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

[Slim]

Mad we have no idea publicity wtf the takeover is being blocked for.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Slim

[Menace]

This takeover is going to outlast Covid isnt it.

[Jackie Broon]

57 minutes ago, Slim said:

Mad we have no idea publicity wtf the takeover is being blocked for.

 

 

 

 

 

We do, it's set out in the High Court judgement. It's that the PL think the KSA has 'control' (by the definition in section A of the PL's rules) over PIF and therefore would control NUFC.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Watching that interview, then imagine the first press conference after the takeover with Amanda sitting next to Kevin Keegan who has been brought in as the key football advisor.

 

Fuck we need someone like her in charge

[Guest reefatoon]

17 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

We do, it's set out in the High Court judgement. It's that the PL think the KSA has 'control' (by the definition in section A of the PL's rules) over PIF and therefore would control NUFC.

do you have a link to that bud? 

[Jackie Broon]

36 minutes ago, reefatoon said:

do you have a link to that bud? 

 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/349.html

 

The relevant part:

 

4. By a decision letter dated 12 June 2020 (the "decision letter"), PLL concluded that KSA would become a Director of NUFC as that term is defined in Section A of PLL's Rules by reason of the Control (as that term is defined in Section A of PLL's Rules) that was or would be exercised by KSA over PZ Newco Limited via PIF. It was not suggested that it had decided that KSA had been or would be disqualified from being a "Director" or that it would refuse to agree the proposed change of control. I set out the material parts of the Rules later in this judgment. The decision letter set out the substance of PLL's reasoning in these terms:

 

"… PIF expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of "Director" under [PLL's] Rules, even though it would not be formally appointed as a director of [NUFC]. [PLL] agrees. Having taken external legal advice, [PLL] is also provisionally minded to conclude that KSA would become a Director under the Rules as well.

 

Pursuant to [Section A], the definition of "Director" includes any "Person" (as defined under [Section A]) that will have "Control" over [NUFC] (as defined in [Section A]). [PLL] has accordingly been considering the scope of those two words, "Person" and "Control", under the Rules.

 

The definition of "Person" under [Section A] includes "any … legal entity". [PLL]'s provisional view is that KSA … is a legal entity under English law. As such, it is a Person under the Rules, and thus capable of being a Director. If you disagree, [PLL] would welcome a reasoned explanation.

 

The definition of "Control" in [Section A] includes either effective management control or beneficial ownership, or both. In particular, the relevant parts of the definition describe "Control" as "the power of a Person to exercise … direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club … and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Control shall be deemed to include: (a) the power (whether directly or indirectly … ) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or (b) the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to exercise the voting rights applicable to, Shares in the Club (whether directly, [or] indirectly …) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club".

 

From the information you have provided, [PLL] is provisionally minded to conclude that KSA satisfies both elements in the test for "Control" over [NUFC] through its control over PIF (which, as noted, recognises that it will be a Director). In summary:

 

1. As to management, … PIF's directors are appointed by Royal Decree, and its current board is almost exclusively composed of KSA Government Ministers. The PIF Law puts [it] expressly under the direction of … a KSA Government Ministry. Its function is to serve the national interest of KSA.

 

2. As to ownership, it would appear that PIF is state-owned, and that it manages only state-owned assets.

 

Again, if you disagree with either of these provisional conclusions, we would welcome your reasoned response.

 

Following receipt of any submissions, [PLL] will fully consider them before reaching a final decision on the issues.

 

If [PLL] then decides that KSA will not become a Director, then it will proceed to a decision on the application of Section [F] to the individuals who have been declared, including PIF. However, should the Board decide that KSA is also to be regarded as a future Director, then there will have to be a declaration in respect of KSA and the Board's decision on the application of [Section F] will have to be made in respect of KSA also."

 

NUFC disputes this conclusion and the lawfulness of the process by which it was arrived at by PLL. It is this dispute that is the subject of the reference with which these proceedings are concerned.

 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Jackie Broon]

Btw, this is the PL's barrister in the arbitration and CAT case. Same chambers as De Marco.

 

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/barristers/adam-lewis-qc/

 

See Club C v Premier League; Company D v Premier League

 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Dr Jinx]

I read all of that. It’s grim reading. I know it was only focussed on removing the arbitration chair but it seems like every argument the clubs lawyers made was quickly dismissed by the judge. Why would we expect the rest of it to go any differently?

[manorpark]

21 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

I read all of that. It’s grim reading. I know it was only focussed on removing the arbitration chair but it seems like every argument the clubs lawyers made was quickly dismissed by the judge. Why would we expect the rest of it to go any differently?

