Ketsbaia Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Doom mongers calling out doom mongers. Because i think we'll be relegated? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candi_Hills Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Rafa with a few quid, under new ownership, with fans back in the Championship would be fun Dare I say I'd almost prefer it that way? One season of pure unstoppable momentum while the suits get to work on bringing Darsley Park into the 21st century.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Decision in 6 months according to the ace reporter at the chronicle https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/timeline-newcastles-takeover-arbitration-case-20081132 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Be started on our journey to league 1 by time we get a decision Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppe Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Sigh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 #wait Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BergenMagpie Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Decision in 6 months according to the ace reporter at the chronicle https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/timeline-newcastles-takeover-arbitration-case-20081132 He said within 6 months. 3-5 day hearing and about one month decision making for the arbitrators Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Decision in 6 months according to the ace reporter at the chronicle https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/timeline-newcastles-takeover-arbitration-case-20081132 He said within 6 months. 3-5 day hearing and about one month decision making for the arbitrators It’s a weird article. He basically says he thinks it will be a month, so in 6 months we may know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Decision in 6 months according to the ace reporter at the chronicle https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/timeline-newcastles-takeover-arbitration-case-20081132 He said within 6 months. 3-5 day hearing and about one month decision making for the arbitrators It’s a weird article. He basically says he thinks it will be a month, so in 6 months we may know Yeah I got the impression that he doesn’t really know reading that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Decision in 6 months according to the ace reporter at the chronicle https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/timeline-newcastles-takeover-arbitration-case-20081132 He said within 6 months. 3-5 day hearing and about one month decision making for the arbitrators It’s a weird article. He basically says he thinks it will be a month, so in 6 months we may know That's what I thought too. Strange. Although the way this whole thing has gone, it'll probably be 6 years... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 I'm still baffled as to why the hearing is done in secret Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Because arbitration isn't a public process, they're also likely to be discussing commercially sensitive stuff, but even if they weren't it's not something that would usually, or ever, be open to the public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candi_Hills Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 I'm still baffled as to why the hearing is done in secret I agree. It should be televised from the centre circle with chairs and a big table. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenC Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Because arbitration isn't a public process, they're also likely to be discussing commercially sensitive stuff, but even if they weren't it's not something that would usually, or ever, be open to the public. Basically this, aye. No matter how interested we are, it's fuck all to do with us of course Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 I suppose it gives the takeover team the opportunity to bribe the corrupt fuckas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
InspectorCoarse Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9351551/City-financier-Amanda-Staveley-faces-30MILLION-legal-bill-High-Court-battle.html Oh dear ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Don't care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Have I misread that or does it say that she doesn’t have to pay Barclays legal costs even though they won? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stal Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Have I misread that or does it say that she doesn’t have to pay Barclays legal costs even though they won? Not gonna read a dm article, but wasnt the ruling the equivalent of a draw? Barclays were shady but she didnt warrant compensation was how I read it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 After hearing that PCP had racked up around £20million in legal costs and Barclays had run up £30million of their own, the judge decided both parties should cover their own costs. Normally losers pick up winners' legal bills and Barclays bosses had argued that the judge should have followed the normal rule. But Ms Staveley said the normal rule should not be followed because the judge found in her favour on a number of issues. Yeah, sounds like she’s actually done quite well here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 After hearing that PCP had racked up around £20million in legal costs and Barclays had run up £30million of their own, the judge decided both parties should cover their own costs. Normally losers pick up winners' legal bills and Barclays bosses had argued that the judge should have followed the normal rule. But Ms Staveley said the normal rule should not be followed because the judge found in her favour on a number of issues. Yeah, sounds like she’s actually done quite well here. I don’t think having to pay 20m for her own legal costs is what I would class as doing well mind. Could have been worse, but, her aim was to win the case and have her legal costs covered in that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Icke - Son of God Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 After hearing that PCP had racked up around £20million in legal costs and Barclays had run up £30million of their own, the judge decided both parties should cover their own costs. Normally losers pick up winners' legal bills and Barclays bosses had argued that the judge should have followed the normal rule. But Ms Staveley said the normal rule should not be followed because the judge found in her favour on a number of issues. Yeah, sounds like she’s actually done quite well here. I don’t think having to pay 20m for her own legal costs is what I would class as doing well mind. Could have been worse, but, her aim was to win the case and have her legal costs covered in that. I’ve absolutely no idea how the process works, but I assume you enter these legal situations with the knowledge you may have to pony up for the bill and that bill may be quite substantial. Losing and only having to pay your half seems quite unusual. I genuinely don’t give that much of a fuck, I just read the article assuming it would say one thing and instead it said another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9351551/City-financier-Amanda-Staveley-faces-30MILLION-legal-bill-High-Court-battle.html Oh dear ... Cheers for the update Luke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 I see Glazer is putting 5m of his shares worth £70m up for sale. Would be surprised if PIF were interested in getting their feet in the door at Man Utd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 I see Glazer is putting 5m of his shares worth £70m up for sale. Would be surprised if PIF were interested in getting their feet in the door at Man Utd Less than 3%, I can't see how that is value for money, by the sound of it they would rather build than maintain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts