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

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, Happinesstan said:

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

 

You're wrong, one of the rules the test can be failed on is that is that all directors must have been be disclosed (F.1.1.1.). If it were the case that the test doesn't start until all directors are decided on that rule would be pointless, because it would never come into effect.

[Consortium of one]

[Thumbheed]

5 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

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

This answer doesn't offer as much substance as you think. 

[Happinesstan]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

You're wrong, one of the rules the test can be failed on is that is that all directors must have been be disclosed (F.1.1.1.). If it were the case that the test doesn't start until all directors are decided on that rule would be pointless, because it would never come into effect.

 

Well if the rule wasn't applied then it is a bit pointless.

[Joey Linton]

3 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

This answer doesn't offer as much substance as you think. 

In your opinion of course. 

[Happinesstan]

2 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

This answer doesn't offer as much substance as you think. 

I never thought it did. Wasn't even in my thoughts. It's a pretty straightforward comment, I'm just not as emotionally involved as you.

[Thumbheed]

Just now, Joey Linton said:

In your opinion of course. 

Of course.

 

In fact it's been followed up with a post saying one of the written rules is pointless as the unwritten rule was not 'passed' so to speak. 

[Thumbheed]

Just now, Happinesstan said:

I never thought it did. Wasn't even in my thoughts. It's a pretty straightforward comment, I'm just not as emotionally involved as you.

What an odd comment.

 

Moving on then, still interested to hear what I'm missing.

[Scoot]

Let Ashley's QC's sort it out rather than argue about something we know nothing about if we're honest. 

 

Or you could be a thick twat and decide to listen to ben Jacob's and luke Edward's. They'll know...

[Joey Linton]

Just now, Scoot said:

Let Ashley's QC's sort it out rather than argue about something we know nothing about if we're honest. 

 

Or you could be a thick twat and decide to listen to ben Jacob's and luke Edward's. They'll know...

If you are intent on calling people thick twats you probably want to drop those two apostrophes. 

[Jackie Broon]

40 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

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

 

It does given that the opposite of that actually is written down in the rules.

[Scoot]

1 minute ago, Joey Linton said:

If you are intent on calling people thick twats you probably want to drop those two apostrophes. 

 

I blame auto correct and a "can't be arsed to change it" attitude and then I'll still call people thick twats who listen to those two utter fart pellets.

[Happinesstan]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

It does given that the opposite of that actually is written down in the rules.

 

What? It's written in the rules that they're not allowed to know who to test before commencing?

[Fantail Breeze]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

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.

 

 And your legal qualifications to make that determination?

 

I’m fairly confident the PL (you know, the people who wrote the rules) and their lawyers will have the edge on you here.

[Whitley mag]

2 hours 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.

PIF pulled out to save face and embarrassment, simple as that. The PL had basically took the piss for 17 weeks, and the price of the deal had gone up as a result. In their eyes there was no way forward and what the PL we’re asking in relation to the state was unreasonable. They obviously believed arbitration wasn’t the answer a the time, but due to support of fans and persuasion from Ashley they agreed to wait in the background until pathway to deal was cleared. To an organisation like PIF this could be damaging to reputation if linked to state, I would also think in their eyes they we’re hugely insulted by the PL’s behaviour in the end.

 

The PL did not act in accordance with their rules but we’ll agree to disagree on this, even though you still haven’t referred to the guidance where they did follow their rules.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Ben]

Fuck that, Masters will concede on Friday and Amanda will be sitting on her sybian in Charners old office by the middle of next week.

[Fantail Breeze]

Just now, Whitley mag said:

PIF pulled out to save face and embarrassment, simple as that. The PL had basically took the piss for 17 weeks, and the price of the deal had gone up as a result. In their eyes there was no way forward and what the PL we’re asking in relation to the state was unreasonable. They obviously believed arbitration wasn’t the answer a the time, but due to support of fans and persuasion from Ashley they agreed to wait in the background until deal pathway was cleared. To an organisation like PIF this could be damaging to reputation if linked to state, I would also think in their eyes they we’re hugely insulted by the PL’s behaviour in the end.

 

The PL did not act in accordance with their rules but we’ll agree to disagree on this, even though you still haven’t referred to the guidance where they did follow their rules.

 

 

 

No they didn’t, their own public statement says otherwise. Hence why it was damaging to withdraw and issue that statement.

 

Arbitration “wasn’t the answer”… but a year later, it is? We could have gone through arbitration a year ago. 

 

It’s been explained to you many times, including on this very page. But you’ve got your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen.

 

You’re on the wrong thread, again. 

[Fantail Breeze]

19 minutes ago, Scoot said:

Let Ashley's QC's sort it out rather than argue about something we know nothing about if we're honest. 

 

Or you could be a thick twat and decide to listen to ben Jacob's and luke Edward's. They'll know...

 

I mean the discussion was absolutely fine until the normal group of delusional folk came in with their ramblings, which they have their own thread for.

 

 

[Scoot]

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

I mean the discussion was absolutely fine until the normal group of delusional folk came in with their ramblings, which they have their own thread for.

 

 

 

I could say the exact same thing about the other thread once all the Luke Edwards fan boys come steaming in. Suck it up sunshine!

[Whitley mag]

6 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

No they didn’t, their own public statement says otherwise. Hence why it was damaging to withdraw and issue that statement.

 

Arbitration “wasn’t the answer”… but a year later, it is? We could have gone through arbitration a year ago. 

 

It’s been explained to you many times, including on this very page. But you’ve got your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen.

 

You’re on the wrong thread, again. 

There statement wasn’t going to read we’ve pulled out because the PL think we are basically the Saudi state now was it ? 
 

No it hasn’t been explained, show us the reg in the PL rule book where they have acted accordingly.

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Fantail Breeze]

46 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

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.  

 

 

 

 

Wrong. Again. The PL does need to be satisfied the correct people have been tested.

 

F26. No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
F.26.1. the Board provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule F.24.1.1 and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1;
F.26.2. the Board provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule F.24.1.2; and
F.26.3. the Club and Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule F.25.

[Fantail Breeze]

3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

There statement wasn’t going to read we’ve pulled out because the PL think we are basically the Saudi state now was it ? 
 

No it hasn’t been explained, show us the reg in the PL rule book where they have acted accordingly.

 

 

Well their statement has been damaging to the club’s case, that’s the whole point. 

 

See above.

[ToonArmy1892]

This is more boring than the Keith/Bein thing.

[Jackie Broon]

50 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

 

What? It's written in the rules that they're not allowed to know who to test before commencing?

 

This makes it clear that the rules apply to anyone who is declared as a proposed director from the point they are declared: 

 

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;

 

That includes rule F.1.1.1 which, as detailed above, applies to any proposed director from the point they are declared and requires that they be disqualified if any other directors (including new owners) have not been disclosed:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

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);

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[ToonArmy1892]

It's fucking off, again. Carroll