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

[Jackie Broon]

2 hours ago, Thumbheed said:

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? 

He might be right as in that's what happened, but he's wrong that the PL couldn't have disqualified PIF on the basis of F.1.1.1 or that it was a reasonable thing for the PL to do to require arbitration rather than make a decision that could be appealed.

The two sides don't need to agree, the PL are the decision maker and are there to make a decision, if the club/consortium didn't agree with the decision they could then appeal it.

Jacobs presents stuff in a convincing seemingly balanced way but if you actually look into what he's saying it often isn't correct, or there's a element of truth that has been twisted or overplayed. He definitely has an agenda.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[mrmojorisin75]

I mean it's law/rules right, so he's arguing over an interpretation of that just as the twitter legal team are arguing the opposite

That's what everything will come down to in the end, did they reasonably apply the rules and as none of us know the details of what took place in terms of direct correspondence and requests/provisions it's all pointless speculation as what both sides are saying could be correct depending on the details

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

I mean it's law/rules right, so he's arguing over an interpretation of that just as the twitter legal team are arguing the opposite

That's what everything will come down to in the end, did they reasonably apply the rules and as none of us know the details of what took place in terms of direct correspondence and requests/provisions it's all pointless speculation as what both sides are saying could be correct depending on the details

Well, not really, he actually said the "EPL wouldn’t be following their own guidelines if they just said “it’s rejected due to names affiliated to the bid you don’t think are affiliated or haven’t listed.”" then he was presented with rule F.1.1.1, which says almost exactly that. That's not a matter of interpretation, that's just wrong. He was caught out not really knowing what he was talking about.

[mrmojorisin75]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

Well, not really, he actually said the "EPL wouldn’t be following their own guidelines if they just said “it’s rejected due to names affiliated to the bid you don’t think are affiliated or haven’t listed.”" then he was presented with rule F.1.1.1, which says almost exactly that. That's not a matter of interpretation, that's just wrong. He was caught out not really knowing what he was talking about.

Hm, perhaps you're making my point for me.

I'm not following this as closely as some, you presumably, but look at your own post a few up:

Quote

He might be right as in that's what happened, but he's wrong that the PL couldn't have disqualified PIF on the basis of F.1.1.1 or that it was a reasonable thing for the PL to do to require arbitration rather than make a decision that could be appealed.

Do the rules say they have to disqualify them in these specific circumstances?  That's how laws and rules work, if it's not black & white then you argue interpretation.  We simply don't know what went back and forth between the lawyers so it could be that he's right, it could also be that he's wrong.  I don't know and neither do you because you haven't seen the details of what was requested or provided.

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

Hm, perhaps you're making my point for me.

I'm not following this as closely as some, you presumably, but look at your own post a few up:

Do the rules say they have to disqualify them in these specific circumstances?  That's how laws and rules work, if it's not black & white then you argue interpretation.  We simply don't know what went back and forth between the lawyers so it could be that he's right, it could also be that he's wrong.  I don't know and neither do you because you haven't seen the details of what was requested or provided.

As far as I can see Jacobs was the one taking in absolutes, that they couldn't refuse on that basis, but they clearly could have. Whether that was correct for the PL to do is a matter for interpretation and debate, but he made an absolute statement that was shown to be incorrect.

[Dr Jinx]

I think it's a simplification to say they couldn't agree on who to test. The consortium put forward their relevant nominations who all would have flown through the test based on its normal criteria.

The issue is an agenda by the PL to sort out copyright infringement, so by requesting a state to be a director (which is unprecedented) hoping that they could gain leverage.

There's nowhere in their rulebook that covers this so they have acted well outside the bounds on their test. They should have disqualified PIF based on their assumptions.

[Thumbheed]

I don't even know if the point is relevant to the arbritation case, but I just don't understand how it can be argued that the PL needed to agree with who should be tested before the test can progress to the stage where they can disqualify said party for not disclosing a Director as per Jacob's point? 

Any ideas?

[mrmojorisin75]

4 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

I think it's a simplification to say they couldn't agree on who to test. The consortium put forward their relevant nominations who all would have flown through the test based on its normal criteria.

The issue is an agenda by the PL to sort out copyright infringement, so by requesting a state to be a director (which is unprecedented) hoping that they could gain leverage.

There's nowhere in their rulebook that covers this so they have acted well outside the bounds on their test. They should have disqualified PIF based on their assumptions.

Do you know this for a fact?  I know we all believe it, and that's what Staveley has implied, but proving it might well be a very different matter.

