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

[Fantail Breeze]

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 May 28, 2021 by Fantail Breeze

[Rocker]

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. 

[Fantail Breeze]

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.

[The Prophet]

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. 

[Candi_Hills]

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.

[The Prophet]

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.

[NE27]

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.

[Fantail Breeze]

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.

[Fantail Breeze]

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.

[et tu brute]

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 May 28, 2021 by et tu brute

[The Prophet]

Any evidence presented to the press has most likely been done so because it holds minimal weight at the hearing and it's being used to discredit the opposing party before it kicks off.

[Candi_Hills]

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.

[et tu brute]

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.

[manorpark]

2 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

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.

I have always been of the opinion, since I started listening to Keith, that he not only says just what the various legal teams say that he can say, and no more, but that often he says things that they specifically "ask him" to say.

It all appears to be part of a drip-feed plan, spoken by Keith, co-ordinated by the legal teams.

That is just how it (always) seems, to me.  

[Whitley mag]

The most interesting point tonight is obviously Jacobs claiming new evidence exists to prove Saudi’s behind ESL. Matt Slater has also hinted at this so it will be interesting to  see how conclusive this is. In terms of UEFA I think it will simply relate to piracy in relation to bidding for UCL rights, or the broadcast of Euro’s this summer.

As I’ve said all along though it’s the same journalists and entirely predictable so I’ll reserve judgement on any impact.

It would be all very convenient to shift the focus at this point from the clubs involved in the ESL, to try and deflect attention and blame those nasty Saudi’s for funding it.

It would also surely be completely inconsistent with recent soundings from Ghodoussi and Reuben, who came out strongly against ESL. 

The propaganda war will undoubtedly heat up prior to cases being heard. 

 

[et tu brute]

9 minutes ago, manorpark said:

I have always been of the opinion, since I started listening to Keith, that he not only says just what the various legal teams say that he can say, and no more, but that often he says things that they specifically "ask him" to say.

It all appears to be part of a drip-feed plan, spoken by Keith, co-ordinated by the legal teams.

That is just how it (always) seems, to me.  

You may well be right, personally I think I’d would have just preferred waiting for the legal cases to play out. So tired of listening to the people on both sides of the fence arguing the same things over and over this last year, when in reality nobody knows what the legal arguments are for either side, which will be presented and what actual documentation each side have to support their argument. Obviously I hope the QCs representing the club have all the aces up their sleeves, as I said nobody but people directly involved with the case will really know. Even then it’s up to the deciding authorities in charge of the cases to make that decision.

[Candi_Hills]

33 minutes ago, manorpark said:

I have always been of the opinion, since I started listening to Keith, that he not only says just what the various legal teams say that he can say, and no more, but that often he says things that they specifically "ask him" to say.

It all appears to be part of a drip-feed plan, spoken by Keith, co-ordinated by the legal teams.

That is just how it (always) seems, to me.  

I honestly don't know what to make of Keith. "Amanda said she wanted fan led action and that's why I stepped forward." Listening to it again, I think he might just be saying that he responded to her public request for fan action, although he has said on twitter before that he's had contact with buyer and seller. Then again, he has repeatedly stated that he needed to first establish whether there was still a willing buyer and seller, so his contact with the buyers may just have been some preliminary legal letter.

It's a comforting thought to think Amanda has her hand up his arse and is working him like Rod Hull but I think the truth might be that he really is the little man who tried to take on the machine and he gets bits of info here and there. A lot of what he says is obviously informed by Robert O'Donoghue. I wish she'd put her hand up my arse.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Candi_Hills

[Fantail Breeze]

17 minutes ago, Candi_Hills said:

I honestly don't know what to make of Keith. "Amanda said she wanted fan led action and that's why I stepped forward." Listening to it again, I think he might just be saying that he responded to her public request for fan action, although he has said on twitter before that he's had contact with buyer and seller. Then again, he has repeatedly stated that he needed to first establish whether there was still a willing buyer and seller, so his contact with the buyers may just have been some preliminary legal letter.

