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

[TRon]

5 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):

 

Also depends on who will interpret that language as judge and jury, and that is what the PL legal team will be hanging their hat on. English PL might carry a bit more weight than a mere club with a questionable foreign backer in their eyes. 

[B-more Mag]

8 minutes ago, Jinky Jim said:

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.

I would think they'd be looking at whether, under applicable facts and law, KSA has the actual raw power and authority to direct the PIF's affairs (whether or not it may have voluntarily elected to refrain from doing so thus far) and whether there are any enforceable limits or constraints on any such power. Like if all KSA could do is appoint a bunch of figurehead directors with no actual power, and other parties are the ones who can appoint "real" directors, that's one thing. If KSA has the authority to wipe out the board whenever it wants and appoint whomever it wants whenever it wants, that's quite another. What I don't think will cut it are unenforceable representations or promises that KSA hasn't exercised control before and won't in the future, if it actually has the power to do so. As far as the arbitrators go, I doubt any of them will feel beholden to whomever appointed them--that's not good for long-term reputational prospects.

[Wandy]

3 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

I would think they'd be looking at whether, under applicable facts and law, KSA has the actual raw power and authority to direct the PIF's affairs (whether or not it may have voluntarily elected to refrain from doing so thus far) and whether there are any enforceable limits or constraints on any such power. Like if all KSA could do is appoint a bunch of figurehead directors with no actual power, and other parties are the ones who can appoint "real" directors, that's one thing. If KSA has the authority to wipe out the board whenever it wants and appoint whomever it wants whenever it wants, that's quite another. What I don't think will cut it are unenforceable representations or promises that KSA hasn't exercised control before and won't in the future, if it actually has the power to do so. As far as the arbitrators go, I doubt any of them will feel beholden to whomever appointed them--that's not good for long-term reputational prospects.

So are we winning or losing arbitration, in your opinon? 

[Jinky Jim]

3 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

I would think they'd be looking at whether, under applicable facts and law, KSA has the actual raw power and authority to direct the PIF's affairs (whether or not it may have voluntarily elected to refrain from doing so thus far) and whether there are any enforceable limits or constraints on any such power. Like if all KSA could do is appoint a bunch of figurehead directors with no actual power, and other parties are the ones who can appoint "real" directors, that's one thing. If KSA has the authority to wipe out the board whenever it wants and appoint whomever it wants whenever it wants, that's quite another. What I don't think will cut it are unenforceable representations or promises that KSA hasn't exercised control before and won't in the future, if it actually has the power to do so. As far as the arbitrators go, I doubt any of them will feel beholden to whomever appointed them--that's not good for long-term reputational prospects.

Thanks B-more Mag……a little bit more doubt about the outcome being positive. Particularly the line “What I don't think will cut it are unenforceable representations or promises that KSA hasn't exercised control before and won't in the future, if it actually has the power to do so.”……. I had read many months ago, earlier in the takeover, that evidence was produced by PIF, that by Saudi Law, it was a separate entity, and that the PL had refused to acknowledge it…of course this is just hearsay as we don’t know the intricacies of the takeover. I’m sure all will be revealed in the arbitration. Lets hope their arguments and evidence win the day.

[B-more Mag]

14 minutes ago, Wandy said:

So are we winning or losing arbitration, in your opinon? 

I'm a solid "fuck if I know."   I can't see all the actual evidence one way or the other, and we're even going off secondhand accounts of what the issue is (those accounts make sense and they're from courts, so you figure they're fairly reliable, but still there's a little bit of telephone game there). My pure gut feeling is that the EPL would win on the issue, because the definition of control is so broad and I'd be pretty surprised if KSA the club/PIF/whomever can establish KSA's outside that definition. But, honestly, there's so much at play we're not privy to, that my gut reaction is not worth very much and I'd be happy to ultimately find out it's wrong.  

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by B-more Mag

[Wandy]

It's been said many time before anyway, but....why is there even a question of whether the state will control the club? There is no rule in the O&D test that says a state cannot control a club, is there?

[Jinky Jim]

2 minutes ago, Wandy said:

It's been said many time before anyway, but....why is there even a question of whether the state will control the club? There is no rule in the O&D test that says a state cannot control a club, is there?

I think you will find that if the Saudi State were to control the club, then the issue of piracy would be uppermost and I believe that under the O&D test anyone involved in piracy would be rejected…as I’ve said before this is just hearsay anyway….bugger if I know what’s going on.

