Jump to content

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


Will the takeover be complete by this summer?  

312 members have voted

  1. 1. Will the takeover be complete by this summer?

    • Yes
      87
    • No
      183


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the argument, but it's not really equivalent...

Quote

Board Members

The Board of PIF comprises a team of highly qualified leaders who bring experience and expertise in economics, energy, law and finance and delivering major projects. Under the chairmanship and guidance of HRH Prince Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, the Board is responsible for overseeing the long-term strategy, investment policy and performance of PIF.
His Royal Highness
Mohammad bin Salman Al-Saud 
leader-member1.png
Crown Prince, Deputy Prime Minister
Chairman of the Council of Economic and Development Affairs
Chairman of the Public Investment Fund
 

 

https://www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/Boradmembers.aspx

 

 

Edited by B-more Mag
Added link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, it starts to get a bit murky here as to what has actually happened, but assuming it hasn't happened, it would be interesting to see the KSA square up and say, yep, go ahead and O&D us, *checks notes*, EPL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, morpeth mag said:

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.

 

 

And not forgetting the Chinese owners of Wolves and West Brom where the state has huge influence over supposedly private businesses and individuals.

I can see the argument that the definition of 'control' in the PL rules is very wide-ranging, and it does make me a bit nervous about the outcome of the arbitration. But, the PL clearly haven't been consistent in how they've have applied it and I always come back to the question, if they were so confident in their position why not just make a formal decision under rule F.1.1.1 when they were specifically asked to?

My guess / hope is that it won't get to an arbitration decision. I think the rejection pf the PL's request to see the evidence relating to calculation of costs is possibly quite significant. It means that the PL can't really challenge the amount, which is probably substantial, at least tens of millions, possibly into the hundreds.

Challenging jurisdiction may well be their last throw of the dice. If they lose that challenge then there is a huge amount riding on the arbitration, if they go through that and lose they'll probably be in a very weak position with the CAT case and have absolutely no way out.

As it stands, even if they are relatively confident of winning the arbitration, there will still be some degree of doubt and with the potential of £100m+ and their personal ability to serve as directors potentially on the line, there will be huge pressure on them to settle both cases while they are in still in a position to do that.

So I think there's a fair chance that they will settle if they lose the CAT jurisdiction challenge.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, LV said:

There is no way KSA would submit themselves to any test that they could fail. Too much risk of a loss of face. 

:lol: That's why I went with "interesting" and not necessarily smart or likely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Candi_Hills said:

nutters

Nigel Richards became world champion of the French edition of Scrabble without being able to speak French.  He just read the French dictionary and memorised the words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LV said:

There is no way KSA would submit themselves to any test that they could fail. Too much risk of a loss of face. 

I'm not sure I have quite as high an opinion of the tactical nous of a regime  which lets themselves get caught on tape dismembering a journalist, and that executes people it finds guilty of witchcraft or sorcery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify then:

 

- In 2 weeks: A statement from the PL to say they've read Mike's letter.

- July: Arbitration

- August: We get informed that arbiration failed. Beloff retires.

- We pursue the CAT case right through next season.

 

Have I got that right?

 

 

 

Edited by Candi_Hills

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

To clarify then:

 

- In 2 weeks: A statement from the PL to say they've read Mike's letter. IT IS ORDERED THAT: The Defendant is granted an extension of time to file and serve its application to contest the Tribunal’s jurisdiction until 5pm on 11 June 2021  

- July: Arbitration

- August: We get informed that arbiration failed. Beloff retires.

- We pursue the CAT case right through next season.

 

Have I got that right?

 

It literally just posted a few pages back.

 

 

Edited by veriaqa

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...