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

[Wandy]

 

How do you know that they have no obligation to make a decision one way or the other? Show us the proof of this.

 

 

 

Why do I need to prove anything to you? It’s self evident.

 

The PL doesn’t have to do anything. Why do they? Sure, the rules say they need to have an answer in five days (or ten, I can’t remember). They haven’t. Why not? Because there’s nothing to make them.

 

From the reporting I’ve read, the impasse seems to be that the PL has requested that the consortium make amendments to their directors before they will approve the sale. PIF/KSA have declined to do so. If that scenario is correct, what exactly are they doing “wrong” by giving the consortium more time to make the required adjustments.

 

In fact, you could even argue that the PL has done more than they needed to in giving them the opportunity to change their application. They should have rejected it, but they haven’t - see how fair they are being? (Just getting people ready for next week’s press)

 

The PL has lots of rules it doesn’t enforce. Because no one makes them. Except, occasionally, commercial partners who ask for rules to be sort-of enforced.

 

Maybe it’s just the first time some people have been victims of Qatari corruption. Me, I remember when the English FA... chose to vote for Qatar 2022 instead of Australia (despite private assurances).

 

You need to prove it because you presented your opinion as if it were a known fact.

 

Nothing is self evident here. Nobody has a clue what, if anything, is going on in the background.

 

You suggesting that the PL have to do nothing from here on is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

 

Mate, you’re kidding yourself.

 

I notice you have not addressed my... thesis. Because you don’t have an argument.

 

EDIT: Actually, I’ll play your stupid game, Rafa style.

 

It’s a fact that the PL is obliged to provide a response to the O&D test within five days (PL rule f.1.3)

 

Its a fact that they can request amendments that give the applicants ten days to get their directors list in order (PL rule f. 1.2).

 

It’s a fact that they have not adhered to those rules as written - unless, for four months, there has been a 4-9-4-9 day bouncing between PL and PIF.

 

It’s a fact that the consortium has not taken legal steps against the... improper processing of their application - at least, they have not announced it.

 

I'm not kidding myself at all. If anyone is doing that it is you.

 

Nobody knows how, if or when the PL have adhered to their little aet of rules. The only known "fact' is that the PIF have issued a statement saying they have pulled out, only for Staveley to then quickly say that the PIF will be straight back in if the PL give them the green light.

 

All you are doing is presenting you own theory of what has happened and what will now happen, which you are perfectly entitled to do. But that theory is no more valid than that of those who are sitting on the optimistic side of the fence.

[Jackie Broon]

 

How do you know that they have no obligation to make a decision one way or the other? Show us the proof of this.

 

 

 

Why do I need to prove anything to you? It’s self evident.

 

The PL doesn’t have to do anything. Why do they? Sure, the rules say they need to have an answer in five days (or ten, I can’t remember). They haven’t. Why not? Because there’s nothing to make them.

 

From the reporting I’ve read, the impasse seems to be that the PL has requested that the consortium make amendments to their directors before they will approve the sale. PIF/KSA have declined to do so. If that scenario is correct, what exactly are they doing “wrong” by giving the consortium more time to make the required adjustments.

 

In fact, you could even argue that the PL has done more than they needed to in giving them the opportunity to change their application. They should have rejected it, but they haven’t - see how fair they are being? (Just getting people ready for next week’s press)

 

The PL has lots of rules it doesn’t enforce. Because no one makes them. Except, occasionally, commercial partners who ask for rules to be sort-of enforced.

 

Maybe it’s just the first time some people have been victims of Qatari corruption. Me, I remember when the English FA... chose to vote for Qatar 2022 instead of Australia (despite private assurances).

 

Because there is a rule that allows them to disqualify the proposed directors on that basis (F.1.1.1).

 

The rules explicitly state that a decision shall be made within five working days, whilst it would be perfectly reasonable for the PL to allow the consortium to respond to any concerns they raise (although their O&D test rules don't actually allow for that), if an impasse has been reached and the consortium have made it clear they want a decision to be made, it is not reasonable for the PL to continue to delay making a decision when, by the letter of their rules, they should have made a decision within five working days.

