this.

You're reading it correctly. And I suppose "separate" isn't an unreasonable shorthand for the concept -- it's just that you can be separate and still have control. Like if I own 100% of the stock in a corporation, the corporation and I are separate and distinct legal "people" with our own rights and liabilities, but I still control the corporation.

 The main applicable definitions from the rules are here (and I'm not necessarily saying the EPL wins, here, just that this is the language at play):

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;

Quote

A.1.47.“Control” means the power of a Person to exercise, or to be able to exercise or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Control shall be deemed to include:

(a)the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or

(b)the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to exercise the voting rights applicable to, Shares in the Club (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club.

For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of an Associate of any Person or of a Connected Person to any Person shall be attributed to that Person;

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by B-more Mag

[Jinky Jim]

3 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

You're reading it correctly. And I suppose "separate" isn't an unreasonable shorthand for the concept -- it's just that you can be separate and still have control. Like if I own 100% of the stock in a corporation, the corporation and I are separate and distinct legal "people" with our own rights and liabilities, but I still control the corporation.

 The main applicable definitions from the rules are here (and I'm not necessarily saying the EPL wins, here, just that this is the language at play):

 

In layman’s terms then, what are the 3 judges looking at in the Arbitration, and in your opinion, will having one judge possibly a bit pro PL, effect his decision after seeing the evidence.