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

[Joey Linton]

4 minutes ago, mouldy_uk said:

Not sure why all the "positivity only" nonsense is now all over this thread. They've been spouting off for weeks about how they have their own thread for it and anyone who has doubts should keep out of it. 

[Jinky Jim]

16 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

To be fair Joey I’m still waiting for you to answer my question earlier. Go on put an opinion out there with some substance, instead of just trashing others and liking your mate Fanny’s posts.

For our own sanity Whitley, think it’s time to pop over to the other thread and hope we’re not followed?

[Wilson]

17 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Not sure why all the "positivity only" nonsense is now all over this thread. They've been spouting off for weeks about how they have their own thread for it and anyone who has doubts should keep out of it. 

Been wondering this myself. Probably because it's bit quiet over there as people are bored of the opinions being stated as unerring fact. 

So the usual suspects have piled in here with their annoying 'FACTS!' shite. 

Fuckin 'we know the logic' man ? get a grip. 

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Wilson

[Joey Linton]

8 minutes ago, Wilson said:

Been wondering this myself. Probably because it's bit quiet over there as people are bored of the opinions being stated as unerring fact. 

So the usual suspects have piled in here with their annoying 'FACTS!' shite. 

Fuckin 'we know the logic' man ? get a grip. 

 

I'm currently being chastised for liking posts I agree with, on a thread I was told to keep my opinions in, by people who said they wouldn't post in it.

[TheHoob]

Same people who go into the positivity thread and shit all over it can't then complain about the positivity lot coming and infesting this place either mind  

[Jinky Jim]

25 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Not sure why all the "positivity only" nonsense is now all over this thread. They've been spouting off for weeks about how they have their own thread for it and anyone who has doubts should keep out of it. 

 

25 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Not sure why all the "positivity only" nonsense is now all over this thread. They've been spouting off for weeks about how they have their own thread for it and anyone who has doubts should keep out of it. 

Thought this thread was for discussion whichever side of the takeover you’re on….its not exclusive to either thinking…..whilst the other thread is for the relief of us positive idiots to indulge in happy times?…..if we don’t use this thread for discussion of both attitudes then there is nowhere to go to indulge our opinions. I quite like this thread because I can view both viewpoints and make up my own mind on where I believe the takeover stands.

[Wilson]

It would be fair enough if it was discussing... But it's bullshit like this that makes me bite.... 

2 hours ago, manorpark said:

What a ridiculous statement, just 'made up' out of nothing but ignorance.

Whitley Mag understands the logic, and (in the same way that I do) is able to filter out the prejudice, naivety, and inferiority-complex thinking, that blights many on here.

The outcome of all this is obvious. Why so many choose not to see it is (I admit) COMPLETELY beyond me. 

 

Absolute condescending horse shit. 

Just slating people because they aren't blindly optimistic. 

[Guest reefatoon]

Saturdays are always so spikey. Fella’s, it’s a gorgeous weekend of sunshine, just go and enjoy it. 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by reefatoon

[Hhtoon]

5 minutes ago, reefatoon said:

Saturdays are always so spikey. Fella’s, it’s a gorgeous weekend of sunshine, just go and enjoy it. 

Weekends suck dick, I hate the sun, love being miserable and don't appreciate you forcing your viewpoint on to me.

Save it for the blind optimism thread please

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Hhtoon

[Wilson]

8 minutes ago, reefatoon said:

Saturdays are always so spikey. Fella’s, it’s a gorgeous weekend of sunshine, just go and enjoy it. 

I'm loving the weather today like. 

Sat in the garden while the bairns dive around the pool, shame my boredom dragged me into this cess pit earlier

[B-more Mag]

On 28/05/2021 at 13:38, Jackie Broon said:

Not when they have explicitly asked for a decision to be made (which Staveley has said they did) and by refusing to make a decision the PL denied them the right to appeal.

I deal with decision making processes that are in some distant ways similar in my job, if I were to act the way the PL have, refusing to make a decision and so denying the right of appeal, I would get absolutely torn apart by the ombudsman that regulates what I do.

I see both sides of the argument in terms of the KSA being in control of the club. I'm probably about 50/50 on which way that argument will go (although I'm more confident that the PL will settle before it gets to that). But there's just no argument that the PL have behaved correctly in how they've gone about the decision making process.

Ultimately it would end up in arbitration, exactly where it is, on effectively the exact same issue: was the PL justified in determining the KSA is a director (only difference being a preliminary vs final determination)

[Guest reefatoon]

5 minutes ago, Wilson said:

I'm loving the weather today like. 

Sat in the garden while the bairns dive around the pool, shame my boredom dragged me into this cess pit earlier

 aye, not long been back in too from a cracking day out, opened a drink, had a quick look in then straight back out . Enjoy bud 

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

Ultimately it would end up in arbitration, exactly where it is, on effectively the exact same issue: was the PL justified in determining the KSA is a director (only difference being a preliminary vs final determination)

There's a specific appeals process for disqualification of directors (set out in rules F.13-F.22 of the PL Handbook) which the club were denied access to because the PL refused to give notice under rule F.6 that the proposed directors were disqualified (under rule F.1.1.1).

Reading through that it seems like it would be a much faster process than arbitration. Had the club failed in the appeal I suppose we could have ended up at arbitration anyway but it was completely unreasonable behaviour of the PL to block the club's access to O&D test appeal process.

[Fantail Breeze]

27 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

Ultimately it would end up in arbitration, exactly where it is, on effectively the exact same issue: was the PL justified in determining the KSA is a director (only difference being a preliminary vs final determination)

What are your thoughts (based on the tiny info we know) about the club’s case? Do you think it has a chance?

[et tu brute]

2 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

What are your thoughts (based on the tiny info we know) about the club’s case? Do you think it has a chance?

Don't think anyone can answer that with confidence (even people in the legal arena), due to as you mentioned the 'tiny info we know'. Nobody knows what either sides legal case is and what facts and documentation they will present during the case(s).  All we can do is just wait for the authorities in their legal popsitions to consider all the evidence and make the decision. I don't take much notice of people (on here, Twitter etc.) saying they are confident or not, as nobody has a clue what cases will be presented by either side.

[B-more Mag]

 

33 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

What are your thoughts (based on the tiny info we know) about the club’s case? Do you think it has a chance? 

Based on the PL rule definitions of director and control, and the way the High Court opinion and CAT opinion describe the issue in the arbitration, I'd rather be in the PL's shoes than the club’s (though, to be very clear, fuck the PL). I just haven't seen anything to suggest that the KSA doesn't have the authority to control the PIF by virtue of the authority to appoint its directors, or that the PIF wouldn't have the authority to ultimately control the club. I suppose it's possible the KSA doesn't actually control its own sovereign investment fund, with its board comprising a bunch of KSA ministers, but ... not really. And that "Football Law" piece some have mentioned was all about how the KSA shouldn't be disqualified as a director--not that KSA wouldn't fall within the definition of a director.

[Fantail Breeze]

4 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Based on the PL rule definitions of director and control, and the way the High Court opinion and CAT opinion describe the issue in the arbitration, I'd rather be in the PL's shoes than the club’s (though, to be very clear, fuck the PL). I just haven't seen anything to suggest that the KSA doesn't have the authority to control the PIF by virtue of the authority to appoint its directors, or that the PIF wouldn't have the authority to ultimately control the club. I suppose it's possible the KSA doesn't actually control its own sovereign investment fund, with its board comprising a bunch of KSA ministers, but ... not really. And that "Football Law" piece some have mentioned was all about how the KSA shouldn't be disqualified as a director--not that KSA wouldn't fall within the definition of a director.

 Really helpful, thanks.

[Whitley mag]

59 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Based on the PL rule definitions of director and control, and the way the High Court opinion and CAT opinion describe the issue in the arbitration, I'd rather be in the PL's shoes than the club’s (though, to be very clear, fuck the PL). I just haven't seen anything to suggest that the KSA doesn't have the authority to control the PIF by virtue of the authority to appoint its directors, or that the PIF wouldn't have the authority to ultimately control the club. I suppose it's possible the KSA doesn't actually control its own sovereign investment fund, with its board comprising a bunch of KSA ministers, but ... not really. And that "Football Law" piece some have mentioned was all about how the KSA shouldn't be disqualified as a director--not that KSA wouldn't fall within the definition of a director.

The football law piece suggests they would be classed as a separate legal entity. So your take is that won’t be sufficient and the govt will be classed as having control by PL rules ? 

Writing on Football Law, Norton explained: "It is this author’s opinion that, unless it is demonstrated that the KSA PIF itself has facilitated or funded beoutQ, the degree of separation between the KSA’s system of government and the KSA PIF that is seemingly apparent – that the KSA PIF is a separate legal entity and is operated for the benefit of the KSA but not by the KSA per se – would be sufficient for the KSA PIF to avoid disqualification as a Director pursuant to the ODT."

If your interpretation is correct, then  the Man City ownership model would surely be called into question. Regardless of a further sporting ownership vehicle being set up, surely the Abhu Dhabi govt would have ultimate control in that scenario also ?

[Hhtoon]

39 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

The football law piece suggests they would be classed as a separate legal entity. So your take is that won’t be sufficient and the govt will be classed as having control by PL rules ? 

Writing on Football Law, Norton explained: "It is this author’s opinion that, unless it is demonstrated that the KSA PIF itself has facilitated or funded beoutQ, the degree of separation between the KSA’s system of government and the KSA PIF that is seemingly apparent – that the KSA PIF is a separate legal entity and is operated for the benefit of the KSA but not by the KSA per se – would be sufficient for the KSA PIF to avoid disqualification as a Director pursuant to the ODT."

If your interpretation is correct, then  the Man City ownership model would surely be called into question. Regardless of a further sporting ownership vehicle being set up, surely the Abhu Dhabi govt would have ultimate control in that scenario also ?