 

In other areas the PL appear to have doggedly stuck to the letter of their rules, such as correspondence being via the club rather than with the consortium, seemingly because rule F.4. is worded referring to the club submitting the declaration and being informed of the decision, rather than the person that proposes to be the director. They seem to be less concerned about sticking to their rules when it comes to the specific, unequivocal timescale set out in them that the PL are in breach of.

 

 

[Shearergol]

Didn't someone say that they hadn't officially withdrawn it to the PL, like their was some official paperwork that had to be submitted to get them to stop with the tests, and this hadn't been done. They just told the media they were done to try and force the PLs hand?

 

Yes, the PL said it hadn't been withdrawn.

 

When?

 

They were asked after the statement if withdrawals to the O&D test had been submitted, PL said it hadn’t. Media haven’t followed up and asked again - thats because they’re being quiet on the matter for a reason.

 

Link? As in “not a Twitter rumour” link please.

[Dokko]

Didn't someone say that they hadn't officially withdrawn it to the PL, like their was some official paperwork that had to be submitted to get them to stop with the tests, and this hadn't been done. They just told the media they were done to try and force the PLs hand?

 

Yes, the PL said it hadn't been withdrawn.

 

When?

 

They were asked after the statement if withdrawals to the O&D test had been submitted, PL said it hadn’t. Media haven’t followed up and asked again - thats because they’re being quiet on the matter for a reason.

 

Link? As in “not a Twitter rumour” link please.

 

Find it yourself you lazy bastard. Start from page 69 and work your way forward. It’s in this thread somewhere.

[Raconteur]

 

Because there is a rule that allows them to disqualify the proposed directors on that basis (F.1.1.1).

 

The rules explicitly state that a decision shall be made within five working days, whilst it would be perfectly reasonable for the PL to allow the consortium to respond to any concerns they raise (although their O&D test rules don't actually allow for that), if an impasse has been reached and the consortium have made it clear they want a decision to be made, it is not reasonable for the PL to continue to delay making a decision when, by the letter of their rules, they should have made a decision within five working days.

 

In other areas the PL appear to have doggedly stuck to the letter of their rules, such as correspondence being via the club rather than with the consortium, seemingly because rule F.4. is worded referring to the club submitting the declaration and being informed of the decision, rather than the person that proposes to be the director. They seem to be less concerns about sticking to their rules when it comes to the specific, unequivocal timescale set out in them that the PL are in breach of.

 

 

 

You’re perfectly correct to say that the rules say they should do this, and should do that. In fact, if that idiot above was paying attention, he’d notice that my arguments are generally fact-based, and when I’m presented with facts that are inconsistent, I adjust my opinion accordingly. You, yourself, convinced me of f.1.3 about ten pages ago - because I asked for your argument and you provided it.

 

However, the string of facts I presented above are true, even if Wandy[/member] denies it.

 

As you said, JB, the PL does have to provide an answer within five days. If they ask for more information from the consortium, it has to be provided within ten days - and then the five days starts again.

 

The PL have not adhered to those rules. Wandy[/member] suggests that is not a fact. To which I say “How then do you reconcile rule F.1.2 and rule F.1.3 with the facts as we know them?”

 

The consortium has not challenged the failure of the PL to make a decision. This is indeed an opinion - based on the information available. These pages are filled with people suggesting the consortium should sue the PL, Ashley should sue the PL, the Trust, even that goose with his private letter. And I ask you, what legal basis is there to challenge in this case? Who could bring action, and what type of action, and in which jurisdiction?

 

And if someone can give an actual answer to that, I’d love to hear it. I’m actually hoping that all the optimists/fantasists are right, and that MBS is signing the cheque for Mbappe before the new season starts. So please, some real hope would actually be really appreciated. Not some fluffy, hopeful bullshit.

[Shearergol]

Didn't someone say that they hadn't officially withdrawn it to the PL, like their was some official paperwork that had to be submitted to get them to stop with the tests, and this hadn't been done. They just told the media they were done to try and force the PLs hand?

 

Yes, the PL said it hadn't been withdrawn.

 

When?

 

They were asked after the statement if withdrawals to the O&D test had been submitted, PL said it hadn’t. Media haven’t followed up and asked again - thats because they’re being quiet on the matter for a reason.

 

Link? As in “not a Twitter rumour” link please.

 

Find it yourself you lazy bastard. Start from page 69 and work your way forward. It’s in this thread somewhere.

 

Ahh, so there’s nothing factual, just someone posting it on here. Cool.

[Jackie Broon]

 

Because there is a rule that allows them to disqualify the proposed directors on that basis (F.1.1.1).

 

The rules explicitly state that a decision shall be made within five working days, whilst it would be perfectly reasonable for the PL to allow the consortium to respond to any concerns they raise (although their O&D test rules don't actually allow for that), if an impasse has been reached and the consortium have made it clear they want a decision to be made, it is not reasonable for the PL to continue to delay making a decision when, by the letter of their rules, they should have made a decision within five working days.

 

In other areas the PL appear to have doggedly stuck to the letter of their rules, such as correspondence being via the club rather than with the consortium, seemingly because rule F.4. is worded referring to the club submitting the declaration and being informed of the decision, rather than the person that proposes to be the director. They seem to be less concerns about sticking to their rules when it comes to the specific, unequivocal timescale set out in them that the PL are in breach of.

 

 

 

You’re perfectly correct to say that the rules say they should do this, and should do that. In fact, if that idiot above was paying attention, he’d notice that my arguments are generally fact-based, and when I’m presented with facts that are inconsistent, I adjust my opinion accordingly. You, yourself, convinced me of f.1.3 about ten pages ago - because I asked for your argument and you provided it.

 

However, the string of facts I presented above are true, even if Wandy[/member] denies it.

 

As you said, JB, the PL does have to provide an answer within five days. If they ask for more information from the consortium, it has to be provided within ten days - and then the five days starts again.

 

The PL have not adhered to those rules. Wandy[/member] suggests that is not a fact. To which I say “How then do you reconcile rule F.1.2 and rule F.1.3 with the facts as we know them?”

 

The consortium has not challenged the failure of the PL to make a decision. This is indeed an opinion - based on the information available. These pages are filled with people suggesting the consortium should sue the PL, Ashley should sue the PL, the Trust, even that goose with his private letter. And I ask you, what legal basis is there to challenge in this case? Who could bring action, and what type of action, and in which jurisdiction?

 

And if someone can give an actual answer to that, I’d love to hear it. I’m actually hoping that all the optimists/fantasists are right, and that MBS is signing the cheque for Mbappe before the new season starts. So please, some real hope would actually be really appreciated. Not some fluffy, hopeful bullshit.

 

I am not a lawyer, nor is this anything like the area of law I have professional experience of, but I think it's highly likely that there would be legal avenues for, at very least, the consortium to sue the PL to for the £17m deposit they lost because the PL did not make a decision. Staveley is suing Barkleys for £1.6 billion, they're not going to just write off that £17m that the PL have caused them to lose.

 

But that's a matter between the consortium and the PL. I think the more pressing issue for us, as supporters trying to make it as uncomfortable for the PL to continue not making a decision, is to raise the fact that there is a timescale in their rules and the PL have broken their own rules by not meeting it. Also that Richard Masters either doesn't know the PL's rules on the O&D test or mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee when he said "there is no timetable set out as part of the rules".

[Wandy]

 

Because there is a rule that allows them to disqualify the proposed directors on that basis (F.1.1.1).

 

The rules explicitly state that a decision shall be made within five working days, whilst it would be perfectly reasonable for the PL to allow the consortium to respond to any concerns they raise (although their O&D test rules don't actually allow for that), if an impasse has been reached and the consortium have made it clear they want a decision to be made, it is not reasonable for the PL to continue to delay making a decision when, by the letter of their rules, they should have made a decision within five working days.

 

In other areas the PL appear to have doggedly stuck to the letter of their rules, such as correspondence being via the club rather than with the consortium, seemingly because rule F.4. is worded referring to the club submitting the declaration and being informed of the decision, rather than the person that proposes to be the director. They seem to be less concerns about sticking to their rules when it comes to the specific, unequivocal timescale set out in them that the PL are in breach of.

 

 

 

You’re perfectly correct to say that the rules say they should do this, and should do that. In fact, if that idiot above was paying attention, he’d notice that my arguments are generally fact-based, and when I’m presented with facts that are inconsistent, I adjust my opinion accordingly. You, yourself, convinced me of f.1.3 about ten pages ago - because I asked for your argument and you provided it.

 

However, the string of facts I presented above are true, even if Wandy[/member] denies it.

 

As you said, JB, the PL does have to provide an answer within five days. If they ask for more information from the consortium, it has to be provided within ten days - and then the five days starts again.

 

The PL have not adhered to those rules. Wandy[/member] suggests that is not a fact. To which I say “How then do you reconcile rule F.1.2 and rule F.1.3 with the facts as we know them?”

 

The consortium has not challenged the failure of the PL to make a decision. This is indeed an opinion - based on the information available. These pages are filled with people suggesting the consortium should sue the PL, Ashley should sue the PL, the Trust, even that goose with his private letter. And I ask you, what legal basis is there to challenge in this case? Who could bring action, and what type of action, and in which jurisdiction?

 

And if someone can give an actual answer to that, I’d love to hear it. I’m actually hoping that all the optimists/fantasists are right, and that MBS is signing the cheque for Mbappe before the new season starts. So please, some real hope would actually be really appreciated. Not some fluffy, hopeful bullshit.

 

The only facts that you have presented are what are the known rules and guidance of the PL's O&D test. That's it. Everything else you have stated is supposition, you condescending clown.

[Dokko]

Didn't someone say that they hadn't officially withdrawn it to the PL, like their was some official paperwork that had to be submitted to get them to stop with the tests, and this hadn't been done. They just told the media they were done to try and force the PLs hand?

 

Yes, the PL said it hadn't been withdrawn.

 

When?

 

They were asked after the statement if withdrawals to the O&D test had been submitted, PL said it hadn’t. Media haven’t followed up and asked again - thats because they’re being quiet on the matter for a reason.

 

Link? As in “not a Twitter rumour” link please.

 

Find it yourself you lazy bastard. Start from page 69 and work your way forward. It’s in this thread somewhere.

 

Ahh, so there’s nothing factual, just someone posting it on here. Cool.

 

Read it however you will, that's what you intended anyway.

[Happinesstan]

 

Because there is a rule that allows them to disqualify the proposed directors on that basis (F.1.1.1).

 

The rules explicitly state that a decision shall be made within five working days, whilst it would be perfectly reasonable for the PL to allow the consortium to respond to any concerns they raise (although their O&D test rules don't actually allow for that), if an impasse has been reached and the consortium have made it clear they want a decision to be made, it is not reasonable for the PL to continue to delay making a decision when, by the letter of their rules, they should have made a decision within five working days.

 

In other areas the PL appear to have doggedly stuck to the letter of their rules, such as correspondence being via the club rather than with the consortium, seemingly because rule F.4. is worded referring to the club submitting the declaration and being informed of the decision, rather than the person that proposes to be the director. They seem to be less concerns about sticking to their rules when it comes to the specific, unequivocal timescale set out in them that the PL are in breach of.

 

 

 

You’re perfectly correct to say that the rules say they should do this, and should do that. In fact, if that idiot above was paying attention, he’d notice that my arguments are generally fact-based, and when I’m presented with facts that are inconsistent, I adjust my opinion accordingly. You, yourself, convinced me of f.1.3 about ten pages ago - because I asked for your argument and you provided it.

 

However, the string of facts I presented above are true, even if Wandy[/member] denies it.

 

As you said, JB, the PL does have to provide an answer within five days. If they ask for more information from the consortium, it has to be provided within ten days - and then the five days starts again.

 

The PL have not adhered to those rules. Wandy[/member] suggests that is not a fact. To which I say “How then do you reconcile rule F.1.2 and rule F.1.3 with the facts as we know them?”

 

The consortium has not challenged the failure of the PL to make a decision. This is indeed an opinion - based on the information available. These pages are filled with people suggesting the consortium should sue the PL, Ashley should sue the PL, the Trust, even that goose with his private letter. And I ask you, what legal basis is there to challenge in this case? Who could bring action, and what type of action, and in which jurisdiction?

