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

[B-more Mag]

19 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

Whilst I understand the point you are making, I can see how broad the definition of 'control' is in the PL handbook, and that makes me nervous about the arbitration. The legal opinion from Football Law, Thomas Horton, a barrister whose practice covers sports law and commercial disputes, is clearly implicitly stating that his opinion is the KSA would not meet the definition of 'control' over PIF when he refers to the "degree of separation" being "sufficient for PIF to avoid disqualification as a director".

Also, I think you may have misinterpreted what you say about PIF reporting to the Saudi Council of Economic and Development Affairs. I think that was a one-off resolution issued by the Saudi government in 2015 for PIF to report to the CEDA after which the board of PIF was reformed. I don't think it's an ongoing requirement for them to report to the CEDA. I believe, from what I can gather, PIF is completely autonomous and doesn't have to report back to the government.

And I know you're probably going to say well the government have the power to remove members of the board of PIF so meet the definition of 'control'. Which may be the case, but set against Section 251 of the Companies Act 2006 that's possibly going to look a bit of an unreasonable position to take:

“Shadow director”

(1)In the Companies Acts “shadow director”, in relation to a company, means a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act.

(2)A person is not to be regarded as a shadow director by reason only that the directors act [F1—

(a)on advice given by that person in a professional capacity;

(b)in accordance with instructions, a direction, guidance or advice given by that person in the exercise of a function conferred by or under an enactment;

(c)in accordance with guidance or advice given by that person in that person's capacity as a Minister of the Crown

Possibly. But the definitions of Director and Control aren't limited to what "shadow director" means under the Companies Act -- they're specifically defined terms that are effectively contractually agreed by virtue of the club accepting membership in the PL-- and they expressly contemplate control of board composition as something making a person a director. Maybe the arbitrators can be convinced there's a basis for determining that the definitions aren't enforceable -- I don't know. I'd rather it be clear KSA is outside the definitions, as written, so it doesn't matter whether they're enforceable or not.

Also, here's the what the PIF website says is the PIF Law: https://www.pif.gov.sa/en/GDP Attachments/PIFLawDocument-En.pdf

Quote

 

Article 2The Fund shall report to the Council of Economic and Development Affairs. It shall have a public legal personality as well as financial and administrative independence. The Fund's headquarters shall be in the city of Riyadh; it may, as needed, establish branches within the Kingdom or abroad.

....

Chapter 3The BoardArticle 5The Fund shall have a board of directors to be chaired by the President of the Council of Economic and Development Affairs. Its membership shall include the Governor, as well as a minimum of four experts and specialists, provided they include representatives from relevant agencies; they shall be appointed pursuant to a royal order for a renewable term of five years.

....

Chapter 7Annual ReportArticle 24The Board shall, within 150 days from the end of the Fund’s fiscal year, submit to the Council of Economic and Development Affairs a detailed report on the Fund's operations and activities. The report shall, at a minimum, include:1. The final accounts of the last fiscal year;2. A detailed account of the Fund’s assets and investments and their performance during the last fiscal year;3. The Fund’s audited financial statements;4. An account of any compensations received by Board members; and5. Any other information required by the Council of Economic and Development Affairs.Article 25The Council of Economic and Development Affairs may, upon reviewing the report referred to in Article 24 of this Law, direct the Board to take any action it deems appropriate.

 

Quote

Article 30The Fund may not be dissolved or liquidated except by royal decree, and cases related to dissolution or liquidation shall be heard by the competent judicial authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by B-more Mag

[Scoot]

10 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Jacobs certainly seems to have rattled the twitter mob by getting the better of Keith in Friday night's discussions. 

Jacobs just making an arse of himself on twitter again. Class the way hes been schooled on twitter with people posting the PL's rules up and how they didnt follow their own rules. Unlucky Ben. Keep your trap shut talking shite in future.

[Teasy]

58 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Jacobs certainly seems to have rattled the twitter mob by getting the better of Keith in Friday night's discussions. 

Aye he's rattled them into exposing his nonsense and lack of knowledge ?. His claim that the PL couldn't reject the takeover because the consortium wouldnt put the person they wanted to test, and likely reject, forward is patently wrong.  It's right there quoted in the PL rules.  The PL can fail the test for lack of info including failure to put forward a director that the PL believe is involved.  The bloke hasn't got a clue.

[Mattoon]

Like I said a few pages back, each side has their agenda, Jacobs might be a little more clued up than others but he's still a layman. It's in his vested interest to play down the other side and try and discredit them, just as it is for Keith to do the same for the buyers. Not worth getting riled up about, Jacobs has chosen his side.

[Hhtoon]

1 hour ago, Joey Linton said:

Jacobs certainly seems to have rattled the twitter mob by getting the better of Keith in Friday night's discussions. 

Someone with absolutely no say or influence getting the better of someone else with no say or influence. 

Since when did these 2 become symbolic of whether or not the takeover happens? Their verbal jousting means fuck all.

[Wandy]

55 minutes ago, Scoot said:

Jacobs just making an arse of himself on twitter again. Class the way hes been schooled on twitter with people posting the PL's rules up and how they didnt follow their own rules. Unlucky Ben. Keep your trap shut talking shite in future.

Yeah, his impartiality is looking a bit suss today mind. 