Unless I'm mistaken, the issue isn't necessarily that they won't pass, it's just that they/MBS or whoever won't agree to being submitted as a person with control. 

[Whitley mag]

8 minutes ago, Hhtoon said:

Unless I'm mistaken, the issue isn't necessarily that they won't pass, it's just that they/MBS or whoever won't agree to being submitted as a person with control. 

I don’t even think they’ve asked for MBS to be named, it’s that they want the state to be named as a director.

The question is would they want the state to be named if they didn’t want to link the piracy. If it was the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund would they be asking for the govt to be named as a director. My personal opinion is I don’t think so.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Wandy]

When will we know after June 11th if the PL have been successful in having the CAT thrown out?

[Hhtoon]

7 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

I don’t even think they’ve asked for MBS to be named, it’s that they want the state to be named as a director.

The question is would they want the state to be named if they didn’t want to link the piracy. If it was the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund would they be asking for the govt to be named as a director. My personal opinion is I don’t think so.

I had thought they'd named several specific people and it was just Staveley that mentioned the state but it's a little hazy now! I do agree it felt that piracy was what they were angling for though.  

[B-more Mag]

1 hour ago, Whitley mag said:

The football law piece suggests they would be classed as a separate legal entity. So your take is that won’t be sufficient and the govt will be classed as having control by PL rules ? 

Writing on Football Law, Norton explained: "It is this author’s opinion that, unless it is demonstrated that the KSA PIF itself has facilitated or funded beoutQ, the degree of separation between the KSA’s system of government and the KSA PIF that is seemingly apparent – that the KSA PIF is a separate legal entity and is operated for the benefit of the KSA but not by the KSA per se – would be sufficient for the KSA PIF to avoid disqualification as a Director pursuant to the ODT."

If your interpretation is correct, then  the Man City ownership model would surely be called into question. Regardless of a further sporting ownership vehicle being set up, surely the Abhu Dhabi govt would have ultimate control in that scenario also ?

The concept of existence as a separate legal entity and the concept of control are distinct. It is entirely possible, and in fact common, for entities to be separate and distinct from one another while one has control over the other. For example, in a parent and subsidiary corporate relationship, the corporations are separate--the parent is not the same entity as the subsidiary and vice versa--but the parent controls the subsidiary by virtue of owning its stock and having the right to appoint and remove its directors. That's not the exact thing happening here, because we've got a state and a sovereign investment fund, and I buy that they are separate entities. But the PIF was formed by royal decree and reports to the Saudi Council of Economic and Development Affairs. 

I don't know all the details of Man City's ownership, but my understanding is that they don't have a sovereign wealth fund in their chain of ownership.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by B-more Mag

[Whitley mag]

1 minute ago, B-more Mag said:

The concept of existence as a separate legal entity and the concept of control are distinct. It is entirely possible, and in fact common, for entities to be separate and distinct from one another while one has control over the other. For example, in a parent and subsidiary corporate relationship, the corporations are separate--the parent is not the same entity as the subsidiary and vice versa--but the parent controls the subsidiary by virtue of owning it's stock and having the right to appoint and remove its directors. That's not the exact thing happening here, because we've got a state and a sovereign investment fund, and I buy that they are separate entities. But the PIF was formed by royal decree and reports to the Saudi Council of Economic and Development Affairs. 

I don't know all the details of Man City's ownership, but my understanding is that they don't have a sovereign wealth fund in their chain of ownership.

The only difference with the Man City model is that they appear to have been a lot more street wise in getting around the rules. The fact that they are sponsored by Etihad and have Abhu Dhabi plastered everywhere suggests more than purely sponsorship. 

Though the Abhu Dhabi United Group denied links to the state, it is a stretch to believe they are separate.

It was initially thought that Abu Dhabi United Group was a part of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund owned by Abu Dhabi. But Abu Dhabi United Group had denied connection to the government of Abu Dhabi.

Masdar and Mubadala Developments, sister investment vehicles of Abu Dhabi managed by Manchester City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak also holds numerous investments which are linked to ADUG.

Mubadala Investment Company PJSC(Arabic: شركة مبادلة للاستثمار‎) (Mubadala) is an Emirati state-owned holding company that can be characterized as a sovereign wealth fund. It was established in January 2017 as a Public Joint Stock Company, merging the then-named Mubadala Development Company (now Mamoura Diversified Global Holding) and the International Petroleum Investment Company(IPIC), and is a wholly owned investment vehicle of the government of Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates.

[Dr Jinx]

45 minutes ago, Wandy said:

When will we know after June 11th if the PL have been successful in having the CAT thrown out?

My guess is the PL will load the judge with "evidence" to support their claim. The more the better as far as they are concerned.

Delay tactics again. No idea how the judge will side with it. If it gets thrown out the game is up but if it continues they'll see another delay as a win, especially if arbitration is going their way.

We need to tip the balance in our favour soon.