[andyc35i]

It seems that the scenario was that the PL stated the information given was not correct - ‘we don’t believe the information given to us on owners proposed so we can’t test you’.... In that scenario, the outcome is that the PL have to either fail the bidders according to the rules or offer arbitration. Surely they will argue that they have done everything correctly even if the rules appear different on paper.

[mrmojorisin75]

3 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

It seems that the scenario was that the PL stated the information given was not correct - ‘we don’t believe the information given to us on owners proposed so we can’t test you’.... In that scenario, the outcome is that the PL have to either fail the bidders according to the rules or offer arbitration. Surely they will argue that they have done everything correctly even if the rules appear different on paper.

Arbitration in that case would be over the individual  failure decision though no, whereas they offered arbitration over who to test (apparently).

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

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.

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.

I’d like you to show us why section f shouldn’t have been applied rather than rely on Jacobs ? Jacobs is towing the PL line that you seem quick to accept. If you can point me to the para in PL rule book that would be greatly appreciated Fanny.

[gjohnson]

1 minute ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

Arbitration in that case would be over the individual  failure decision though no, whereas they offered arbitration over who to test (apparently).

Long and the short of it is that no-one outside of the proceedings knows what was actually submitted. 

Jacobs might well be arguing semantics, but he won't know the details of who and what has been submitted.

The PL didn't make a decision either way, and while their own rules read that they should have the interpretation of them is what the arbitration is ultimately about.

Given that they were happy to approve Burnleys takeover which has basically screwed them into a Sunderland situation, this all appears to be a delaying tactic to keep the 'Rich 6' happy (refuse to say top6 anymore since its clearly not the case). 

  

[Scoot]

People thinking Jacobs has the whole thing sussed. Fuck me man.

[gjohnson]

Just now, Scoot said:

People thinking Jacobs has the whole thing sussed. Fuck me man.

Exactly, he might have a bit more information, but he's a journalist not a lawyer

[Jackie Broon]

34 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

I don't even know if the point is relevant to the arbritation case, but I just don't understand how it can be argued that the PL needed to agree with who should be tested before the test can progress to the stage where they can disqualify said party for not disclosing a Director as per Jacob's point? 

Any ideas?

It's not directly relevant to the arbitration because that is only on whether the KSA meet the definition of control in Section A of the PL Handbook. The arbitration won't be considering whether the KSA would pass or fail the Owners' & Directors' test if it determines that they would be in control.

Of course it would be reasonable for the PL to allow for the KSA to be declared rather than disqualifying the other directors immediately (although that's what the letter of the rules imply should happen) but if, as happened, the consortium refused to submit a declaration for the KSA and refused the offer of arbitration, the PL really should have just made a decision.

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[manorpark]

6 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Given that they were happy to approve Burnleys takeover which has basically screwed them into a Sunderland situation, this all appears to be a delaying tactic to keep the 'Rich 6' happy (refuse to say top6 anymore since its clearly not the case). 

  

They have never been called the "Top Six", because they never have been that. They just got nicknamed by Sky as the so-called "BIG Six", not Top Six.

Their full pathetic Title really is . . . "The So Called Sky Big Picture Corrupt Six" !!!!

[gjohnson]

1 minute ago, manorpark said:

They have never been called the "Top Six", because they never have been that. They just got nicknamed by Sky as the so-called "BIG Six", not Top Six.

Their full pathetic Title really is . . . "The So Called Sky Big Picture Corrupt Six" !!!!

:-) and this is what is meant by semantics 

Whatever they're called, Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal, and Liverpool have the influence to control whatever happens to all the other clubs in the league.

You say tomato and all that....it's all down to interpretation, and who stands to benefit.

It could be argued that the PL would benefit massively from a takeover that pushes NUFC up by increasing the interest and actual viewers, while it could also be argued that their PLs most influential members just don't want to lose their share to another competitor and exerted pressure to achieve this

[manorpark]

1 minute ago, gjohnson said:

It could be argued that the PL would benefit massively from a takeover that pushes NUFC up by increasing the interest and actual viewers, while it could also be argued that their PLs most influential members just don't want to lose their share to another competitor and exerted pressure to achieve this

Exactly.

[Jackie Broon]

2 hours ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

Hm, perhaps you're making my point for me.

