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

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Keith involved in a conversation with someone who has genuine knowledge and he’s looking like an absolute tit, shocker.

This podcast alone should put to bed any hope people have left like. Absolutely grim, but Ashley is going nowhere.

You're telling me that Keith getting put in his place puts to bed any hopes of a takeover?

He's not the one taking the PL to court, nor is he in arbitration with the PL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Rocker said:

You're telling me that Keith getting put in his place puts to bed any hopes of a takeover?

He's not the one taking the PL to court, nor is he in arbitration with the PL.

No. The information Jacobs is providing should put to bed the hope.

The BeIn letter was sent to all clubs, that he’s been very open in explaining he has spoken to all sides, that there are two imminent stories to cast doubt on the separation further...

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

No. The information Jacobs is providing should put to bed the hope.

The BeIn letter was sent to all clubs, that he’s been very open in explaining he has spoken to all sides, that there are two imminent stories to cast doubt on the separation further...

Did you listen to it? Jacobs wasn't overly negative on the takeover at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rocker said:

Did you listen to it? Jacobs wasn't overly negative on the takeover at all. 

I’m listening to it now.

I’d argue MBS lobbying the Government makes it difficult to prove separation. He also referred to a negative story due out next week to further dampen hopes around proving separation.

 

 

Edited by Fantail Breeze

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Ben Jacobs so in the loop though. Is he doing actual journalistic work or what?

Still perplexed at his deep knowledge and/or deep interest in it.

His points might be right mind, I don't listen to wraiths podcast or any twitter nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact it would be weird it MBS hadn’t lobbied on behalf of PIF, because if he thinks its a good deal, its in his interests for PIF to make as much money as possible — that’s the entire point of an investment fund.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

It's interesting these stories are being leaked, rather than the relevant evidence just being provided to the hearing.

It's interesting that when Keith does similar it's called "revealed" but if it's anything deemed negative towards the takeover it's called "leaked". 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NE27 said:

Why is Ben Jacobs so in the loop though. Is he doing actual journalistic work or what?

Still perplexed at his deep knowledge and/or deep interest in it.

His points might be right mind, I don't listen to wraiths podcast or any twitter nonsense.

Well, I mean it’s his job? He’s a journalist.

He was very balanced again tonight. He’s by far the best journalist covering this story, but as he said himself - unfortunately, he puts out both sides of the story and certain sections of the fan base can’t accept that.

He again made it clear the only pathway to this takeover is NUFC winning arbitration. Let us hope they do. But based on what I’ve heard tonight, my confidence on that is low.

Will be intrigued to hear these two stories; one proving Saudi money was involved in the ESL and the other making separation difficult to prove.

Clearly two stories leaked by PL sources (or those not wanting the takeover) ahead of the imminent arbitration, but potentially two damaging stories.

Just got to sit back and hope we get the right result. But the amount of shit Jacobs has taken for doing his job is absurd. Along with all of this shit everyone gets who dares not blindly believe the ‘positives’.

 

 

Edited by Fantail Breeze

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

I’m listening to it now.

I’d argue MBS lobbying the Government makes it difficult to prove separation. He also referred to a negative story due out next week to further dampen hopes around proving separation.

There's going to be mud slung by both parties. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Rocker said:

There's going to be mud slung by both parties. 

But the mud slung by one side tends to have facts behind it, whereas the other is speculative.

For example - Jacobs’ dismissing claims the BeIN letter only went to the top 6 (and claiming to have evidence of that), immediately throwing Keith’s ‘big reveal’ from last week in the bin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

It's interesting that when Keith does similar it's called "revealed" but if it's anything deemed negative towards the takeover it's called "leaked". 

I don't know who Keith is, but yes, it sounds like someone from the PL side has been leaking stories to the media. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished watching Ben vs Keith.

I don't know how anyone could watch that and think anybody won or made the other look daft. We simply don't have the information, either relating to the case or as lawyers ourselves, to know who sits in a stronger position.

One example: Ben saying MBS lobbied the government and Keith saying he didn't. First you have to understand what would constitute lobbying this case (I don't). Then you have to consider all the legal precedent, the context and all the other information the lawyers are going to be leaning on (I know none of that either). Then you have whatever dodgy corrupt shit is going to be piled on top of the legal case (I daren't think).

You're talking world class legal personnel combing through a highly complex case, which itself going to be tarred with corruption and lobbying, and then you've got people sitting here with 2% of the case material at their disposal beating away at their gavels.

In months gone by I argued the toss that Amanda and PIF were still trying to buy club when Fanny and the gang were saying "Mike just wants compo". That much I felt confident about saying. I'm out when it comes the details of the legal case though. I haven't got a sodding clue who has the stronger case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

Just finished watching Ben vs Keith.

I don't know how anyone could watch that and think anybody won or made the other look daft. We simply don't have the information, either relating to the case or as lawyers ourselves, to know who sits in a stronger position.

One example: Ben saying MBS lobbied the government and Keith saying he didn't. First you have to understand what would constitute lobbying this case (I don't). Then you have to consider all the legal precedent, the context and all the other information the lawyers are going to be leaning on (I know none of that either). Then you have whatever dodgy corrupt shit is going to be piled on top of the legal case (I daren't think).

You're talking world class legal personnel combing through a highly complex case, which itself going to be tarred with corruption and lobbying, and then you've got people sitting here with 2% of the case material at their disposal beating away at their gavels.

In months gone by I argued the toss that Amanda and PIF were still trying to buy club when Fanny and the gang were saying "Mike just wants compo". That much I felt confident about saying. I'm out when it comes the details of the legal case though. I haven't got a sodding clue who has the stronger case.

Good post. Won't suit either agenda, but this is pretty much where we're at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Well, I mean it’s his job? He’s a journalist

Fair I suppose. Still find it odd why he's picked this story up and ran with it though.

Journalists who cover nufc don't even go to such depths, unless you count the baldy feminist over at the telegraph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

Just finished watching Ben vs Keith.

I don't know how anyone could watch that and think anybody won or made the other look daft. We simply don't have the information, either relating to the case or as lawyers ourselves, to know who sits in a stronger position.

One example: Ben saying MBS lobbied the government and Keith saying he didn't. First you have to understand what would constitute lobbying this case (I don't). Then you have to consider all the legal precedent, the context and all the other information the lawyers are going to be leaning on (I know none of that either). Then you have whatever dodgy corrupt shit is going to be piled on top of the legal case (I daren't think).

You're talking world class legal personnel combing through a highly complex case, which itself going to be tarred with corruption and lobbying, and then you've got people sitting here with 2% of the case material at their disposal beating away at their gavels.

In months gone by I argued the toss that Amanda and PIF were still trying to buy club when Fanny and the gang were saying "Mike just wants compo". That much I felt confident about saying. I'm out when it comes the details of the legal case though. I haven't got a sodding clue who has the stronger case.

I don’t think anyone is ‘beating away at their gavels’. There is a weird perception that any post which isn’t entirely positive means people either hope or expect the takeover to fail entirely or are making judgements.

I’m certainly not making judgements on what will or won’t happen. I don’t know what will happen to the takeover. I certainly don’t want it to fail.

All I am saying is that my expectations on what will happen is built around the fact that the negative press around the takeover seems to have more substance than the positive.

An example tonight was Keith’s whole argument for the last hour was “disclosure will reveal something damming for the PL”. He doesn’t know that. It’s impossible to know that. It’s speculative.

Whereas Jacobs was explaining how he has seen evidence to support his knowledge that there are two imminent stories that will be disruptive for the takeover.

There will be two stories coming out that are going to be negative. It’s not guaranteed disclosure will support our case at all.

I don’t think I’ve seen a single post from ‘me and the gang’ where someone has tried to tell everyone what will definitely happen. I’ve just seen people posting their own opinions.

Well, apart from Manorpark and Whitley who are constantly telling us the takeover definitely will happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NE27 said:

Fair I suppose. Still find it odd why he's picked this story up and ran with it though.

Journalists who cover nufc don't even go to such depths, unless you count the baldy feminist over at the telegraph.

He’s an journalist predominantly focusing on Middle East and sport, it’s a major news story crossing over his two fields. It’d be like Laura Kuennsberg not reporting on a political news story.

That’s also why his opinion is a good one to listen to. His contact book is far greater (and balanced) than people like Liam Kennedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF Keith has documentation now being used by the club in their CAT case, which implicates parties of illegal conduct and helps in our takeover eventually being cleared, then good on him. Nobody knows what the documentation is or what it can actually prove. The one thing I can’t get round is why he needs to disclose certain parts within his Twitter account and on Wraith’s podcast, whilst due to legal confidentiality I presume he can’t state other parts. I think he would have been better keeping quiet and letting the legal process to play out. I’ve heard arguments he’s keeping fans informed and also that it’s to put pressure on the Premier League via public knowledge of their alleged wrongdoings. Just my opinion, but think I’d just prefer to hear when the authorities decide in both cases, instead of hearing both negative and positive bites on Twitter (and here) based mainly on conjecture. Nobody really knows exactly what legal arguments are being presented and what actual documentation these arguments will show. 

 

 

Edited by et tu brute

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

IF Keith has documentation now being used by the club in their CAT case, which implicates parties of illegal conduct and helps in our takeover eventually being cleared, then good on him. Nobody knows what the documentation is or what it can actually prove. The one thing I can’t get round is why he needs to disclose certain parts within his Twitter account and on Wraith’s podcast, whilst due to legal confidentiality I presume he can’t state other parts. I think he would have been better keeping quiet and letting the legal process to play out. I’ve heard arguments he’s keeping fans informed and also that it’s to put pressure on the Premier League via public knowledge of their alleged wrongdoings. Just my opinion, but think I’d just prefer to hear when the authorities decide in both cases, instead of hearing both negative and positive bites on Twitter (and here) based mainly on conjecture. Nobody really knows exactly what legal arguments are being presented and what actual documentation these arguments will show. 

Keith made some very interesting comments regarding his role in all of this. He spoke of conversations with Amanda Staveley and said that she wanted someone to front a fan led campaign. Remember those murmurings last year that NCSL was being funded by the buyers? All very interesting.

He also said that he's been told by QC O'Donoghue that the PL are knackered if it gets to disclosure. I don't know how true that is but at least you know where his confidence comes from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

Keith made some very interesting comments regarding his role in all of this. He spoke of conversations with Amanda Staveley and said that she wanted someone to front a fan led campaign. Remember those murmurings last year that NCSL was being funded by the buyers? All very interesting.

He also said that he's been told by QC O'Donoghue that the PL are knackered if it gets to disclosure. I don't know how true that is but at least you know where his confidence comes from.

Not disputing what he’s saying, I don’t know if his confidence is correct and none of us can until the cases are decided. Just think he would have been better to just let the legal side play out. Just my opinion anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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