[Fantail Breeze]

6 hours ago, reefatoon said:

Go into the positive thread. See Fanny going on about people talking shite. Come into this thread. See Fanny talking just as much shite. 

Where’s my post about people talking shite in the positive thread? Not like people to exaggerate and make things up.

As I’ve said to others, don’t like my posts? Block me. Or, contribute to the threads with something worthwhile rather than drivel like the above.

[BlueStar]

11 hours ago, Ben said:

 

I mean there's "cutthroat" and there's "cuts throats"

[Guest reefatoon]

Loves the sound of his own drivel. Has  a misplaced sense of superiority. Fanny breeze is KI isn’t he.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by reefatoon

[Whitley mag]

This Xander is spot on.

 

[Fantail Breeze]

5 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

This Xander is spot on.

 

Jacobs’ follow up tweets point out how Xander is wrong, fyi.

 

[Whitley mag]

13 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Jacobs’ follow up tweets point out how Xander is wrong, fyi.

 

Disagree entirely he claims it was unfair to disqualify and therefore arbitration offer was made. The rule book allows for disqualification and consortium made clear KSA would not be put forward as director. 

[Joey Linton]

 

 

[bobbydazzla]

908 pages of nowt.

Shan. 

[Whitley mag]

The key being arbitration must be offered. The consortium didn’t want arbitration they knew what PL was up to. They wanted a decision even if it was disqualification which the PL refused to make. As if the PL are bothered about being unfair.

[Wandy]

What would have happened if the PL had actually gone ahead and said "you have failed the test because we think the Saudi state is a shadow director that you are hiding from us"...?

Like, who would the appeal have gone through? The PL again? Or a court of some kind?

[B-more Mag]

6 minutes ago, Wandy said:

What would have happened if the PL had actually gone ahead and said "you have failed the test because we think the Saudi state is a shadow director that you are hiding from us"...?

Like, who would the appeal have gone through? The PL again? Or a court of some kind?

A PL appeal panel, with members selected by the chair of the PL judicial panel. Its determination would be binding.

Quote

F.13.Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s) in accordance with the following Rules. However, for the avoidance of doubt, unless and until any such appeal is upheld, the disqualification notice(s) will remain in full effect.

....

F.16.An appeal under the provisions of Rule F.13 shall lie to an appeal tribunal which shall hear the appeal as soon as reasonably practicable. The appeal tribunal shall be appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel and shall comprise three members of the Judicial Panel including a legally qualified member who shall sit as chairman of the tribunal.

....

F.22.The decision of the appeal tribunal shall be final and binding on the appellant Person and Club.

 

[et tu brute]

11 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

A PL appeal panel, with members selected by the chair of the PL judicial panel. Its determination would be binding.

 

Why is it when it goes to appeal (also the case with the arbitration) it goes to a selected chair by the Premier League?, especially when it is a decision by the Premier League that you appealing about. Surely it should be a totally independent authority selected. I obviously don’t know the legalities, just seems to me to open up accusations of unfairness and dare I say it possible corruption.

[Wandy]

6 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Why is it when it goes to appeal (also the case with the arbitration) it goes to a selected chair by the Premier League?, especially when it is a decision by the Premier League that you appealing about. Surely it should be a totally independent authority selected. I obviously don’t know the legalities, just seems to me to open up accusations of unfairness and dare I say it possible corruption.

Exactly. What all of this shows is that the test needs to be taken out of their hands and tied in fully with UK law, so that appeals go through the courts and not their mates. The game is too important for it to be ran like a country club.

[bobbydazzla]

3 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Exactly. What all of this shows is that the test needs to be taken out of their hands and tied in fully with UK law, so that appeals go through the courts and not their mates. The game is too important for it to be ran like a country club.

Cunty club 

[Wandy]

29 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

A PL appeal panel, with members selected by the chair of the PL judicial panel. Its determination would be binding.

 

So I guess they dont have as close mates on the PL judicial panel as they do on the arbitration panel. Otherwise they could have failed it last year and made it quickly go away for good?

[InspectorCoarse]

 

[Hhtoon]

44 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

The key being arbitration must be offered. The consortium didn’t want arbitration they knew what PL was up to. They wanted a decision even if it was disqualification which the PL refused to make. As if the PL are bothered about being unfair.

I'm sure I'm missing something but...

1. the PL will only disqualify someone if it's been agreed that additional people/parties need testing and the buyers don't disclose the info. 

2. However if the buyers don't agree they need testing, then arbitration takes place to decide whether they do or not.

Surely 2 has to happen before 1 so there was no disqualification decision to be made as we didn't accept arbitration?

Its very confusing 

 

[Whitley mag]

Jacobs must have impeccable sources at the PL that’s for sure.

 

[et tu brute]

11 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Jacobs must have impeccable sources at the PL that’s for sure.

 

I’ve got no doubt he’s being fed by the PL and BEin to put their agenda in the media, I’ve thought that all the way through this. You don’t get information contained in a non disclosure letter unless you are. Best just to wait for the decision to be made within the legal cases. I keep saying it, but nobody can be sure, as we don’t have a clue what’s being presented on either side. We just got to hope the perspective dates are this time accurate and we can get a final conclusion to what has become a charade.