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

[Fantail Breeze]

34 minutes ago, Wandy said:

I watched Wraith's catch up with Ben Jacobs this morning and, to be honest, the guy was completely reasonable. I think we are underestimating just how strong a case the PL have, unfortunately and, for me, the odds are firmly stacked against this going through. Not saying it's impossible of course but I'm about 30/70 in the negative camp now.

Of course we all know that if this was Man Utd, Liverpool etc then the PL wouldn't even be presenting a case. So they are still a bunch of complete cunts.

Woah. You can’t say things like that. 

Ben Jacobs is a BeIN mole determined to write Tweets to get reactions from NUFC fans. 

Completely agree with your 30/70 ratio, that’s probably where I’m at and have been for some time. 

And of course your last paragraph is completely true.

[The Prophet]

I find Ben Jacob's to be quite informative, but as with all journos, you have to bare in mind where his vested interests lie.

Both parties will think they have a strong case or they would have backed down by now, they'll also have the best legal representation money can buy.

One thing I still can't get my head around though, is that if the Premier League had such strong, clear grounds to reject the takeover. Why didn't they do so, rather than bunkering down and waiting for impatience to set in?

[Jackie Broon]

Ben Jacobs knows nothing but what he is fed from the PL's side.

He has a highly questionable past, reportedly getting banned from working for the BBC for life.

I think the only reasons Wraith has him on the show are mutual self promotion of possibly in the hope that he'll trip up and say something that can be linked to leaks from the PL.

[manorpark]

1 hour ago, 1964 said:

That's obviously not entirely true mate or we would not be where we are, the PL do feel they have a case or we would not be a year into a costly exercise.

Yes, I was not saying that the EPL do not feel they have a strong case, they may well feel like that whether rightly or wrongly. I said that the EPL are not able to just do (or not do) what they WANT.

They are bound by the FACTS that will be presented in the legal cases.

[1964]

3 minutes ago, manorpark said:

Yes, I was not saying that the EPL do not feel they have a strong case, they may well feel like that whether rightly or wrongly. I said that the EPL are not able to just do (or not do) what they WANT.

They are bound by the FACTS that will be presented in the legal cases.

You said the take over was inevitable, that's the bit of your statement I am doubting 

[Bishops Finger]

1 hour ago, The Prophet said:

I find Ben Jacob's to be quite informative, but as with all journos, you have to bare in mind where his vested interests lie.

Both parties will think they have a strong case or they would have backed down by now, they'll also have the best legal representation money can buy.

One thing I still can't get my head around though, is that if the Premier League had such strong, clear grounds to reject the takeover. Why didn't they do so, rather than bunkering down and waiting for impatience to set in?

This is what makes me think they bowed down to peer pressure. Apparently it was hours from being passed to all of a sudden nothing. Like you say, if they had good reason to reject it they would have. There's something off there

[andyc35i]

3 minutes ago, Bishops Finger said:

This is what makes me think they bowed down to peer pressure. Apparently it was hours from being passed to all of a sudden nothing. Like you say, if they had good reason to reject it they would have. There's something off there

I guess the PL argument can simply use the line that they gave NUFC / buyers a warning that the ownership submission would be rejected so gave them time to change it. They did not need to pass or fail it because the buyers then withdrew 

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

I guess the PL argument can simply use the line that they gave NUFC / buyers a warning that the ownership submission would be rejected so gave them time to change it. They did not need to pass or fail it because the buyers then withdrew 

But it was more than a month between the PL coming to their conclusion over the ownership and PIF withdrawing, in which time Staveley has said they asked for a formal decision to be made and the PL refused to make one.

[Fantail Breeze]

23 minutes ago, Bishops Finger said:

This is what makes me think they bowed down to peer pressure. Apparently it was hours from being passed to all of a sudden nothing. Like you say, if they had good reason to reject it they would have. There's something off there

Worth remembering the “hours from being passed” only came from the buying side.

Maybe they were overwhelming positive about it to apply pressure on the PL to approve it.

The PL could be sat here with evidence to prove all of that is bollocks and it was never that close.