I'm not following this as closely as some, you presumably, but look at your own post a few up:

Do the rules say they have to disqualify them in these specific circumstances?  That's how laws and rules work, if it's not black & white then you argue interpretation.  We simply don't know what went back and forth between the lawyers so it could be that he's right, it could also be that he's wrong.  I don't know and neither do you because you haven't seen the details of what was requested or provided.

At the time the declaration was submitted these were the relevant parts (F.4 was amended in January of this year to remove any person taking control of a club and a new section relating to taking control added):

The process starts with the submission of a declaration for each proposed director:

F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club):

F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules;

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6; and

F.4.3. he shall not become a Director until the Club has received confirmation from the Board pursuant to Rule F.4.2 above that he is not liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1

 

The 'provisions in Rule F.1' include:

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

So the process so far is the club submits a declaration for each director it wishes to appoint (including anyone taking control of the club) the rules explicitly state the PL board shall confirm within 5 working days whether that person is liable to be disqualified as a director. The rules are completely silent on what happens if they ignore that timescale, so there is no consequence for the PL in not sticking to that timescale it but it is written in definite terms with no other option specified in Section F.

In this case the board eventually decided in June that the KSA would be taking control of the club. Which means that the club/PIF had 'failed to provide all relevant information' either to disclose the KSA as a director or to demonstrate that they would not be, therefore PIF were 'liable to be disqualified as a director under the provisions in Rule F.1' The rules state that the Board 'will take the steps set out in Rule F.6' at that point.

 

F.6. Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will:

F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and

F.6.2. give written notice to the relevant Club that the Person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from his office as such.

 

Again the 'provisions in F.1.' include simply failing to 'provide all relevant information' and 'upon becoming aware' is an immediate term. So my interpretation is that, yes, by the letter of their rules they should have disqualified PIF in June when they determined that the KSA would be a director.

As you say, that is just an interpretation and other people could have other interpretations. But all interpretations are not equal, an interpretation has to be based on reasoned analysis I haven't really seen anything backed up by the rules that supports the PL not making a decision.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[mrmojorisin75]

A lot of that is fair  

From my own cursory knowledge of it all I feel there's more than enough wiggle room for them within the process to weasel out of it.  But then I've no faith in anything good ever happening anymore

[Guest reefatoon]

4 hours ago, Scoot said:

People thinking Jacobs has the whole thing sussed. Fuck me man.

It's no surprise, he has form like. Also said Ashley is doing all this as a charade  

[Stifler]

3 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

At the time the declaration was submitted these were the relevant parts (F.4 was amended in January of this year to remove any person taking control of a club and a new section relating to taking control added):

The process starts with the submission of a declaration for each proposed director:

F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club):

F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules;

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6; and

F.4.3. he shall not become a Director until the Club has received confirmation from the Board pursuant to Rule F.4.2 above that he is not liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1

 

The 'provisions in Rule F.1' include:

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

So the process so far is the club submits a declaration for each director it wishes to appoint (including anyone taking control of the club) the rules explicitly state the PL board shall confirm within 5 working days whether that person is liable to be disqualified as a director. The rules are completely silent on what happens if they ignore that timescale, so there is no consequence for the PL in not sticking to that timescale it but it is written in definite terms with no other option specified in Section F.

In this case the board eventually decided in June that the KSA would be taking control of the club. Which means that the club/PIF had 'failed to provide all relevant information' either to disclose the KSA as a director or to demonstrate that they would not be, therefore PIF were 'liable to be disqualified as a director under the provisions in Rule F.1' The rules state that the Board 'will take the steps set out in Rule F.6' at that point.

 

F.6. Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will:

F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and

F.6.2. give written notice to the relevant Club that the Person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from his office as such.

 

Again the 'provisions in F.1.' include simply failing to 'provide all relevant information' and 'upon becoming aware' is an immediate term. So my interpretation is that, yes, by the letter of their rules they should have disqualified PIF in June when they determined that the KSA would be a director.

As you say, that is just an interpretation and other people could have other interpretations. But all interpretations are not equal, an interpretation has to be based on reasoned analysis I haven't really seen anything backed up by the rules that supports the PL not making a decision.

Totally off topic really, but why is it worded ‘he’ instead of he/she or they/them?

[Jackie Broon]

It does seem horrifically anachronistic.

[Stal]

32 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Totally off topic really, but why is it worded ‘he’ instead of he/she or they/them?

It's a legal thing. It's accepted that all laws, contracts etc say he/him/his etc (unless specifically applicable) to save any unnecessary confusion.

[ToonArmy1892]

Anyone think we'll be under new ownership come the first game of the season?