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

[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.

[Robster]

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Because they never agreed on who the test was going to include.

Says who for absolute certainty? Bearing in mind that this is, to quote the PL, a "Confidential Process"
 

[Joey Linton]

Just now, Robster said:

Says who for absolute certainty? Bearing in mind that this is, to quote the PL, a "Confidential Process"
 

But we're expected to blindly believe what Rob Draper put in an article according to a post only a few above this one? 

[Fantail Breeze]

3 minutes ago, Robster said:

Says who for absolute certainty? Bearing in mind that this is, to quote the PL, a "Confidential Process"
 

 

Well why else are we heading into arbitration?

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

But we're expected to blindly believe what Rob Draper put in an article according to a post only a few above this one? 

You’re forgetting we blindly believe the journalists who post positive things and completely refute any journalist who posts something neutral or negative.

[nbthree3]

(4) Decision letter: "If [PLL] then decides that KSA will not become a Director, then it will proceed to a decision on the application of Section [F] to the individuals who have been declared, including PIF. However, should the Board decide that KSA is also to be regarded as a future Director, then there will have to be a declaration in respect of KSA and the Board’s decision on the application of [Section F] will have to be made in respect of KSA also.” https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/349.pdf 

 

(37) "The text of the letter makes it abundantly clear that the sole issue that PLL had decided (and then only provisionally) was that KSA satisfied the definitions so that it was to be regarded as a Director for the purpose of applying Section F of PLL’s Rules."

 

I get the impression section F had not been applied because only the provisional determination (which might still be reversed if we "win" arbitration) had been made by the Premier League board. The consortium was free to disagree despite turning down arbitration initially, and that's alright because we're now at that stage. Section F hasn't been applied and the test remains an impasse unless the 'director decision' in paragraph 4 is reversed like I said

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by nbthree3

[Jackie Broon]

22 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

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.

 

I've already explained why that is incorrect. I know that's how the PL looked at it, they were just very clearly wrong to do it that way.

 

That almost certainly won't have any impact on the arbitration, but it will look very bad for them in the CAT case.

[Thumbheed]

Where's the provision that states that the PL need to agree on who to test before the test can begin?

 

Surely that must be written down somewhere?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Thumbheed

[nbthree3]

If the league doesn't agree who to apply section F on then how can they start? (Edit: start meaning which "legal entities" to apply section F on - the legal background work gaining further information and questions via the club was ongoing throughout, so I hope I'm not implying that didn't happen as it did)

 

PIF - the league wanted to speak to the media minister who sits on the PIF board Al-Qasabi for instance, for additional information. Same goes for named directors Al-Rumayyan, bin Mogren etc. If PIF ultimately are controlled by KSA according to section A and are thus a shadow director, it makes applying section F a lot easier. Likewise, if they are proven to not. Because with a provisional determination which the consortium could disagree with - settled now via arbitration - that has the chance to force the PL to reconsider their not-set-in -stone decision. The league sought legal advice coming to that 'minded (inclined to think) conclusion' too, just as the club via consortium who disagree.

 

Reubens + Staveley there's nothing up in the air about so they'll be a comparative breeze. 

 

I imagine it's a very quick process in the majority of cases once they start applying it. Saves trouble down the line knowing exactly who needs to be assessed before finding out there's someone else they may've not included which makes the process even more complicated. 

 

It's all very messy.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by nbthree3

[Joey Linton]

29 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

You’re forgetting we blindly believe the journalists who post positive things and completely refute any journalist who posts something neutral or negative.

Even if it's negative in the nonsense thread, or positive in the realism one? 

[Happinesstan]

15 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Where's the provision that states that the PL need to agree on who to test before the test can begin?

 

Surely that must be written down somewhere?

 

 

Does it really need to be written down that who should be tested is decided before any test is applied?

[Thumbheed]

15 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Does it really need to be written down that who should be tested is decided before any test is applied?

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, then yes, surely it must be as important if not more important than any other of the rules that are written down. 

 

It also leads us into a bizarre situation where the 2 parties need to agree on who gets tested before the test can progress to the stage where the PL can disqualify said party for not disclosing someone(or something in this case) who should have been tested. That just makes no sense to me. 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Thumbheed

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Where's the provision that states that the PL need to agree on who to test before the test begins?

 

Surely that must be written down somewhere?

 

 

 

There isn't one, quite the opposite.

 

It's clear that the test starts on submission of the declaration: F.4.1. "submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration" "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 of Rule F.1 and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6"

 

Rule F.1 includes having failed to provide "all relevant information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed"

 

Rule F.6 states that "upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration... that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore."

 

 

"at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules" is immediate and unequivocal.

 

"within five Working Days of receipt thereof" is unequivocal with no alternative given.

 

"upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration" is an immediate and unequivocal.

 

The rules are clear and unequivocal, there is no room for interpretation, the test starts when the declaration is submitted and should be completed within five working days. The PL have chosen to ignore that and do it their own way, and there is no easy way for the club to have required them to follow their own process as set out. But it is absolute clear that they have not properly followed their own rules.

 

Before, Penn of whoever it is behind the Fantail Linton accounts says "well they didn't provide enough information to make a decision". This is a civil law decision, balance of probabilities is the standard of proof, such decisions can and should be made on the basis of the information available at the point the decision needs to be made.  

 

 

 

[Happinesstan]

6 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, then yes, surely it must be as important if not more important than any other of the rules that are written down. 

 

It also leads us into a bizarre situation where the 2 parties need to agree on who gets tested before the test can progress to the stage where the PL can disqualify said party for not disclosing someone(or something in this case) who should have been tested. That just makes no sense to me. 

 

I think you're missing the fact that it's obvious the people to be tested should be decided before the test is applied.