 

And if someone can give an actual answer to that, I’d love to hear it. I’m actually hoping that all the optimists/fantasists are right, and that MBS is signing the cheque for Mbappe before the new season starts. So please, some real hope would actually be really appreciated. Not some fluffy, hopeful bullshit.

 

I am not a lawyer, nor is this anything like the area of law I have professional experience of, but I think it's highly likely that there would be legal avenues for, at very least, the consortium to sue the PL to for the £17m deposit they lost because the PL did not make a decision. Staveley is suing Barkleys for £1.6 billion , they're not going to just write off that £17m that the PL have caused them to lose.

 

But that's a matter between the consortium and the PL. I think the more pressing issue for us, as supporters trying to make it as uncomfortable for the PL to continue not making a decision, is to raise the fact that there is a timescale in their rules and the PL have broken their own rules by not meeting it. Also that Richard Masters either doesn't know the PL's rules on the O&D test or mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee when he said "there is no timetable set out as part of the rules".

 

They're not writing anything off. They're the Saudi investment fund, they've invested £17 million on fostering a positive relationship with the NE of England.

[Raconteur]

 

The only facts that you have presented are what are the known rules and guidance of the PL's O&D test. That's it. Everything else you have stated is supposition, you condescending clown.

 

I’ll keep playing, because I’m bored. I’m glad you noticed I’m being condescending - in fact, I was aiming for patronising as fuck, because I’ve selected you as representative of the fantasists on this board.

 

Once again, no response to the argument. Or the facts. True to form, good on you

 

Let’s do this slowly. You have accepted the rules I’m talking about. They should have made a decision according to those rules. Are we still together?

 

They haven’t made a decision. Is that fact in doubt?

 

No one has sued the PL (as yet). Unless that is not a fact, and you know something no one else does?

 

No one has offered any legal argument of any strength that suggests there are grounds for anyone to sue the PL. I’m actually seeking facts in this case, because if they exist, I’d like to change my opinion.

 

Now, are you going to play properly, or are you going to sook?

[Shearergol]

Didn't someone say that they hadn't officially withdrawn it to the PL, like their was some official paperwork that had to be submitted to get them to stop with the tests, and this hadn't been done. They just told the media they were done to try and force the PLs hand?

 

Yes, the PL said it hadn't been withdrawn.

 

When?

 

They were asked after the statement if withdrawals to the O&D test had been submitted, PL said it hadn’t. Media haven’t followed up and asked again - thats because they’re being quiet on the matter for a reason.

 

Link? As in “not a Twitter rumour” link please.

 

Find it yourself you lazy bastard. Start from page 69 and work your way forward. It’s in this thread somewhere.

 

Ahh, so there’s nothing factual, just someone posting it on here. Cool.

 

Read it however you will, that's what you intended anyway.

 

Any chance of giving me a clue to make the search easier? Was it a link to another site, a screenshot, a tweet? I’m up to page 93 and I’m a bit bored.

[Raconteur]

 

I am not a lawyer, nor is this anything like the area of law I have professional experience of, but I think it's highly likely that there would be legal avenues for, at very least, the consortium to sue the PL to for the £17m deposit they lost because the PL did not make a decision. Staveley is suing Barkleys for £1.6 billion, they're not going to just write off that £17m that the PL have caused them to lose.

 

But that's a matter between the consortium and the PL. I think the more pressing issue for us, as supporters trying to make it as uncomfortable for the PL to continue not making a decision, is to raise the fact that there is a timescale in their rules and the PL have broken their own rules by not meeting it. Also that Richard Masters either doesn't know the PL's rules on the O&D test or mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee when he said "there is no timetable set out as part of the rules".

 

I think it’s important to note Staveley’s case against Barclays, because it’s an insight into how litigious she is. And following the case, I thought her argument was far from iron clad, which made me think that she’d throw the dice again if she thought she had a case. But she hasn’t. And while it’s been less than two weeks (and she may yet start action), it’s also informative to note how long it took Staveley to bring her action to court (admittedly in a different jurisdiction, but still).

[Joe_F]

[54]

 

Perfect giffage

[Raconteur]

 

A journalist is guessing that Ashley might have a restraint of trade case. I’d really like to hear how they argue that.

 

Mind, same journalist in the same article says the PL have to say something other than generic, meaningless bullshit. Sure thing, from your lips to God’s ears, you blessedly ignorant fool

[Robster]

I am of the mindset that the PL cannot be touched if they choose to batten down the hatches and to remain silent on this matter.

If that is the case, then the best thing that NUFC fans can do is to unite and to find ways of damaging the PL brand. 

 

 

[TRon]

 

Perfect giffage

 

 

 

[Rosenrot]

 

A journalist is guessing that Ashley might have a restraint of trade case. I’d really like to hear how they argue that.

 

Mind, same journalist in the same article says the PL have to say something other than generic, meaningless bullshit. Sure thing, from your lips to God’s ears, you blessedly ignorant fool

 

Are you a lawyer?

[TRon]

I am of the mindset that the PL cannot be touched if they choose to batten down the hatches and to remain silent on this matter.

If that is the case, then the best thing that NUFC fans can do is to unite and to find ways of damaging the PL brand. 

 

 

 

 

They would like us to shut up eventually and hope it will all blow over. Unfortunately the empty stadiums will help them in this regard otherwise some well versed songs at home and away would have been good fun.

[Scoot]

I am of the mindset that the PL cannot be touched if they choose to batten down the hatches and to remain silent on this matter.

If that is the case, then the best thing that NUFC fans can do is to unite and to find ways of damaging the PL brand. 

 

 

 

 

They would like us to shut up eventually and hope it will all blow over. Unfortunately the empty stadiums will help them in this regard otherwise some well versed songs at home and away would have been good fun.

 

The funniest bit about this post is the fact that people would STILL turn up at St James's park to watch Bruceball as we aim for 40 points again. Exciting times.

[Raconteur]

 

A journalist is guessing that Ashley might have a restraint of trade case. I’d really like to hear how they argue that.

 

Mind, same journalist in the same article says the PL have to say something other than generic, meaningless bullshit. Sure thing, from your lips to God’s ears, you blessedly ignorant fool

 

Are you a lawyer?

 

I am not a lawyer. I have worked as a junior in a law firm - which is nothing close to an expert. But I have some training and experience. Enough to know there’s a lot of wheat, a lot of chaff and not a lot of it is obvious.

 

It’s why I get mad when obviously spurious bullshit is spouted, and why I take most everything else I read with a grain of salt.

[Wandy]

 

The only facts that you have presented are what are the known rules and guidance of the PL's O&D test. That's it. Everything else you have stated is supposition, you condescending clown.

 

I’ll keep playing, because I’m bored. I’m glad you noticed I’m being condescending - in fact, I was aiming for patronising as fuck, because I’ve selected you as representative of the fantasists on this board.

 

Once again, no response to the argument. Or the facts. True to form, good on you

 

Let’s do this slowly. You have accepted the rules I’m talking about. They should have made a decision according to those rules. Are we still together?

 

They haven’t made a decision. Is that fact in doubt?

 

No one has sued the PL (as yet). Unless that is not a fact, and you know something no one else does?

 

No one has offered any legal argument of any strength that suggests there are grounds for anyone to sue the PL. I’m actually seeking facts in this case, because if they exist, I’d like to change my opinion.

 

Now, are you going to play properly, or are you going to sook?

 

In that tripe above you unwittingly just confirmed that your little theory about how the PL and buyers have conducted themselves in the last four months cannot be included in any list of facts.

 

You stated it yourself. Known facts : They have not made a decision yet. Nobody knows why. No legal proceedings have taken place yet. Nobody knows why. The PIF issued a statement saying they intended to walk away but in actual fact have not yet done so officially. Nobody knows why.

 

I responded to your argument by stating that you are merely guessing about the details in which the O&D test have been adhered to. Nobody knows how this has played out but many people have suggested that the PL have abused the rules of the test to get where we are. Everything, and I mean everything, is guesswork at the moment when it goes to working out how the negotiations have played out.

