gjohnson Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Yeah, what a terrible person for trying to purchase this club from the toughest and tightest bastard owner there is in the PL for the past 2-3 years. Shame on her. Would it surprise anyone if it came out she was one of Ashleys mates, and was essentially the uber-Bishop? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 "RM outlined the Owners’ & Directors’ Test process, explaining that it was an objective test and not one that was open to subjective opinion. He explained the need to establish if there were links to other legal entities that would own or control the Club. When an impasse was reached in this matter, the consortium was offered a number of routes to progress the matter: – the entity in question accepts they would have Control by completing relevant forms and processes – an independent arbitration on the issue of Control which en" It is an objective test, it's very clearly set out and the process in the rules is this: Rule F.4. requires the submission of a declaration if any Person proposes to become a director of a club (including anyone acquiring control of the club): That is then assessed against Rule F.1. which sets out a number of 'disqualifying events'. Those 'disqualifying events' include rule F.1.1.1. that the person subject to the test has failed to provide all relevant information (including information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed). Rule F.6. states that: Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will: F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons. Rule F.13. states that Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s) The PL have abundantly clearly not followed that process. They established in June that an 'entity' that they believed should be included as a director had not been disclosed (a disqualifying event under rule F.1.1.1.). Rule F.6. requires them to have issued a notice of disqualification to the proposed directors "upon becoming aware" that they were liable to be disqualified. The rules give them absolutely no other option, they should have issued a formal decision at that point, which could then have been appealed. Everything you say makes sense, but of course the PL also left themselves with enough wiggle room that they could just keep on dragging the process out with enough faith in their position that it wouldn't come back to burn them. Might have been a bit of a gamble on their part, but they knew they would have the backing of the rest of the league, and that was the main thing. They correctly guessed that by putting in the arbitration clause with no guarantees of success if that went in favour of PIF, the Saudis would just decide to walk away rather than wait another 12 months of being messed about. It must have been what they were banking on ultimately. Hence why Ashley has apparently been asking Saudis to give the PL a name. I just wish they would and then we’ll see how confident the PL are of rejecting it. They already had a name, but as far as I'm aware they wanted SA govt to be named officially as owners rather than an individual who couldn't be linked directly. I would guess if they had MBS down as the owner, it would be very difficult to suggest there were any other shadow directors they could insist on being put forward. Of course the Saudis would never go with that, but I bet the PL would get twitchy arses saying he wasn’t fit and proper. In fact it would be worth seeing the impact it would have on U.K. & Saudi relations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Good job this completely bizarre/fake takeover story appeared right at the time the pressure was on. It’s done wonders to water down the situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 If the Saudis do go and buy another team it makes a complete bollocks of their statement about uncertainty about the global financial climate due to Covid being a reason together with doubts about the new season/ training. If they do buy elsewhere I’ll be very disappointed and would have to assume they had something to hide and the league in which they by buy couldn’t give a shit about piracy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanji Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 I'll continue to point the blame at Mike Ashley for taking ages to to sell; and maybe even the timing when it became a league that had a ready-made leadership to push this back, and I'll continue to blame the PL for denying us the chance of transformational investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 If only the fat greedy bastard had accepted Staveley's £300m offer the first time around, eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 I still think it's telling that there's been no comment, official or otherwise, by Staveley since the letter from Masters. You imagine if she's legit that there's a lot of holes in what Masters said to pick at. Such as what happened between March and June (?) when they queried the ownership structure. What happened between that point and PiF withdrawal? Did the consortium provide timely answers and the PL drag their heels with responses and clarifications or the other way round? Find it hard to believe she wouldn't have something to say if this was completely dead in the water having gone to blame the PL so clearly from the off. She doesn't think it's dead basically. Wasn't there something about a 5 day timescale, and if communications were incomplete then the 5 day period would recommence? They've probably just not replied to the requests on time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absolute Elsewhere Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 What an absolute mess. It’s always us isn’t it. The other 19 clubs all have fairly stable owners and a fanbase content that their club is trying to compete the best it can and look forward to a new season, then there’s the constant soap opera that we have to endure and the only club in the league that actively try’s not to compete. Makes it even more criminal when we are the most loyal and passionate fanbase in the country too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 "RM outlined the Owners’ & Directors’ Test process, explaining that it was an objective test and not one that was open to subjective opinion. He explained the need to establish if there were links to other legal entities that would own or control the Club. When an impasse was reached in this matter, the consortium was offered a number of routes to progress the matter: – the entity in question accepts they would have Control by completing relevant forms and processes – an independent arbitration on the issue of Control which en" It is an objective test, it's very clearly set out and the process in the rules is this: Rule F.4. requires the submission of a declaration if any Person proposes to become a director of a club (including anyone acquiring control of the club): That is then assessed against Rule F.1. which sets out a number of 'disqualifying events'. Those 'disqualifying events' include rule F.1.1.1. that the person subject to the test has failed to provide all relevant information (including information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed). Rule F.6. states that: Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will: F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons. Rule F.13. states that Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s) The PL have abundantly clearly not followed that process. They established in June that an 'entity' that they believed should be included as a director had not been disclosed (a disqualifying event under rule F.1.1.1.). Rule F.6. requires them to have issued a notice of disqualification to the proposed directors "upon becoming aware" that they were liable to be disqualified. The rules give them absolutely no other option, they should have issued a formal decision at that point, which could then have been appealed. You argue a sound case, but the PL response is that your reading of F.1.1.1 is too much