 

The current legal actions are totally different to the above action, and I know that we will win them.

 

[Away Toon]

3 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

We do, it's set out in the High Court judgement. It's that the PL think the KSA has 'control' (by the definition in section A of the PL's rules) over PIF and therefore would control NUFC.

I don't see how anybody can dispute this. This is the only issue that has ever really mattered, the rest just noise. Until The Saudi's put up the various people who would have control in any way over what might happen at NUFC whether they be in the shadows or not the takeover doesn't get waved through. Even if the Saudi's are prepared to put people forward they would then have to pass the OD test. If the PL stick to their guns I don't see how this happens, unless the government are prepared to back them into a corner which they seem reluctant to do.

[et tu brute]

43 minutes ago, Away Toon said:

I don't see how anybody can dispute this. This is the only issue that has ever really mattered, the rest just noise. Until The Saudi's put up the various people who would have control in any way over what might happen at NUFC whether they be in the shadows or not the takeover doesn't get waved through. Even if the Saudi's are prepared to put people forward they would then have to pass the OD test. If the PL stick to their guns I don't see how this happens, unless the government are prepared to back them into a corner which they seem reluctant to do.

Don’t need to put anybody up if it’s legally established that PIF is separate from the state. Not what people’s opinions are, but what is legally classed. That’s why the arbitration is taking place. Don’t see how the Premier League can make a ruling on Saudi law, but we will soon find out anyway. They don’t even follow that rule about possible shadow directors with the unnamed persons as owners at Palace, who can’t be named due to state law in America. Just have to wait and see what happens. 

[ToonArmy1892]

2 hours ago, manorpark said:

 

The current legal actions are totally different to the above action, and I know that we will win them.

 

Do you fuck.

[Scoot]

4 hours ago, Away Toon said:

I don't see how anybody can dispute this. This is the only issue that has ever really mattered, the rest just noise. Until The Saudi's put up the various people who would have control in any way over what might happen at NUFC whether they be in the shadows or not the takeover doesn't get waved through. Even if the Saudi's are prepared to put people forward they would then have to pass the OD test. If the PL stick to their guns I don't see how this happens, unless the government are prepared to back them into a corner which they seem reluctant to do.

 

But they put 2 people forward didn't they?

 

Bander Mogren and Yasir al Rumayyan.

[Raconteur]

1 hour ago, Scoot said:

 

But they put 2 people forward didn't they?

 

Bander Mogren and Yasir al Rumayyan.

This is my understanding - PIF had the people who were going to have control (as they understood it) submit to the ODT, but the Premier League insisted that the state of KSA be considered a director for the purposes of the test, at which point PIF “withdrew”. 
 

Have I got it wrong?

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Raconteur

[mrmojorisin75]

That extract posted by JB doesn't make for encouraging reading mind, gotta be honest.

 

So is the ultimate contention that PIF/KSA are separate in SA law, is that where they're trying to argue?  Because clearly they're not separate in any real sense

[FloydianMag]

32 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

That extract posted by JB doesn't make for encouraging reading mind, gotta be honest.

 

So is the ultimate contention that PIF/KSA are separate in SA law, is that where they're trying to argue?  Because clearly they're not separate in any real sense

Real sense however has nothing to do with it, if legal separation can be shown that’s all that matters. 

[manorpark]

5 hours ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

Do you fuck.

 

Mmm, yes I do actually !!

[mrmojorisin75]

11 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Real sense however has nothing to do with it, if legal separation can be shown that’s all that matters. 

 

Aye I know.  So is that it then we're saying they're separate in SA law or international law?

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by mrmojorisin75

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

Mmm, yes I do actually !!

I want this takeover to happen like many, however you can’t possibly know how arbitration or even CAT will go.

[Ed210]

6 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

Mmm, yes I do actually !!

 

well if you are 100% certain the lawyers would be 100% certain and the case would have already been settled out of court.

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

 

Aye I know.  So is that it then we're saying they're separate in SA law or international law?

 

 

 

I remember The Football Law legal opinion way back last year, in a summary even Qatari lawyers agreed PIF was a separate legal entity from the Saudi state.

[RS]

It’s happening like. I reckon before September ends.  If someone could wake me before then please. 

[gdm]

Is anyone apart from manor park still confident? I was hoping some sort of agreement could be made but that’s looking unlikely and AS & co do seem pretty concerned about arbitration over last few days.

 

genuine question btw

[Joey Linton]

23 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

Mmm, yes I do actually !!

Why do you think they've all wasted their time with all these interviews / press statements if it's going to go through regardless? 

[cosmic]

Problem is PL is based in England and operates under English law. International or Saudi laws may not be applicable.