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

[Bishops Finger]

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

They may well settle, but settling won't mean allowing the takeover through.

It'll be cash to Ashley or something. Last thing the PL will ever do is let the takeover through.

They have to have a valid reason for refusing the takeover though. They can't just say its not happening 

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, TRon said:

By the same token, if the case is not costing Ashley money because it's already paid out of the deposit, he might be taking the approach it's worth a punt even if he doesn't think he'll win. Not sure the idea that it's risk free is necessarily a good thing in that regard. If he was sinking significant investment into fighting the case then you would imagine he'd only do that if he thought he had a very good chance of winning.

Yeah, there's a chance of that too.

Personally I think the arbitration case is the important one, that'll be done well before the CAT case and if the club lose that there'll probably not be much of a CAT case. The noises we've had are that the club and consortium are very confident in their case in the arbitration (the PL likewise but, again, why not make a formal decision?) However, there will always be a certain level of doubt, so they'll want to put as much pressure as possible on the PL to settle beforehand. That's what the CAT case does, without any real risk to Ashley. It also gives him the opportunity of vengeance if the PL don't settle and lose the arbitration, and we all know what a vengeful cunt he is.

[manorpark]

6 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

They may well settle, but settling won't mean allowing the takeover through.

It'll be cash to Ashley or something. Last thing the PL will ever do is let the takeover through.

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. 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by manorpark

[Jackie Broon]

15 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

They may well settle, but settling won't mean allowing the takeover through.

It'll be cash to Ashley or something. Last thing the PL will ever do is let the takeover through.

Ashley would hold all of the cards in a settlement negotiation, these cases are zero risk for him. 

Settling the arbitration in the club's favour would be the absolute starting point, because that's the only leverage the PL would have, the negotiation would probably be about how much money the PL have to pay on top of that to get out of the CAT case.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Fantail Breeze]

4 minutes 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. 

Can you please stay in your own thread.

Your last paragraph is bollocks (again). You could say the same for the PL and their fact-based legal response.

[1964]

8 minutes 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. 

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.

[Wandy]

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.

[Pokerprince2004]

7 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.

Well tune in tonight as both Keith Patterson and Ben Jacobs are going to be on NUFC Matters show. Should be good fun watching them argue as both sound clued up and confident 

[Dr Jinx]

10 minutes 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. 

Every Premier League club signs up to the PL's rules and regulations. Including the owners and directors test.

The section about who should be a director or more specifically a person with a controlling interest is quite clear, including the information a party looking to purchase a club should provide.

They didn't approve the takeover because the consortium would not agree that the KSA should be a director. That's where it stopped.

The only way we win this case is if they can prove emphatically that KSA would have no controlling interest in the running of the club, and by extension that they don't have autonomy over the PIF. Which is absurd.

The back door to this is if they can provide evidence that the PL were conspiring with others against the interests of the club. That's the only grey area where we could get them to back down. Time will tell if they have a smoking gun.

[Wandy]

Just now, Pokerprince2004 said:

Well tune in tonight as both Keith Patterson and Ben Jacobs are going to be on NUFC Matters show. Should be good fun watching them argue as both sound clued up and confident 

Yeah, that will be an interesting watch.

[ToonArmy1892]

So. Fucking. Bored.

[Ben]

Right, where are those pigeons. 

[Guest neesy111]

29 minutes 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.

I'm sure the PL has legal advice from lawyers etc.  

[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