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

[RS]

Fear not. We have the full support of the Saudi Secret Service raking through this lots email history. We’ll be alreet. 

[Dr Jinx]

45 minutes ago, RS said:

Fear not. We have the full support of the Saudi Secret Service raking through this lots email history. We’ll be alreet. 

They couldn’t organise an assassination in an embassy that lot!

[Si]

3 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

They couldn’t organise an assassination in an embassy that lot!

Top bantz lads

[Happinesstan]

15 hours ago, Rocker said:

So who is partial to the arbitration then?

The selling party, I would imagine. PL have no links to the buying party.

[Kanji]

The fact Beloff worked for the PL on certain matters as the O&D test is enough conflict of interest. Recall this wasn’t disclosed until after both sides agreed to him. Whether that was oversight by Ashley’s side or lack of proper disclosure from Beloff or the PL is up for anyone’s interpretation. 

[Manxst]

12 minutes ago, Kanji said:

The fact Beloff worked for the PL on certain matters as the O&D test is enough conflict of interest. Recall this wasn’t disclosed until after both sides agreed to him. Whether that was oversight by Ashley’s side or lack of proper disclosure from Beloff or the PL is up for anyone’s interpretation. 

Isn’t it already established that it was down to lack of disclosure by Beloff? Then after it was noted and Utd objected, he offered to leave to the PL but they turned his offer down?

[Joey Linton]

22 minutes ago, Kanji said:

The fact Beloff worked for the PL on certain matters as the O&D test is enough conflict of interest. Recall this wasn’t disclosed until after both sides agreed to him. Whether that was oversight by Ashley’s side or lack of proper disclosure from Beloff or the PL is up for anyone’s interpretation. 

https://littletonchambers.com/articles-webinars/rare-public-judgment-on-s-24-application-for-removal-of-arbitrator/

 

Wrong

[FloydianMag]

10 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Isn’t it already established that it was down to lack of disclosure by Beloff? Then after it was noted and Utd objected, he offered to leave to the PL but they turned his offer down?

If that’s the case he could have still stepped down regardless of what the PL wanted.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by FloydianMag

[Manxst]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

If that’s the case he could have still stepped down regardless of what the PL wanted.

 

 

 

Don’t know. Joeys post above explains it. Sounds like he engaged via private emails with the PL and they both came to the conclusion that they’d prefer him to stay on. For some reason.

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

https://littletonchambers.com/articles-webinars/rare-public-judgment-on-s-24-application-for-removal-of-arbitrator/

 

Wrong

Regardless, the club still wanted to make the point he could show bias before any arbitration took place.

[Jackie Broon]

20 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Regardless, the club still wanted to make the point he could show bias before any arbitration took place.

 

I don't buy the 'club wanted to make a point' stuff. The club thought that Beloff should have been removed and lost that argument.

 

I personally (and admittedly completely unqualified to do so) think the decision was flawed and probably challengeable (I see High Court decisions overturned by the Court of Appeal all the time in my line of work, so they're not infallible). Basically the Judge said that the arbitration is just about section A (which is just definitions) not section F (the O&D test) which Beloff forgot to disclose he had given advise on changes to. However, fundamentally section A is just definitions, those definitions only have meaning in relation to the rules themselves, which in this case is section F, so I can't see how the Judge could conclude that section A is a completely separate matter to section F. It just would have taken too long to appeal it.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Kanji]

51 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

https://littletonchambers.com/articles-webinars/rare-public-judgment-on-s-24-application-for-removal-of-arbitrator/

 

Wrong

Ah ok thanks. Thanks for the providing the source in such a passive aggressive way. “wrong”  

[Lazarus]

This might be a daft question but.....

 

Does any one know if the O&D test has changed in the time since the takeover began?

 

And if so, which version of the O&D will they use?

 

I wouldnt put it past the sneaky fuckers at the PL to make the O&D test stricter  more robust.

[LV]

Pretty sure it has changed and also pretty sure they are using the old version for us because the deal was struck before the changes came in.

 

I could be wrong though and can’t remember where I read it. 

[Wilson]

I'd imagine, in a non-corrupt organisation, they'd have to use the version that was in place when it was supposed to start...but it's anyones guess really

 

 

[Sima]

Whatever version has the best chance of a rejection they will use.

[Jackie Broon]

9 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

This might be a daft question but.....

 

Does any one know if the O&D test has changed in the time since the takeover began?

 

And if so, which version of the O&D will they use?

 

I wouldnt put it past the sneaky fuckers at the PL to make the O&D test stricter  more robust.

 

Yes, it was changed in January, the section 'Acquisition of Control' (F24-27) was added. I assume they will be using the rules at the time that the declaration was submitted in April 2020. Even if they are using the new version, there have been no changes to the definitions in section A that are being considered in the arbitration.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Paully]

 

[Ankles Bennett]

16 hours ago, manorpark said:

 

Careful !!

 

I've said exactly that on here loads of times, and some members here just "cannot stand it", they just pull you to bits for fun, it is so self-destructive for NUFC.

I seem to recall seeing a post last year where someone posted a list of PIF sporting assets and it showed NUFC as being a PIF asset.  Don't know if it was kosher or not!! 

[B-more Mag]

5 hours ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

K, I asked this yesterday and nobody answered so maybe a stupid question but will try again:

 

1) who are the arbitrators, are they appointed solely by the premier league or are they completely independent?

2) is there a feasible route Ashley et al could take this over and above the PL should it fail, such CAS or whatever, or is that absolutely the end?

 

I'm aware there's the CAT case just wondered about this specifically, surely the PL are governed by some body so if they reject how come there's no one to appeal to?

 

Re: 2), the arbitration is final and non-appealable, per PL rules. I don't know U.K. law on this, but if it were in the U.S. there would be very limited circumstances in which a court could overturn an arbitration award that's purportedly final and non-appealable, but it takes extraordinary circumstances.

[Robster]

6 minutes ago, Paully said:

 

Got absolutely zero faith in that wet lettuce doing anything of substance.

[Ankles Bennett]

5 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

As far as I understand it, one is appointed by the PL, one by the club, the third one is independent (supposedly) however the independent person, a lawyer has done work for the PL previously.?

 

 

The chairman is chosen by the two appointed by the club and the EPL.

[TBG]

All wrapped up by page 1000 I reckon. 

[et tu brute]

Wonder if we will have a Sky ‘Ashley’ interview coming out at some point also. He’s stated his case to Sky in the past, so wouldn’t rule it out. 

[Jackie Broon]

29 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Re: 2), the arbitration is final and non-appealable, per PL rules. I don't know U.K. law on this, but if it were in the U.S. there would be very limited circumstances in which a court could overturn an arbitration award that's purportedly final and non-appealable, but it takes extraordinary circumstances.

 

The legislative basis for the arbitration is the Arbitration Act 1996, that allows appeal on a point of law. Irrespective of what it says in the PL's rules I don't think they could override the right to appeal in primary legislation. Seems to be a common theme in the PL's rules to go above and beyond UK law with no legislative basis to do so.

 

Although, if the arbitration fails I would think the fall-back will be the CAT case rather than an appeal, but I think that would be more likely to be for compensation rather than a route to the takeover because it will take too long.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by Jackie Broon