[andyc35i]

22 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

But it was more than a month between the PL coming to their conclusion over the ownership and PIF withdrawing, in which time Staveley has said they asked for a formal decision to be made and the PL refused to make one.

This is why I will never understand this whole thing. How can the PL not make a decision on their own process! There has to be more to this whole thing from their side and this makes me worried that the PL are primed to shaft us. The legal arguments or rules for the owners test (*not necessarily sure if legality is what arbitration actually looks for) around the whole pass or fail have to been in our favour given the rules are in black and white 

[relámpago blanco]

CANS

[Bishops Finger]

50 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Worth remembering the “hours from being passed” only came from the buying side.

Maybe they were overwhelming positive about it to apply pressure on the PL to approve it.

The PL could be sat here with evidence to prove all of that is bollocks and it was never that close.

Well they they had informed the government to expect an announcement by all accounts too so we'll see

[Wilson]

29 minutes ago, relámpago blanco said:

CANS

CAN'TS more like. 

Away with your positivity. 

[Jackie Broon]

51 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Worth remembering the “hours from being passed” only came from the buying side.

Maybe they were overwhelming positive about it to apply pressure on the PL to approve it.

The PL could be sat here with evidence to prove all of that is bollocks and it was never that close.

Dominic Cummings (I assume) also leaked Boris Jonson's conversation with Lord Lister on 7th September:

Boris Johnson:

“Any news from Saudi?”

Lord Lister:

“A call is being set up.

“The Newcastle deal [with the Saudi consortium] will hopefully be signed this week.”

Boris Johnson:

“Brilliant.”

[Guest reefatoon]

Yeah it was more than the buying side it came from, but that goes against his rhetoric. Must have been more of Ashley’s charade. Got the government involved and all sorts.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by reefatoon

[The Prophet]

At the time, almost everything we heard was from the buying side. It's not too dissimilar now with this chap who brought the CAT action, so it's difficult to get a decent gauge on where things stand. 

Even then we have no idea how both parties legal teams will nuance their arguments and what evidence they will provide to corroborate. 

It really isn't worth worrying about until we get an outcome.

[Fantail Breeze]

31 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

Dominic Cummings (I assume) also leaked Boris Jonson's conversation with Lord Lister on 7th September:

Boris Johnson:

“Any news from Saudi?”

Lord Lister:

“A call is being set up.

“The Newcastle deal [with the Saudi consortium] will hopefully be signed this week.”

Boris Johnson:

“Brilliant.”

Nothing to say Lord Lister didn’t get that from the press info/buying side.

PL have always maintained the deal was never close (Chi’s response?).

[Chris_R]

5 hours ago, manorpark said:

It is inevitable that the Takeover will have to be approved, as there will be shown to be NO legal reason for it not to be.

That is what these legal actions are all about.

It is not relevant what some of our perceptions are about what the EPL might "want" to do (or want not to do) that is why fact-based legal action is being taken. 

Let me once more spell out the big problem here, which I've consistently pointed out since day 1 when this takeover story first broke:

- Anyone who the PL consider will have influence over the club can be named a "shadow director" - This is in the PL's own rules

- MBS is chairman of PIF, so he will clearly have influence over NUFC if PIF buy us, I cannot see how anyone can realistically dispute this no matter what anyone says about the actual makeup of the board of NUFC

- MBS, via his role running the Saudi state, is suspected of having approved of or helped facilitate piracy - It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT whether PIF and the Saudi State are separate legal entities because MBS exists in both parts of the Venn Diagram. What he did in one circle is relevant in the other circle, even if they are separate entities, because he actually did it and is head of both.

- People suspected of being involved in piracy (No conviction required - suspicion is enough by the PL's handbook) are prohibited from being involved in clubs under the PL's own rules

- The PL asked for MBS's details so they could run the above checks on him as a shadow director, which he would clearly fail

- PIF refused, because they knew he'd clearly fail

- PL said "Fine, we'll wait then, we can't proceed without that info"

- PIF walked away after losing a Mexican stand-off

NONE of the above has been cleared up. All of those issues remain. This takeover, quite simply, cannot happen and will not happen because MBS's previous suspected involvement in piracy precludes it from ever completing. Don't misunderstand me, I'd love it to happen. But wanting something doesn't mean I can suspend all disbelief in facts.

 

 

[The Prophet]

There's a lot of speculation there. It's as plausible as any other theory though.

[STM]

Well said Chris R. 

[Chris_R]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

There's a lot of speculation there. It's as plausible as any other theory though.

Which bit is speculation?

All the points about shadow directors etc is from the PL's own rulebook on takoevers. I quoted it here back in the time, gave paragraphs and everything. And the Saudi state, of which MBS is the head of, is absolutely suspected of being involved in piracy. We know the PL wanted PIF to name MBS as a shadow director, and we know they refused. Which bit is speculation?

[The Prophet]

We don't know if the PL asked to interview MBS and therefore that PIF refused.

We don't know if that's why PIF ultimately walked away.

Unless I've missed something, in which case apologies.

[Yelevats]

Wraith & the Amigo's have NUFC Matters Podcast Football Strips now 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

13 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

Let me once more spell out the big problem here, which I've consistently pointed out since day 1 when this takeover story first broke:

- Anyone who the PL consider will have influence over the club can be named a "shadow director" - This is in the PL's own rules

- MBS is chairman of PIF, so he will clearly have influence over NUFC if PIF buy us, I cannot see how anyone can realistically dispute this no matter what anyone says about the actual makeup of the board of NUFC

- MBS, via his role running the Saudi state, is suspected of having approved of or helped facilitate piracy - It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT whether PIF and the Saudi State are separate legal entities because MBS exists in both parts of the Venn Diagram. What he did in one circle is relevant in the other circle, even if they are separate entities, because he actually did it and is head of both.

- People suspected of being involved in piracy (No conviction required - suspicion is enough by the PL's handbook) are prohibited from being involved in clubs under the PL's own rules

- The PL asked for MBS's details so they could run the above checks on him as a shadow director, which he would clearly fail

- PIF refused, because they knew he'd clearly fail

- PL said "Fine, we'll wait then, we can't proceed without that info"

- PIF walked away after losing a Mexican stand-off

NONE of the above has been cleared up. All of those issues remain. This takeover, quite simply, cannot happen and will not happen because MBS's previous suspected involvement in piracy precludes it from ever completing. Don't misunderstand me, I'd love it to happen. But wanting something doesn't mean I can suspend all disbelief in facts.

 

 

 You're wasting your breathe replying to what you have replied to. Safe yourself the frustration and ignore it. Trust me. 

[TRon]

16 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

Let me once more spell out the big problem here, which I've consistently pointed out since day 1 when this takeover story first broke:

- Anyone who the PL consider will have influence over the club can be named a "shadow director" - This is in the PL's own rules

- MBS is chairman of PIF, so he will clearly have influence over NUFC if PIF buy us, I cannot see how anyone can realistically dispute this no matter what anyone says about the actual makeup of the board of NUFC

- MBS, via his role running the Saudi state, is suspected of having approved of or helped facilitate piracy - It is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT whether PIF and the Saudi State are separate legal entities because MBS exists in both parts of the Venn Diagram. What he did in one circle is relevant in the other circle, even if they are separate entities, because he actually did it and is head of both.

- People suspected of being involved in piracy (No conviction required - suspicion is enough by the PL's handbook) are prohibited from being involved in clubs under the PL's own rules

- The PL asked for MBS's details so they could run the above checks on him as a shadow director, which he would clearly fail

- PIF refused, because they knew he'd clearly fail

- PL said "Fine, we'll wait then, we can't proceed without that info"

- PIF walked away after losing a Mexican stand-off

NONE of the above has been cleared up. All of those issues remain. This takeover, quite simply, cannot happen and will not happen because MBS's previous suspected involvement in piracy precludes it from ever completing. Don't misunderstand me, I'd love it to happen. But wanting something doesn't mean I can suspend all disbelief in facts.

 

 

If it's that cut and dried, what is the point of arbitration?