Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

PIF obviously want the takeover to happen as soon as possible hence the turning of the screw.

 

The PL want to delay as much as possible as per the old saying, 'why do today if tomorrow will improve the odds'.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon

Fucking hell, that’s rich coming from Chump Edwards about the proposed takeover doing strange things to people. It’s made him go full out weird cunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon
Just now, Hhtoon said:

Staveley might have wanted to check she was contacting the right person if she was doing it so publicly [emoji38]

 

Tracey was more of a Cc jobby

I’d bet the letters went to them all

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

:lol:

 

Again, which begs the question...why did Staveley and co write to her? Surely De Marco and co were behind it too? It can only have been about raising the profile of the case and a spot of posturing before it starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PlymouthGeordie said:

PL have been granted more time to challenge jurisdiction of the CAT case.

 

Which also confirms Liam Kennedy was guessing when he released that article saying their challenge had been rejected.

 

Where is this info from ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Slim said:

 

Where is this info from ? 


“I am satisfied that the requested short extension of seven days will not prejudice the listing of the hearing of the Jurisdiction Application and is reasonable given the concurrent demands on the Defendant in preparing for the arbitration proceedings.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just the reply to Ashley they're seeking an extension for.

 

"AND UPON the Claimant filing its evidence in response to the Jurisdiction Application on 28 June 2021

 

AND UPON the Defendant’s application by letter dated 30 June 2021 requesting a extension of time for the filing and service of its evidence in reply"

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rosenrot said:


“I am satisfied that the requested short extension of seven days will not prejudice the listing of the hearing of the Jurisdiction Application and is reasonable given the concurrent demands on the Defendant in preparing for the arbitration proceedings.”

I thought the judge was deciding on whether to have a public hearing or a private hearing? Now we find out the PL still haven't even filed their evidence to have it thrown out. Ffs

 

 

Edited by Scoot

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont get it. They filed their evidence on June 28th. Then asked for another extension for the "filing and service" of its evidence on June 30th. What the hell does that even mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, veriaqa said:

This is my view too. Because they know they can't depend on the jury to be fair. Because they all are corrupt.

Shut up veriaqa :lol:

Basing your view of the British legal system on a comment made on this board and constantly repeating it is next level dullness 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes so the jurisdiction issue hasn’t even been heard yet. That sort of conflicts with the club statement that said they were trying to move it behind closed doors?

 

If that statement was written or at least approved by their legal team, you’d have to worry about the rest of the case ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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