It's a comforting thought to think Amanda has her hand up his arse and is working him like Rod Hull but I think the truth might be that he really is the little man who tried to take on the machine and he gets bits of info here and there. A lot of what he says is obviously informed by Robert O'Donoghue. I wish she'd put her hand up my arse.

He was getting close to sounding silly at points. Claiming O’Donoghue reckons the BeIN letter could win the case on its own was scarcely believable and appeared to be a massive exaggeration. 

Especially when Jacobs claims there is evidence it was sent to all 19 clubs and not just the top 6.

[Dr Jinx]

Watched it, well much of it. I found Keith to be quite belittling in his attitude towards Ben, who made his points quite well, but then he is an experienced journalist/pundit so he should be making his points better.

Keith seemed so desperate to be right that he just sort of kept rephrasing the same questions over and over again without ever getting anywhere.

I suppose if he was actually being accused of leaking info that clears up things but it doesn't prove anything one way or the other that the PL did something illegal. Things get leaked to journalists all the time, that's how stories break.

We didn't learn anything really, well maybe to be wary of breaking news next week..

The point remains, it's all on how the judge rules in the jurisdiction claim. We're not winning arbitration.

Even if the CAT case is weak, the PL won't want any sensitive info coming out that makes them look bad. This is why they could settle.

We lose the jurisdiction and the whole thing is dead in the water. 

[LV]

Why are we not winning arbitration? 

[Ben]

5 hours ago, Dr Jinx said:

Watched it, well much of it. I found Keith to be quite belittling in his attitude towards Ben, who made his points quite well, but then he is an experienced journalist/pundit so he should be making his points better.

Keith seemed so desperate to be right that he just sort of kept rephrasing the same questions over and over again without ever getting anywhere.

I suppose if he was actually being accused of leaking info that clears up things but it doesn't prove anything one way or the other that the PL did something illegal. Things get leaked to journalists all the time, that's how stories break.

We didn't learn anything really, well maybe to be wary of breaking news next week..

The point remains, it's all on how the judge rules in the jurisdiction claim. We're not winning arbitration.

Even if the CAT case is weak, the PL won't want any sensitive info coming out that makes them look bad. This is why they could settle.

We lose the jurisdiction and the whole thing is dead in the water. 

For me, the whole case rests on this, Keith is basically blackmailing them to go the easy route, TBF if it works then so be it.

My personal feeling when everything is stripped away is you can't deal with the Saudis on arms but not football clubs.

# the bit in bold you can't see #

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Ben

[Decky]

Keith was way out of his depth last night arguing with Ben and was embarrassing at times. 
 

FWIW I support what he’s doing and I’m fully behind him but him and Ben were night and day.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Decky

[gdm]

19 minutes ago, Decky said:

Keith was way out of his depth last night arguing with Ben and was embarrassing at times. 
 

FWIW I support what he’s doing and I’m fully behind him but him and Ben were night and day.

Not surprising one is a professional and one is a bit of joke 

[Darth Crooks]

9 hours ago, Candi_Hills said:

I honestly don't know what to make of Keith. "Amanda said she wanted fan led action and that's why I stepped forward." Listening to it again, I think he might just be saying that he responded to her public request for fan action, although he has said on twitter before that he's had contact with buyer and seller. Then again, he has repeatedly stated that he needed to first establish whether there was still a willing buyer and seller, so his contact with the buyers may just have been some preliminary legal letter.

It's a comforting thought to think Amanda has her hand up his arse and is working him like Rod Hull but I think the truth might be that he really is the little man who tried to take on the machine and he gets bits of info here and there. A lot of what he says is obviously informed by Robert O'Donoghue. I wish she'd put her hand up my arse.

Loved the leftfield ending to that ?

[NE27]

10 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

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.

Fair, I honestly didn't know where he came from.

Fortunately I gave up reading all the far fetched stories/overtly negative stories last year. 

 

Bad for your mental health!