 

Nobody has offered a legal argument to suggest that proceedings can be made against the PL in the same way that nobody has offered one to suggest that they cant. That's because, once again, nobody knows either way. People have relied on their information for this entire farce through journalists who claimed to have sources ITK. Well it's worth pointing out that some of those same journalists are now saying that the buyers believe they will have legal grounds to pursue this.

 

It's entirely reasonable to think that this has not gone legal yet because the buyers would prefer to get this done through reasonably amicable negotiation. It's also possible that the buyers became aware at an early stage that the PL were not adhering to the rules and guidance of their own test but said nothing and played along in the hope that the outcome would be positive. Maybe, just maybe, they have been keeping a tally of all the rule bending in readiness for the legal route. That is not fantasy, it's just taking a different stance on what might have transpired and how things will now play out.

[Raconteur]

Thank you for your response.

 

 

In that tripe above you unwittingly just confirmed that your little theory about how the PL and buyers have conducted themselves in the last four months cannot be included in any list of facts. Could you please rephrase this for clarity?

 

You stated it yourself. Known facts : They have not made a decision yet. Nobody knows why. No legal proceedings have taken place yet. Nobody knows why. The PIF issued a statement saying they intended to walk away but in actual fact have not yet done so officially. Nobody knows why. l’m with you here, except for the part I have underlined.

 

I responded to your argument by stating that you are merely guessing about the details in which the O&D test have been adhered to. Er, what?

 

Nobody knows how this has played out but many people have suggested that the PL have abused the rules of the test to get where we are. Pretty sure I agreed that the PL broke it’s own rules Everything, and I mean everything, is guesswork at the moment when it goes to working out how the negotiations have played out.

 

Nobody has offered a legal argument to suggest that proceedings can be made against the PL in the same way that nobody has offered one to suggest that they cant. A specious argument. I’m saying I don’t think there is a case, prove me wrong

 

That's because, once again, nobody knows either way. People have relied on their information for this entire farce through journalists who claimed to have sources ITK. Well it's worth pointing out that some of those same journalists are now saying that the buyers believe they will have legal grounds to pursue this. Yes, there’s an article from the South Shields Gazette above. A lot of words that says nothing

 

It's entirely reasonable to think that this has not gone legal yet because the buyers would prefer to get this done through reasonably amicable negotiation. Reasonable is a stretch, but it seems to be their current strategy, yes

 

It's also possible that the buyers became aware at an early stage that the PL were not adhering to the rules and guidance of their own test but said nothing and played along in the hope that the outcome would be positive. A reasonable theory, I’d be curious to hear it developed

 

Maybe, just maybe, they have been keeping a tally of all the rule bending in readiness for the legal route. That is not fantasy, it's just taking a different stance on what might have transpired and how things will now play out.Speak to me of this legal route

 

I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. The PL is corrupt and actively stymied a bid by PIF as a favour to BeIn - that’s my opinion. It’s also my opinion that absolutely nothing anyone can and will change enough to enable PIF to take part in a consortium to buy NUFC. I’d love to be presented with strong arguments to change than opinion. Do you have them?

 

And yeah, if you think that somehow Boris and Chi and Amanda and James and the Trust can make Richard Masters rubber stamp a PIF deal, then I comfortable with using the term fantasist.

[Guest dazzanufc1892]

 

A journalist is guessing that Ashley might have a restraint of trade case. I’d really like to hear how they argue that.

 

Mind, same journalist in the same article says the PL have to say something other than generic, meaningless bullshit. Sure thing, from your lips to God’s ears, you blessedly ignorant fool

 

Are you a lawyer?

 

I am not a lawyer. I have worked as a junior in a law firm - which is nothing close to an expert. But I have some training and experience. Enough to know there’s a lot of wheat, a lot of chaff and not a lot of it is obvious.

 

It’s why I get mad when obviously spurious bullshit is spouted, and why I take most everything else I read with a grain of salt.

 

You worked as a junior, so you don’t have the training or knowledge. You’re legal opinion has as much veracity as everybody else’s. let them have their opinion