[nbthree3]

"Although the advice was not provided to the Club, the Club was informed that the Chairman had advised the EPL on amendments to its ‘Owners and Directors Test’ (‘OADT’) in Section F of its Rules. Shortly after the Chairman provided that advice in 2017 the Rules were changed to prevent a foreign owner involved in alleged broadcasting piracy from passing the test." 

https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/club-update-05032021/ - as above

[Wandy]

I wonder if the PL have presentable evidence for the arbitration that MBS played a part in the piracy?

[B-more Mag]

5 minutes ago, Wandy said:

It's been said many time before anyway, but....why is there even a question of whether the state will control the club? There is no rule in the O&D test that says a state cannot control a club, is there?

Nope, no per se prohibition that I'm aware of. This gets into an area where the publicly available information isn't really available or clear. Speculation would be that KSA wouldn't want to be subject to providing the declaration of facts and other information that would be required of it as a director under the O&D test.

[Wandy]

4 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

"Although the advice was not provided to the Club, the Club was informed that the Chairman had advised the EPL on amendments to its ‘Owners and Directors Test’ (‘OADT’) in Section F of its Rules. Shortly after the Chairman provided that advice in 2017 the Rules were changed to prevent a foreign owner involved in alleged broadcasting piracy from passing the test." 

https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/club-update-05032021/ - as above

How on earth Beloff was not removed is absolutely astounding. It gives a sense of the scale of the task we have to win this.

[Jinky Jim]

Somehow, our lawyers must find enough evidence to show the judges that PIF are separate from the Saudi State…..if they do and we win the case the PL will have to either pass our takeover or employ another delaying tactic.

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

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. 

yeah think you’re right, let’s be honest if the Reubens were so keen then they have more than enough money to take full control of the club themselves. 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by et tu brute

[et tu brute]

9 minutes ago, Wandy said:

How on earth Beloff was not removed is absolutely astounding. It gives a sense of the scale of the task we have to win this.

One positive is that his conduct and decisions will be scrutinised with a fine tooth comb now. Just have to wait and see as nobody knows the evidence or arguments being put forward by both sides.

[Wandy]

2 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

One positive is that his conduct and decisions will be scrutinised with a fine tooth comb now. Just have to wait and see as nobody knows the evidence or arguments being put forward by both sides.

You think? By who though?

The media are barely giving this story a second glance so they certainly wont put the spotlight on him.

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, Wandy said:

You think? By who though?

The media are barely giving this story a second glance so they certainly wont put the spotlight on him.

By the legals not the media. It went to the high court for that exact reason imho.

[DurhamMag]

[RS]

Got a feeling this is the PL equivalent to the governments Barnard Castle eye test. Everyone knows something stinks but no one does a thing about it and it just goes away. 

[Candi_Hills]

1 hour ago, DurhamMag said:

You're only allowed to take 7 letters at a time in scrabble. Cheating bastard pastor.

[DurhamMag]

3 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

You're only allowed to take 7 letters at a time in scrabble. Cheating bastard pastor.

Ha ha ha good point!!! Morning Candi

[Happinesstan]

Scrabble enthusiasts got caught up in the extreme sports movement and came up with a version where you pick 8.

[Candi_Hills]

4 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Scrabble enthusiasts got caught up in the extreme sports movement and came up with a version where you pick 8.

nutters

[Ankles Bennett]

19 hours 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).

But if they are separate entities the KSA has no ability to control ergo it is surely all about separating the two?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

We debated this loads yesterday, it seems to me the PL rule is there to account for people who are legally separate but actually have influence. Otherwise there's no point in that clause.

You could be legally separate but still have control through informal channels. Obvs this rule is a nightmare of interpretation and (AFAIK) has basically never ever been applied before. So it's still massively open to corruption.

[morpeth mag]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

We debated this loads yesterday, it seems to me the PL rule is there to account for people who are legally separate but actually have influence. Otherwise there's no point in that clause.

You could be legally separate but still have control through informal channels. Obvs this rule is a nightmare of interpretation and (AFAIK) has basically never ever been applied before. So it's still massively open to corruption.

Let's hope the EPL have carried out their annual review of Putin's influence on Abramovich and used the same standards to judge shadow directors there; at Man City; at Palace etc etc If you have a rule it has to be applied consistently.