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

[Wandy]

13 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

Are you a Newcastle United supporter, or just a 'paid critic' of some sort?

 

If the takeover doesn't happen are you going to hang around here and take your medicine? Or are you going to flounce off in the huff like you did last summer?

 

And please, don't merely answer with your usual "IT WILL HAPPEN" bollocks.

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

I'm probably repeating myself and others so apologies but once arbitration starts do we have an estimate for how long it'll be before we get a resolution?  

 

I have read elsewhere that the process only takes a few days. A week at the most.

[Guest reefatoon]

2 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

I'm probably repeating myself and others so apologies but once arbitration starts do we have an estimate for how long it'll be before we get a resolution?  

Not sure at all. I know Staveley said she is no part of the arbitration but I think she is expecting the long haul when she said “how it goes over the next few months”

[gdm]

8 hours ago, manorpark said:

 

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

 

Last I’m bothering with you but needs to be said. Stop this. You know fuck all. Even in staveley’s interview she concedes the possibility they will lose arbitration and says “at some point it will be out of our control and that will be a great shame”

 

positivity is fine but stop going on like you know for certain we will win it. I’d say the way AS is talking the cards are stacked in PL’s favour if anything 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by gdm

[mrmojorisin75]

8 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

The PL are arguing that the ODT got paused and they couldn't even get to the point where they had to make a decision, as they didn't agree with the Saudis' statement that their government will NOT be a shadow director. Arbitration is going to answer that question.

 

The CAT case, if it goes ahead, will determine if the PL deliberately tried to cook up a situation, in conjunction with other parties, where the aim was to block the buyers from ever getting the takeover through.

 

And that contradicts their own rules right, which says they should reject the bid.

[Wandy]

Just now, mrmojorisin75 said:

 

And that contradicts their own rules right, which says they should reject the bid.

 

I'm not sure if it specifically says that they should. They may have worded it loosely to wangle themselves out of it. Best ask someone like @Jackie Broon about that. If it does, then that's another issue that the CAT will deal with.

[Guest reefatoon]

3 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

 

And that contradicts their own rules right, which says they should reject the bid.

I think this is why they are gunning so hard for openness and transparency, as something somewhere down the line just doesn’t sit right.

[mrmojorisin75]

2 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

I'm not sure if it specifically says that they should. They may have worded it loosely to wangle themselves out of it. Best ask someone like @Jackie Broon about that. If it does, then that's another issue that the CAT will deal with.

 

Yeah I think that's right thinking back.  

[manorpark]

16 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

If the takeover doesn't happen are you going to hang around here and take your medicine? Or are you going to flounce off in the huff like you did last summer?

 

And please, don't merely answer with your usual "IT WILL HAPPEN" bollocks.

 

I'm always here and I intend to always be here.

 

Out club is greater than all of us, and certainly a lot greater than all of the mindless irrational comments directed at someone who simply believes that our Takeover is inevitable, which (logically) it is !!

 

Sorry . . .

[Whitley mag]

This has also always been insinuated, I mean why would you refuse further evidence when you have basically said you can’t come to a decision.

 

 

[Wandy]

2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

This has also always been insinuated, I mean why would you refuse further evidence when you have basically said you can’t come to a decision.

 

 

 

That is surely another issue that would be handled by the CAT then?

[BlueStar]

PIF clearly isn't separate from the state, so I guess we're hoping one set of bullshit merchants in the form of the PL accepts the bullshit excuse of another?

[Beamish]

21 minutes ago, gdm said:

Last I’m bothering with you but needs to be said. Stop this. You know fuck all. Even in staveley’s interview she concedes the possibility they will lose arbitration and says “at some point it will be out of our control and that will be a great shame”

 

positivity is fine but stop going on like you know for certain we will win it. I’d say the way AS is talking the cards are stacked in PL’s favour if anything 

 

 

 

[r0cafella]

Just now, BlueStar said:

PIF clearly isn't separate form the state, so I guess we're hoping one set of bullshit merchants in the form of the PL accepts the bullshit excuse of another?

This actually depends. 
 

is a person separate for a company they own?

[Wandy]

7 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

This has also always been insinuated, I mean why would you refuse further evidence when you have basically said you can’t come to a decision.

 

 

 

Also, surely this extra evidence would be presented at arbitration?

[Whitley mag]

5 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

That is surely another issue that would be handled by the CAT then?

Would it also look unreasonable in arbitration and they hadn’t considered all the evidence ? Just seems like this was their excuse to stop it and we’re sticking to it no matter what you present.

[Joey Linton]

1 hour ago, Hhtoon said:

 

Why are the PL wasting their time with all of these delays if they're going to win arbitration?

What has that got to do with manorpark's insistence that it is going through regardless? 

[Lazarus]

15 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

This actually depends. 
 

is a person separate for a company they own?

 

I made this argument months ago.

 

Under UK company law, a person is a separate legal entitity to the company, even if they are both Director and sole Shareholder.

 

Under Saudi law......things may be different.

 

The waters are starting to get very muddy as to why the takeover stalled I feel. Different reasons are being quoted by different sources (and I don't mean the ITK twitter bollox crowd).

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Lazarus

[Jackie Broon]

21 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

I'm not sure if it specifically says that they should. They may have worded it loosely to wangle themselves out of it. Best ask someone like @Jackie Broon about that. If it does, then that's another issue that the CAT will deal with.

 

My completely unqualified opinion is that the O&D test is worded in a clear unequivocal way that it applies from when a declaration of a new director/owner is submitted by the club and requires that those directors are immediately disqualified if the PL believes that a director/owner has not been disclosed in the declaration/s.

 

But the PL went about it a different way, saying the O&D test doesn't start until they are satisfied that all of the owners and directors have disclosed, and the arbitration probably won't consider whether they were right to do that or not because it's just dealing with the definitions in Section A rather than the test in Section F.

 

[nufcjb]

999 pages of....................

 

 

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

My completely unqualified opinion is that the O&D test is worded in a clear unequivocal way that it applies from when a declaration of a new director/owner is submitted by the club and requires that those directors are immediately disqualified if the PL believes that a director/owner has not been disclosed in the declaration/s.

 

But the PL went about it a different way, saying the O&D test doesn't start until they are satisfied that all of the owners and directors have disclosed, and the arbitration probably won't consider whether they were right to do that or not because it's just dealing with the definitions in Section A rather than the test in Section F.

 

 

Yeah, this issue will be handled by CAT then. Stalling tactics and allegedly collaborating with other parties to block the takeover from ever happening. The PL surely haven't got a leg to stand on in trying to stop the CAT from happening.

[Ankles Bennett]

I don't see why the PL can't allow the takeover with a caveat that any indication of interference by the KSA and NUFC will be expelled from the PL.  A simple solution that works surely!!

[Jackie Broon]

18 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

 

I made this argument months ago.

 

Under UK company law, a person is a separate legal entitity to the company, even if they are both Director and sole Shareholder.

 

Under Saudi law......things may be different.

 

The waters are starting to get very muddy as to why the takeover stalled I feel. Different reasons are being quoted by different sources (and I don't mean the ITK twitter bollox crowd).

 

 

 

 

Yeah, people are getting far to hung up on 'legal separation', it's far more complex than that, it's about the definition of 'control' in section A. The definition of control is incredibly broad, there could be legal separation but still be control, or the potential of control, which would be control by their definition.

 

However, it's so broad it could probably be interpreted to include banks where clubs have been bought with loans, other states such as China and the UAE who can potentially impose control over their citizens or even potential controls over businesses by UK government. It's so broad that there has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the PL may have already drawn that line with other decisions, such as Crystal Place and Manchester City.

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[gjohnson]

Reading the rules stuff makes it look like the PL are correct in terms of wanting to know who exactly is in charge....however their repeated 'No  comment', wanting things done privately,  and suspect approvals of dodgy takeovers (Palace, where they don't even know who the owners actually are, Burnley who essentially used Burnleys own money to buy them mini Man U style) in the past makes them look like there's something to hide. 

 

Suggests to me that there's something from Liverpool/Tottenham that would prove they're acting unfairly in the interest of the whole league rather than just for a few teams, and they don't want this to be  shown. ESL probably in there too somehow....maybe a nice brown envelope for Masters if he agreed to it 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by gjohnson
correction

[Hhtoon]

35 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

What has that got to do with manorpark's insistence that it is going through regardless? 

 

About as much as your response to him I'd imagine.