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

[Robster]

1 hour ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

He also looks like Sam Matterface.

With a touch of Steven Merchant.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Robster

[ToonArmy1892]

Why the PL got to wait till the last possible minute to respond to these things, delaying shitbags.

[Wilson]

To keep their puppet masters happy. 

 

[Consortium of one]

The affair has been a giant delaying tactic.  I hope the entire truth comes out.

[Chris_R]

I completely get the frustration at the delays, but in the entire history of law has any defendant ever done anything different, ever?

 

Under an "innocent until proven guilty" system, without a 100% chance of success in their defence doesn't everyone always just kick the can down the road? Doesn't make it any less frustrating, but to paint it as a specific tactic that the PL have invented just for this case is a bit bizarre.

[nbthree3]

More time is both a good and a bad thing - bad because the process is drawn out far longer than it could have. The Beloff appeal took half a year alone to appeal and we were unsuccessful there, but the reasoning behind it was absolutely justified so it's alright. But good because it's more time to prepare for both cases to create that watertight argument and hope that there's enough time for disclosure to reveal crucial evidence for Ashley's side! Do want it to be over though, we all agree there

[Robster]

26 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

I completely get the frustration at the delays, but in the entire history of law has any defendant ever done anything different, ever?

 

Under an "innocent until proven guilty" system, without a 100% chance of success in their defence doesn't everyone always just kick the can down the road? Doesn't make it any less frustrating, but to paint it as a specific tactic that the PL have invented just for this case is a bit bizarre.

It's not that bizarre. You can understand why people are so cynical about the PL.

[Chris_R]

12 minutes ago, Robster said:

It's not that bizarre. You can understand why people are so cynical about the PL.

 

Yeah be cynical about the PL, they're a bunch of cunts, but this thread is packed full of incredulity and outrage from people that the PL are not rushing to get to court. But no defendant ever is, in any case, ever.

 

I just can't get behind that mindset that they're doing anything strange or unusual here, because they aren't.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Chris_R

[Guest reefatoon]

13 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Yeah be cynical about the PL, they're a bunch of cunts, but this thread is packed full of incredulity and outrage from people that the PL are not rushing to get to court. But no defendant ever is, in any case, ever.

 

I just can't get behind that mindset that they're doing anything strange or unusual here, because they aren't.

 

To be fair, I don't think anybody is doing this. People are talking about the PL, because that is the what this thread is about, the takeover and the upcoming cases. Just because people are getting annoyed about it dragging on, doesn't mean they don't think it happens all the time with other cases.

 

I fucking hate traffic jams. I know they happen all over the place, but it still doesn't stop me being pissed off when I am in one.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by reefatoon

[TRon]

1 minute ago, reefatoon said:

 

To be fair, I don't think anybody is doing this. People are talking about the PL, because that is the what this thread is about, the takeover and the upcoming cases. Just because people are getting annoyed about it dragging on, doesn't mean they don't think it happens all the time with other cases.

 

Agree. I actually don't care if it takes a month or three months longer if I know the decision is going to be corruption free. But in the back of my mind is always that the PL are still banking on a judge backing them and the big clubs vs NUFC with potential to overthrow the old guard with money from Saudi Arabia. The EPL stands for English football, not really sure if NUFC will have quite the same clout even if technically it is supposed to be about the merits of the case. 

[Wandy]

17 hours ago, nbthree3 said:

https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-newcastle-united-fc-limited-v-football-association-premier-league-limited-judgment-of-the-united-kingdom-high-court-of-justice-2021-ewhc-349-wednesday-24th-february-2021

Paragraph 67:

NUFC maintains that the scope of the arbitration is wider than the "Director" issue. I do not accept that to be so. 

None of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 8 and 17 of NUFC's skeleton submissions engage in any relevant way with Section F of PLL's Rules or with the issues that the 2017 Advice was concerned with. Section F of the Rules is not material in the circumstances to the true construction of the definitions within Section A for the reasons already explained in paragraphs 38-40 of the judgment. 

 The arbitration is concerned ultimately with and only with the applicability of the definitions in Section A to KSA.

Because the advice was related to section F of the O+D test rather than A, which applies to this arbitration the grounds of bias are dismissed - even if it's also mentioned a big oversight not telling Newcastle beforehand! 

Paragraph 59:

"Notwithstanding my conclusion that the failure of the second defendant to set out this request in correspondence copied to all parties was an error of judgment, the only relevant question that arises is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would infer a real risk of bias from this error. In my judgment such an observer having all the attributes referred to in the authorities would not have come to that conclusion. "

 

 

I still think he will instinctively defend the PL's point of view. Everyone has a degree of unconscious bias and his will lean towards the PL.

[Wilson]

44 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

Yeah be cynical about the PL, they're a bunch of cunts, but this thread is packed full of incredulity and outrage from people that the PL are not rushing to get to court. But no defendant ever is, in any case, ever.

 

I just can't get behind that mindset that they're doing anything strange or unusual here, because they aren't.

 

They were delaying long before court/legal cases were ever mentioned.

[gdm]

Just now, Wilson said:

 

They were delaying long before court/legal cases were ever mentioned.

I was gonna make this point. The whole reason we are now in a legal battle is because the PL delayed & delayed so much they never actually gave a decision and PIF walked away. 
 

[nbthree3]

Hopefully it gets out there what happened. Because the test supposedly didn't start really, as in no directors were assessed because the league were unsure who to test (KSA as a shadow director as per section A of the O+D which arbitration will settle their provisional determination). And if that took 17 weeks for essentially nothing to happen, it's easy to see why it's suspicious. Gazette claimed all named directors passed the test in a September article so that's even up for contention too.

[Robster]

31 minutes ago, gdm said:

I was gonna make this point. The whole reason we are now in a legal battle is because the PL delayed & delayed so much they never actually gave a decision and PIF walked away. 
 

I think it was Fantail that mentioned yesterday, that Ben Jacobs felt that PIF walked away too soon. I thought that was a staggering point of view to take by Jacobs given that happened months into a process that was only meant to take 2-4 weeks.

[Scoot]

8 minutes ago, Robster said:

I think it was Fantail that mentioned yesterday, that Ben Jacobs felt that PIF walked away too soon. I thought that was a staggering point of view to take by Jacobs given that happened months into a process that was only meant to take 2-4 weeks.

 

What do you expect the premier leagues/beins mouth piece to say?

 

Some people in this thread actually believe him as well. 

[Jackie Broon]

37 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

Hopefully it gets out there what happened. Because the test supposedly didn't start really, as in no directors were assessed because the league were unsure who to test (KSA as a shadow director as per section A of the O+D which arbitration will settle their provisional determination). And if that took 17 weeks for essentially nothing to happen, it's easy to see why it's suspicious. Gazette claimed all named directors passed the test in a September article so that's even up for contention too.

 

The whole test not starting thing was clearly a deliberate delaying tacking. There's absolutely nothing in the O&D test rules that supports the PL's position of not starting it, in fact the wording of the rules completely contradicts that position.

 

[Fantail Breeze]

2 hours ago, Robster said:

I think it was Fantail that mentioned yesterday, that Ben Jacobs felt that PIF walked away too soon. I thought that was a staggering point of view to take by Jacobs given that happened months into a process that was only meant to take 2-4 weeks.

 

Why walk away full stop? By walking away they gave the PL an out. Otherwise the PL would’ve been forced to make a decision.

 

Of course walking away so publicly (and blaming COVID) was a mistake.

 

Some people just aren’t blinded by the false optimism to be able to see that.

[Happinesstan]

4 hours ago, Chris_R said:

 

Yeah be cynical about the PL, they're a bunch of cunts, but this thread is packed full of incredulity and outrage from people that the PL are not rushing to get to court. But no defendant ever is, in any case, ever.

 

I just can't get behind that mindset that they're doing anything strange or unusual here, because they aren't.

They are if they're innocent.

[Whitley mag]

8 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Why walk away full stop? By walking away they gave the PL an out. Otherwise the PL would’ve been forced to make a decision.

 

Of course walking away so publicly (and blaming COVID) was a mistake.

 

Some people just aren’t blinded by the false optimism to be able to see that.

I think it was the journalist Rob Draper wrote an article at the time where he claimed the PL we’re quite happy to keep asking questions and never make a decision. I think the whole point is that they thought the PL would never make a decision and basically stalled the whole process with arbitration. Obviously the consortium weren’t happy with arbitration on the one single point of separation and thought they had no other option.

The PL instigated the whole situation knowing fine well in my opinion that the deal had a sell by date, remember Ashley actually put the price up when the deadline passed. 
 

If the PL had followed the rules and made a decision, the judiciary panel would have heard the case much quicker without a years delay. For whatever reason they didn’t fancy the judiciary panel route and banked on arbitration instead. Ben Jacobs believes that the PL we’re acting fairly by offering arbitration, however I just don’t think that was their motive somehow. 
 

 

 

[Fantail Breeze]

14 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

I think it was the journalist Rob Draper wrote an article at the time where he claimed the PL we’re quite happy to keep asking questions and never make a decision. I think the whole point is that they thought the PL would never make a decision and basically stalled the whole process with arbitration. Obviously the consortium weren’t happy with arbitration on the one single point of separation and thought they had no other option.

The PL instigated the whole situation knowing fine well in my opinion that the deal had a sell by date, remember Ashley actually put the price up when the deadline passed. 
 

If the PL had followed the rules and made a decision, the judiciary panel would have heard the case much quicker without a years delay. For whatever reason they didn’t fancy the judiciary panel route and banked on arbitration instead. Ben Jacobs believes that the PL we’re acting fairly by offering arbitration, however I just don’t think that was their motive somehow. 
 

 

 

 

You’ve still not answered the question.

 

Why would the consortium pull out and blame COVID? How can you not see how counter-productive that is to their argument?

 

The PL have acted in accordance to their rules, there is no time limit on making the determinations that they did.

 

If the consortium had waited it out, we’d also have had some form of decision by now and the court action would have been sooner. Both sides have caused delays.

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

You’ve still not answered the question.

 

Why would the consortium pull out and blame COVID? How can you not see how counter-productive that is to their argument?

 

The PL have acted in accordance to their rules, there is no time limit on making the determinations that they did.

 

If the consortium had waited it out, we’d also have had some form of decision by now and the court action would have been sooner. Both sides have caused delays.

 

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

 

Now why are you so keen to make excuses for the PL?

[Happinesstan]

7 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

You’ve still not answered the question.

 

Why would the consortium pull out and blame COVID? How can you not see how counter-productive that is to their argument?

 

The PL have acted in accordance to their rules, there is no time limit on making the determinations that they did.

 

If the consortium had waited it out, we’d also have had some form of decision by now and the court action would have been sooner. Both sides have caused delays.

Did they blame COVID? As far as I remember they just said that these were uncertain times because of COVID.

[Fantail Breeze]

11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

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

 

Now why are you so keen to make excuses for the PL?

 

That doesn’t apply though, does it? Because they never agreed on who the test was going to include.

 

That’s the whole point, that you seem to be missing… over and over again.

[Ben]

These videos of Raab in Saudi promoting the UK and trade deals along with a new partnership is a bit of a piss take.