Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

On 25/06/2021 at 20:51, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Do you know what that means? :lol: Because I don’t.

Point 6 just means that if the CAT decides it does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, or decides it does have jurisdiction but decides not to exercise that jurisdiction, for reasons best known to them, they can give directions as to the disposal of the case, i.e. throw it out, or stay (postpone) the proceedings, because they consider they may have jurisdiction to here the case if we win the arbitration case.

 

Point 7 simply says that if they decide point 6 has no application i.e. they decide they do have jurisdiction and decide to proceed to hear the case, they can issue directions to the parties advising when, and in what order, they will hear the arguments put by both parties to the appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bishops Finger said:

How can they offer arbitration if they didn't reject it? I don't get this at all

 

The article is poorly written (Ryder, no surprise). But presumably the PL offered arbitration over the issue of whether KSA is a director. The PL presumably takes the position that saying KSA is a director is not tantamount to rejecting the takeover -- it just means KSA has to submit a declaration about the officers and directors test factors and otherwise pass the test. (Though we all know that in effect this is pretty much the same as blocking the takeover because it's highly unlikely a sovereign state would subject itself to that.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

That is their only defence - but it will NOT work!

I’m sure it’s not like. But your right it won’t work for ever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, B-more Mag said:

 

The article is poorly written (Ryder, no surprise). But presumably the PL offered arbitration over the issue of whether KSA is a director. The PL presumably takes the position that saying KSA is a director is not tantamount to rejecting the takeover -- it just means KSA has to submit a declaration about the officers and directors test factors and otherwise pass the test. (Though we all know that in effect this is pretty much the same as blocking the takeover because it's highly unlikely a sovereign state would subject itself to that.)

Problem is for them it took them 3 months to get to that decision, after stating it was ok and nothing to worry about. When you look at other takeovers such as Burnley, the lead time was a few weeks so they cannot argue that they didn’t deliberately delay this one and that their offer was to delay further. What will be the deciding factor is if an outside influence was at play in why we went from green to delay and if so then that’s anti competition. I believe our side have all the proof they need to show this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Where not at the point whereby they’d give in yet. If the CAT case is given the go ahead, that’s when it gets interesting. 

Or maybe they just really are confident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, gdm said:

Or maybe they just really are confident.

We’ll soon find out.
 

I think if the case gets the go ahead it’ll be a major blow to them. Let’s see where their confidence is at that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep thinking this whole thing is more about loss of cost and damages to Mike Ashley from the collapse of the original sale, and not really about the club being sold. Basically a compensation package for Ashley. I can literally see both him and Bruce still here come Christmas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mighty__mag said:

I keep thinking this whole thing is more about loss of cost and damages to Mike Ashley from the collapse of the original sale, and not really about the club being sold. Basically a compensation package for Ashley. I can literally see both him and Bruce still here come Christmas. 

It’s starting to appear this way. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon
1 minute ago, et tu brute said:


why go for an arbitration case then? 

 

Exactly, and it has been mentioned so many times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...