Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

How can the CAT case be solely damages when one of the seeking points was "An injunction requiring the Defendant to withdraw the Director Decision and/or to reconsider the same" (the director decision provisionally being PIF = KSA) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for PL arbitration that applies section A's definitions of control and person on PIF and the KSA to determine whether the PL were right to provisionally conclude what they did. In my head the idea is to overturn that which facilitates an easier pathway to takeover from Staveley's group. If it all fails fine we'll have alternatives. But none have managed to get anywhere near in the 4 years (more like 3.5) the club has been for sale 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon
10 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

How can the CAT case be solely damages when one of the seeking points was "An injunction requiring the Defendant to withdraw the Director Decision and/or to reconsider the same" (the director decision provisionally being PIF = KSA) 


Staveley even said not long ago that she can’t speak about Newcastle due to NDA’s. She isn’t going to be tied into anything like that just so Mike can get a bit extra cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When fans don't hear an update in a while the pessimism comes in, obviously because uncertainties arise and confidence falls as we're more privy to those worries. But materially little changes unless something is made public about it, at some unknown point in the future 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that people (Keith and his following of minions) keep talking about the delay tactics of the PL, when NUFC delayed arbitration by 3-6 months by failing to remove the chair of the independent panel.

 

NUFC could also have lodged the CAT case much sooner then they did.

 

We could’ve had a decision/closure by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did that cause a significant delay or was it part of the process? Genuine question. Don't remember seeing it reported that way but could be wrong.  

 

Bit of a strange equivocation either way mind. 

 

 

Edited by TheHoob

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheHoob said:

Did that cause a significant delay or was it part of the process? Genuine question. Don't remember seeing it reported that way but could be wrong.  

 

Bit of a strange equivocation either way mind. 

 

 

 

 

It was only part of the process because we wanted it to be. It was reported at the time to have taken 3-6 months to resolve. If we didn’t challenge it and just proceeded, we’d have gone through arbitration by now.

 

NUFC’s right to challenge that is no different to the PL’s right to challenge CAT’s jurisdiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it caused a delay (if you’re talking about challenging the chair of the arbitration panel) but it was a risk they had to take.

 

The fella pretty much designed the Owners and Directors test. They couldn’t just not try to have him removed. What it also does though, even though it wasn’t successful, is to put the spotlight on him a lot more and he’s going to have to be squeaky clean throughout the whole process and not be obviously biased towards the PL.


I think it was a ridiculous decision not to remove him. Talk about a clear conflict of interest. 

 

 

 

Edited by LV

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

I'm still trying to skim to see if there has been any update :lol:

Nope!

 

Apart from Rafa has gone to Everton which I think is a massive blow and not a good sign for an imminent takeover

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, LV said:

Yeah it caused a delay (if you’re talking about challenging the chair of the arbitration panel) but it was a risk they had to take.

 

The fella pretty much designed the Owners and Directors test. They couldn’t just not try to have him removed. What it also does though, even though it wasn’t successful, is to put the spotlight on him a lot more and he’s going to have to be squeaky clean throughout the whole process and not be obviously biased towards the PL.

 

 

 

Oh I absolutely agree. But to point to the PL and accuse them of delaying by putting forward a case to throw out the CAT case is a bit weird when considering NUFC’s actions.

 

Still no explanation as to why NUFC took so long to lodge the CAT case too. They could’ve been through the jurisdiction challenge and disclosure etc. by now.

 

That’s why it appears, from my point of view, to be a last desperate attempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Oh I absolutely agree. But to point to the PL and accuse them of delaying by putting forward a case to throw out the CAT case is a bit weird when considering NUFC’s actions.

 

Still no explanation as to why NUFC took so long to lodge the CAT case too. They could’ve been through the jurisdiction challenge and disclosure etc. by now.

 

That’s why it appears, from my point of view, to be a last desperate attempt.

I don’t think it is weird. They had no choice but to try to have him removed. It wasn’t a delaying tactic like the PL have used. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, LV said:

I don’t think it is weird. They had no choice but to try to have him removed. It wasn’t a delaying tactic like the PL have used. 

 

Why would the PL proceed with CAT when they believe they have a credible case to get it thrown out? It’s the same argument.

 

Not withstanding the fact that I do think the PL have caused a lot of unnecessary delays… my point being that NUFC have too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Why would the PL proceed with CAT when they believe they have a credible case to get it thrown out? It’s the same argument.

 

Not withstanding the fact that I do think the PL have caused a lot of unnecessary delays… my point being that NUFC have too.

I don’t think you are quite understanding (or you are choosing not to) that we had no choice but to try to get him removed. It wasn’t a tactic to delay things, why would we? 
 

It was an entirely necessary delay if you want to try to win a case or arbitration or whatever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, LV said:

I don’t think you are quite understanding (or you are choosing not to) that we had no choice but to try to get him removed. It wasn’t a tactic to delay things, why would we? 
 

It was an entirely necessary delay if you want to try to win a case or arbitration or whatever. 

 

NUFC might have thought so. Just like the PL think challenging jurisdiction is a necessary delay. 

 

Your argument falters a bit because we were told so strongly after NUFC failed in that case that it wasn’t a problem and it was likely to fail. The point being, if NUFC wanted to progress quickly, they didn’t need to challenge.

 

It also doesn’t answer why NUFC delayed to lodge the CAT case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LV said:

Nope!

 

Apart from Rafa has gone to Everton which I think is a massive blow and not a good sign for an imminent takeover


I think it’s got fuck all to do with the takeover personally. Both cases are being carried out by the club and do you think Ashley gives two shits about Rafa. Also who is to say, he is the consortiums first choice either. He may have been Staveley’s first choice in her first takeover attempt, but as linked today in one of the threads, the other consortium members were looking at Poch and Arteta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

NUFC might have thought so. Just like the PL think challenging jurisdiction is a necessary delay. 

 

Your argument falters a bit because we were told so strongly after NUFC failed in that case that it wasn’t a problem and it was likely to fail. The point being, if NUFC wanted to progress quickly, they didn’t need to challenge.

 

It also doesn’t answer why NUFC delayed to lodge the CAT case.


why don’t you just wait for the legal cases to play out instead of second guessing everything all of the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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