Ben Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 I thought we had a separate bullshit twitter rumours thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 Takeover related Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 8 minutes ago, Ben said: Takeover related Sorry, I didn’t mean your post - I don’t think my page updated properly. I mean Slim’s Marseille rumour. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Linton Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 1 hour ago, Ben said: What a load of rubbish. Nufc trust council member too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 If the PL had disqualified the takeover instead of offering arbitration instead, we would have ended up before the PL judiciary panel instead. This panel are allegedly independent but are selected by the PL it seems. As it happens a certain Lord Dyson is also on this panel. As Staveley was keen for them to actually make a decision, she must have felt this option was a better route. I’ve seen it mentioned today that this route is quicker than arbitration and also if bid had been rejected the consortium would have got their deposit back. Perhaps the latter answers my own question why Staveley would want a decision made as opposed to arbitration. https://brandsmiths.co.uk/blog/view/?permalink=brandsmiths-instructed-in-first-case-before-the-new-premier-league-judicial-panel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 The fact it would take weeks as opposed to months, would certainly have suited the PL at the time. They we’re deliberately kicking the can down the road and dragging their feet. They we’re also well aware that the agreed deal with Ashley was due to expire and hoping the whole thing would just go away. Some good stuff from this account, certainly shut Jacobs up yesterday on the matter of arbitration and disqualification. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 What a fucking shit show. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonArmy1892 Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 When's the next date a decision is getting put back to another date? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Linton Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 21 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said: When's the next date a decision is getting put back to another date? Usually a Friday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 3 hours ago, Whitley mag said: The fact it would take weeks as opposed to months, would certainly have suited the PL at the time. They we’re deliberately kicking the can down the road and dragging their feet. They we’re also well aware that the agreed deal with Ashley was due to expire and hoping the whole thing would just go away. Some good stuff from this account, certainly shut Jacobs up yesterday on the matter of arbitration and disqualification. He’s been proven to be talking bollocks, you have your own thread for stuff like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: He’s been proven to be talking bollocks, you have your own thread for stuff like this. Yeah Jacobs was proved to be talking bollocks. Section F of the rule book should have been applied, you might be easily fooled by the PL spouting gobshite but others aren’t. Edited May 31, 2021 by Whitley mag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 9 hours ago, Joey Linton said: What a load of rubbish. Nufc trust council member too. What's your reason for assuming its rubbish? I have no idea personally, but I'd like to know more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted May 31, 2021 Share Posted May 31, 2021 45 minutes ago, Whitley mag said: Yeah Jacobs was proved to be talking bollocks. Section F of the rule book should have been applied, you might be easily fooled by the PL spouting gobshite but others aren’t. Absolutely, its quite plain that they've broken their rules. The consortium gave the PL the info they say is correct. The PL believe that's not correct, or not complete info and asked for more and the consortium told them they've provided all info. By the PL rules that means the takeover should be rejected. That then leads to the next stage, the consortium being able to appeal. That's the PL's own rules, and its important for them to stick to those rules. Because those of the rules the consortium understood would govern this process when they agreed to buy the club. The idea I've heard so often here that they didn't reject the takeover because they were being helpful, allowing the consortium to finally give the info they wanted, is just so ridiculous. You can't set rules for a process and then change them on the basis that you know best about the well being of the other group in that process. Of course in reality its nothing to do with helping anyone, its a political move and anyone who's honest with themselves can see that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Qatar wrote to 19 clubs asking them not to let the takeover happen, they got their wish and the Premier League have spent a year covering their tracks, whilst the likes of Burnley get taken over by borrowed money that will ultimately be the undoing of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 9 hours ago, Joey Linton said: Usually a Friday. 3pm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 2 hours ago, Ben said: Qatar wrote to 19 clubs asking them not to let the takeover happen, they got their wish and the Premier League have spent a year covering their tracks, whilst the likes of Burnley get taken over by borrowed money that will ultimately be the undoing of the club. Is there actual proof of this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Linton Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 3 hours ago, Ben said: Qatar wrote to 19 clubs asking them not to let the takeover happen, they got their wish and the Premier League have spent a year covering their tracks, whilst the likes of Burnley get taken over by borrowed money that will ultimately be the undoing of the club. I thought we were saying they'd definitely only written to the top six? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 3 hours ago, Ben said: Qatar wrote to 19 clubs asking them not to let the takeover happen, they got their wish and the Premier League have spent a year covering their tracks, whilst the likes of Burnley get taken over by borrowed money that will ultimately be the undoing of the club. 38 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said: Is there actual proof of this? 26 minutes ago, Joey Linton said: I thought we were saying they'd definitely only written to the top six? Didn't Ben J speak to the some of the other clubs and said they also got them? Have to say I never understood what it proves either way. PL can't stop people sending letters and unless you can prove the PL let it sway them then why does it matter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 9 hours ago, Teasy said: What's your reason for assuming its rubbish? I have no idea personally, but I'd like to know more. More people sprouting crap on Twitter they know nothing about and being explained they’re wrong, again (see Xander above). Whitley will probably believe it still though. 9 hours ago, Whitley mag said: Yeah Jacobs was proved to be talking bollocks. Section F of the rule book should have been applied, you might be easily fooled by the PL spouting gobshite but others aren’t. It’s already been clearly explained by Jacobs why Section F isn’t applicable. If you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and believe crap on Twitter from some chap with 12 followers, that’s your own problem. But again, you have your own thread for all of this fake twitter ITK crap - please use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 (edited) As I've said, I don't mind Jacobs, he actually explains his position with relevant information and laws. At the same time its probably best to be mindful he will get a majority of his information from Quatari sources. That's the problem here, it's just his interpretation. The same as I have my interpretation and other NUFC fans will have theres. Granted Jacobs has access to more information, but he won't have the full picture. The only arguments that matter are the ones made before the arbitration panel. No amount of Twitter debate will impact the outcome. Edited June 1, 2021 by The Prophet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, The Prophet said: As I've said, I don't mind Jacobs, he actually explains his position with relevant information and laws. At the same time its probably best to be mindful he will get a majority of his information from Quatari sources. That's the problem here, it's just his interpretation. The same as I have my interpretation and other NUFC fans will have theres. Granted he Jacobs has access to more information, but he won't have the full picture. The only arguments that matter are the ones made before the arbitration panel. No amount of Twitter debate will impact the outcome. He was fairly clear on the podcast - his sources are BeIN, PL and the consortium side. He has sources across all three. Hence why he’s posted balanced content and even some positive snippets. He also checks out the legal stuff with a legal eagle before he posts it. Probably more reliable than Xander then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Again though, he might give us some insight into what arguments could be made by both parties, but he's still a total irrelevance when all is said and done. Neither party will be disclosing their plan of attack to a journo. Anything that likely is leaked will be a distraction or an attempt to discredit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbheed Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Can someone clarify Jacob's point about why rule F.1.1.1 is not applicable? From what I gather, he's saying the test never got to that stage because the 2 sides couldn't agree on who/what should be tested. Is that right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts