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

[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?

 

 

[Chris_R]

2 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

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.

I am under the impression that it's public knowledge that PIF were asked to name MBS as a shadow director and refused. So much has happened that I forget where I get that from and don't have time to look that up as I'm heading back out soon, but I'm sure it's in the public domain and beyond dispute that this was asked for by the PL and PIF refused.

Both parties then refused to move - The PL couldn't continue with the O&Ds checks, and PIF refused to accept that he'd be a shadow director. This continued for week after week until eventually PIF walked away.This is absolutely the timeline as I understand it from what happened last year, and I'm under the impression all of it is common knowledge.

[Fantail Breeze]

Who would’ve thought Sean would be right all along.

[Chris_R]

4 minutes ago, TRon said:

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

 

 

I don't think there's any point, personally. But some people keep rolling the dice when they're already down. It's the club's money, so they're entitled to crack on.

I guess they want to have arbitration rule that MBS is not a shadow director, but I cannot see how that can logically be an outcome any arbitration panel reaches based on what we know. He's literally the chairman of the organisation buying us. It's bonkers to say he cannot and will not have any say over our running, it's genuine head-in-clouds stuff.

And in fact initially the club refused arbitration, did they not? Presumably they reached this conclusion too at least initially.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Chris_R

[The Prophet]

Fair enough, you could well be correct there as I glazed over for large chunks of the saga. There are others out there who followed the whole affair more closely who will have a better idea than me.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by The Prophet

[Teasy]

So explain why they would even need MBS to be put forward as a shadow director?  The club buying side put forward directors, shadow director is something the PL decide on themselves.  So the PL could have simply said he's a shadow director because he's chairman of PIF, said he was involves in piracy (no conviction needed only PL opinion required) and disqualified the takeover based on that.  Why have they kept stalling the firm decision instead? Yeah seems like a hell of a lot of speculation to me.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Teasy

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

I don't think there's any point, personally. But some people keep rolling the dice when they're already down. It's the club's money, so they're entitled to crack on.

I guess they want to have arbitration rule that MBS is not a shadow director, but I cannot see how that can logically be an outcome any arbitration panel reaches based on what we know. He's literally the chairman of the organisation buying us. It's bonkers to say he cannot and will not have any say over our running, it's genuine head-in-clouds stuff.

And in fact initially the club refused arbitration, did they not? Presumably they reached this conclusion too at least initially.

Actually, it's not about shadow directorships, that's something different, it's about 'control' as defined in the PL's rules.

And it's not MbS that the PL are saying would be in 'control', it's the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Ultimately no one on this board is qualified or has the information before them to give a legal opinion on the whether the KSA would be in control of NUFC for the purposes of the definition in the rules. Least of all someone who doesn't get those crucial details correct.

Both sides appear confident in their positions (although the PL side not confident to actually made a formal decision and defend an appeal on that basis).

We will probably find out one way or the other in around August.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Stavely did say that the PL were ultimately asking for MBS to go through the O&D test, didnt she? 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Super Duper Branko Strupar

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

Stavely did say that the PL were asking for MBS to go through the O&D test, didnt she? 

Nope, 'The Premier League wanted the country, Saudi, to become a director of the football club,' Staveley told The Athletic.

[Ben]

Bit of a rumble on Nufc Matters tonight between Keith and Ben

[Candi_Hills]

27 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.

 

 

 

I personally don't think will come down to legal technicalities. The PL handbook is as binding as Boris' lockdown rules. It'll just be a case of which dodgy bastard can leverage what and against whom.

[Chris_R]

8 minutes ago, Teasy said:

So explain why they would even need MBS to be put forward as a shadow director?  The club buying side put forward directors, shadow director is something the PL decide on themselves.  So the PL could have simply said he's a shadow director because he's chairman of PIF, said he was involves in piracy (no conviction needed only PL opinion required) and disqualified the takeover based on that.  Why have they kept stalling the firm decision instead? Yeah seems like a hell of a lot of speculation to me.

Because PIF won't agree he's a shadow director and so won't provide the details of him that the PL need, they're objecting to that part. And the PL are insisting he is. So they couldn't proceed with the O&D test because PIF weren't giving them the information they needed.

Everything I've said about shadow directors, piracy etc is in the PLs own rulebook regarding the O&Ds test. It's clear as day what's happened here.

3 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

Stavely did say that the PL were ultimately asking for MBS to go through the O&D test, didnt she? 

This is what I was trying to remember, yes. So from a fairly reputable source in the whole matter, you'd think.

 

[Chris_R]

Just now, Candi_Hills said:

 

I personally don't think will come down to legal technicalities. The PL handbook is as binding as Boris' lockdown rules. It'll just be a case of which dodgy bastard can leverage what and against whom.

Well hopefully you're right.

However I cannot see how the PL's own rules, as enforced by the PL, regarding who can be in the PL, can be decided by anyone else? The PL is just a club, a society if you like. There's membership rules. Don't like the rules? You're welcome to not be in the club.