a strict letter reading, that the PL acknowledged that PIF disclosed its would-be directors but were fuzzy on what “control” meant in the rules - and because the PL is such a helpful bunch, they gave them an opportunity to correct their papers rather than reject it outright. Yes, the rules say they should have been rejected, but I don’t know the argument “Be damned with ‘helpful’, they should have failed us” is going to beat the above PR line. Although the PL may helpfully allow proposed directors to submit additional information (although, by the letter, their rules don't actually allow for that) the PL have said that an impasse was reached in June, they clearly should have issued a formal notice of disqualification at that point. I think you're correct, but I don't think it matters. It would always have come back to whether the Saudi state or individuals in it (whomever it was that the PL took the position was a director) had "control" for purposes of the definition of "director". It seems the PIF/Saudis either aren't confident they'd prevail on that point, don't even want to produce they kind of information they'd need to produce if that issue came to a head, or otherwise don't feel like pursuing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishMagpie Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 FFS!..... https://mobile.twitter.com/WorFund/status/1296485459292454912 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facundo Ferreyra Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 FFS!..... https://mobile.twitter.com/WorFund/status/1296485459292454912 They've got £600... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 FFS!..... https://mobile.twitter.com/WorFund/status/1296485459292454912 What do we want? Money to launch a legal bid on behalf of an obscenely rich consortium/SA Why won't they launch their own legal appeal? That's vague and unclear. Howay I'll get me wallet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 For all the talk of ownership structure and naming state as owners, if the mood changed in July as Ben Jacobs has stated today, this ties in with decision to ban bein. When we look back the sound bites were positive after anti piracy measures were introduced. This is the heart of the matter for me, the PL said piracy wasn’t the reason at this point, but that is clearly bull s***. Caulkin repeatedly stated the consortium were answering questions on piracy. As questions went through Justin Barnes there is surely enough evidence to show the PL are lying b******s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Trying to catch the the PL entirely on guard, I see. Ingenious stategery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awaymag Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 For all the talk of ownership structure and naming state as owners, if the mood changed in July this ties in with decision to ban bein. When we look back the sound bites were positive after anti piracy measures were introduced. This is the heart of the matter for me, the PL said piracy wasn’t the reason at this point, but that is clearly bull s***. Caulkin repeatedly stated the consortium were answering questions on piracy. As questions went through Justin Barnes there is surely enough evidence to show the PL are lying b******s. Basically unless the consortium re-engage or Ashley takes legal action, this time next year, we won't have to worry about the PL anymore. We can then be taken over BN and then put into receivership ala Wigan! Its is all just a big pile of shite, Bruce and his 20% possession football, the media wanking over him, even though they all know he is shit. This is the start of the death spiral and I for one am getting off now. Think I'll go and watch Alnwick, at the real ST James Park and not the Sport Direct Arena Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Won't the EFL have revised their structure for testing by then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cheesy Beans Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 No way would the EFL take an alternate stance to the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenC Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Aye, Alnwick will be my choice as well. Work with a lad who's very involved so I already have an interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Trying to catch the the PL entirely on guard, I see. Ingenious stategery. To be honest what more can NUST do, if they attack the league they wont get an audience with them. By engaging they can keep shining a light on the issue and hope the politicians investigate the PLs actions during the takeover saga. I think NUST' actions to date is more to keep the story in the media so others I.e politicians run with it rather than they to land a knockout punch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raconteur Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 If we get relegated to the EFL, and purchased by PIF under their rules, then the PL would dust off their rule book and remember this rule: F. 3 . Within 21 days of becoming a member of the League each Club promoted from The Football League shall likewise submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of each of its Directors signed as aforesaid. Has this been applied before? Who knows? What would happen to a PIF-owned club that won promotion? Everyone knows! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 The club must have a record of questions asked and the timeline, also they would be aware of no red flag feedback from PL. Someone needs to blow the lid on these smarmy cnuts, the notion that our interest was foremost is fucking laughable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Trying to catch the the PL entirely on guard, I see. Ingenious stategery. To be honest what more can NUST do, if they attack the league they wont get an audience with them. By engaging they can keep shining a light on the issue and hope the politicians investigate the PLs actions during the takeover saga. I think NUST' actions to date is more to keep the story in the media so others I.e politicians run with it rather than they to land a knockout punch. Sorry, I was actually talking about the Wor Fund announcement that they're going to assert an appeal against the PL in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I should have quoted it: FFS!..... https://mobile.twitter.com/WorFund/status/1296485459292454912 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 Trying to catch the the PL entirely on guard, I see. Ingenious stategery. To be honest what more can NUST do, if they attack the league they wont get an audience with them. By engaging they can keep shining a light on the issue and hope the politicians investigate the PLs actions during the takeover saga. I think NUST' actions to date is more to keep the story in the media so others I.e politicians run with it rather than they to land a knockout punch. Sorry, I was actually talking about the Wor Fund announcement that they're going to assert an appeal against the PL in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I should have quoted it: FFS!..... https://mobile.twitter.com/WorFund/status/1296485459292454912 Ah, misunderstood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 The club must have a record of questions asked and the timeline, also they would be aware of no red flag feedback from PL. Someone needs to blow the lid on these smarmy cnuts, the notion that our interest was foremost is fucking laughable. "No red flags" was Staveley's info given to Caulkin - not some fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishops Finger Posted August 20, 2020 Share Posted August 20, 2020 The club must have a record of questions asked and the timeline, also they would be aware of no red flag feedback from PL. Someone needs to blow the lid on these smarmy cnuts, the notion that our interest was foremost is fucking laughable. "No red flags" was Staveley's info given to Caulkin - not some fact. Fuck off! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts