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

[Fantail Breeze]

 

Even the most optimistic person can read that and he unconcerned surely?

 

*the full thread not just that single tweet.

 

Why would it be bad news?

 

It shows they're serious about getting into football.

 

Owning Inter Milan and Newcastle would never work. The fact they are seeking out the possibility of Inter tells you everything you need to know.

 

Groups with more than one team tend to own a big club and then multiple small clubs, to avoid the possibility of them both qualifying for the same competition.

 

Girona and Troyes for example, are probably not going to be playing CL football any time soon. Even if they did ever qualify, CFG would probably pull them out of it to ensure Man City could play.

[Hhtoon]

 

Even the most optimistic person can read that and he unconcerned surely?

 

*the full thread not just that single tweet.

 

Why would it be bad news?

 

It shows they're serious about getting into football.

 

Owning Inter Milan and Newcastle would never work. The fact they are seeking out the possibility of Inter tells you everything you need to know.

 

Groups with more than one team tend to own a big club and then multiple small clubs, to avoid the possibility of them both qualifying for the same competition.

 

Girona and Troyes for example, are probably not going to be playing CL football any time soon. Even if they did ever qualify, CFG would probably pull them out of it to ensure Man City could play.

 

I'd assume the same. Can't imagine you're allowed to be involved with 2 clubs in the same competition.

I'm labelling this under negative news.

[gdm]

 

Even the most optimistic person can read that and he unconcerned surely?

 

*the full thread not just that single tweet.

 

Why would it be bad news?

 

It shows they're serious about getting into football.

 

Owning Inter Milan and Newcastle would never work. The fact they are seeking out the possibility of Inter tells you everything you need to know.

 

Groups with more than one team tend to own a big club and then multiple small clubs, to avoid the possibility of them both qualifying for the same competition.

 

Girona and Troyes for example, are probably not going to be playing CL football any time soon. Even if they did ever qualify, CFG would probably pull them out of it to ensure Man City could play.

 

I'd assume the same. Can't imagine you're allowed to be involved with 2 clubs in the same competition.

I'm labelling this under negative news.

 

I thought that too but Red Bull have had teams play each other in Europe or is that different?

[Kaizero]

 

Even the most optimistic person can read that and he unconcerned surely?

 

*the full thread not just that single tweet.

 

Why would it be bad news?

 

It shows they're serious about getting into football.

 

Owning Inter Milan and Newcastle would never work. The fact they are seeking out the possibility of Inter tells you everything you need to know.

 

Groups with more than one team tend to own a big club and then multiple small clubs, to avoid the possibility of them both qualifying for the same competition.

 

Girona and Troyes for example, are probably not going to be playing CL football any time soon. Even if they did ever qualify, CFG would probably pull them out of it to ensure Man City could play.

 

I'd assume the same. Can't imagine you're allowed to be involved with 2 clubs in the same competition.

I'm labelling this under negative news.

 

RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig say hello.

 

As the owner organization, just appoint two different boards and have different personnel and you're golden.

[Danh1]

Interesting that they only want a stake in Inter Milan of 30% and not full ownership.

 

Is there something in the rules around having two clubs with more than that and them not being allowed to play each other perhaps? Fuck knows.

[cubaricho]

 

Even the most optimistic person can read that and he unconcerned surely?

 

*the full thread not just that single tweet.

 

Why would it be bad news?

 

It shows they're serious about getting into football.

 

Owning Inter Milan and Newcastle would never work. The fact they are seeking out the possibility of Inter tells you everything you need to know.

 

Groups with more than one team tend to own a big club and then multiple small clubs, to avoid the possibility of them both qualifying for the same competition.

 

Girona and Troyes for example, are probably not going to be playing CL football any time soon. Even if they did ever qualify, CFG would probably pull them out of it to ensure Man City could play.

 

I have some potentially bad news for you.

[Stifler]

 

Even the most optimistic person can read that and he unconcerned surely?

 

*the full thread not just that single tweet.

 

Why would it be bad news?

 

It shows they're serious about getting into football.

 

Owning Inter Milan and Newcastle would never work. The fact they are seeking out the possibility of Inter tells you everything you need to know.

 

Groups with more than one team tend to own a big club and then multiple small clubs, to avoid the possibility of them both qualifying for the same competition.

 

Girona and Troyes for example, are probably not going to be playing CL football any time soon. Even if they did ever qualify, CFG would probably pull them out of it to ensure Man City could play.

 

I'd assume the same. Can't imagine you're allowed to be involved with 2 clubs in the same competition.

I'm labelling this under negative news.

 

I thought that too but Red Bull have had teams play each other in Europe or is that different?

The only difference between Leipzig and Salzburg is that the Red Bull owner owns one directly and the other through Red Bull, although he would ultimately own Red Bull in anyway.

I think the Red Bull teams show how there would be a way to work around it if required.

There was similar concerns when we qualified for Europe and Ashley owned 10% of Rangers.

[Kanji]

Quite simple. Still interested, but opportunity presents a reality of the vision to acquire a football team or investment into it.

 

Tony's article + Ben's tweets today have been quite reassuring that it isn't all doom and gloom. Staying in the PL is still the #1 priority and hopefully the rest falls into place.

[cubaricho]

Quite simple. Still interested, but opportunity presents a reality of the vision to acquire a football team or investment into it.

 

Tony's article + Ben's tweets today have been quite reassuring that it isn't all doom and gloom. Staying in the PL is still the #1 priority and hopefully the rest falls into place.

 

Exactly this.

[Hhtoon]

 

Even the most optimistic person can read that and he unconcerned surely?

 

*the full thread not just that single tweet.

 

Why would it be bad news?

 

It shows they're serious about getting into football.

 

Owning Inter Milan and Newcastle would never work. The fact they are seeking out the possibility of Inter tells you everything you need to know.

 

Groups with more than one team tend to own a big club and then multiple small clubs, to avoid the possibility of them both qualifying for the same competition.

 

Girona and Troyes for example, are probably not going to be playing CL football any time soon. Even if they did ever qualify, CFG would probably pull them out of it to ensure Man City could play.

 

I'd assume the same. Can't imagine you're allowed to be involved with 2 clubs in the same competition.

I'm labelling this under negative news.

 

RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig say hello.

 

As the owner organization, just appoint two different boards and have different personnel and you're golden.

 

Ha cheers - knew I should have had a cursory Google.

[Fantail Breeze]

 

Even the most optimistic person can read that and he unconcerned surely?

 

*the full thread not just that single tweet.

 

Why would it be bad news?

 

It shows they're serious about getting into football.

 

Owning Inter Milan and Newcastle would never work. The fact they are seeking out the possibility of Inter tells you everything you need to know.

 

Groups with more than one team tend to own a big club and then multiple small clubs, to avoid the possibility of them both qualifying for the same competition.

 

Girona and Troyes for example, are probably not going to be playing CL football any time soon. Even if they did ever qualify, CFG would probably pull them out of it to ensure Man City could play.

 

I'd assume the same. Can't imagine you're allowed to be involved with 2 clubs in the same competition.

I'm labelling this under negative news.

 

RB Salzburg and RB Leipzig say hello.

 

As the owner organization, just appoint two different boards and have different personnel and you're golden.

 

UEFA accepted 'no individual or legal entity had anymore a decisive influence' and thus both sides were permitted into Champions League action

 

Depends on the ownership model of PIF I suppose, but that’s hardly been a great success with the PL thus far never mind UEFA

[Ben]

Putting aside the takeover at what stage does Ashley think "hold on a minute we could go down here I better do something" I reckon if Fulham win against Spurs he might act

[Dr Jinx]

Putting aside the takeover at what stage does Ashley think "hold on a minute we could go down here I better do something" I reckon if Fulham win against Spurs he might act

 

Unless Rafa has indicated he would come back, and even in that unlikely scenario, it’s possibly too late now.

 

Relegation is probably 70% nailed on at this point. Even if both us and Fulham don’t score another point before the last game of the season, I think they’d beat us in the last game and stay up on goal difference.

[Consortium of one]

For me, the whole issue on this board is that there are a few hyper positives and a few hyper negatives.

 

Those two extremes argue away but god forbid someone else say something mildly negative or mildly positive then the hypers get all bent out of shape and begin trying to educate us (again and again) why they are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

If the two extremist groups would just shut their festering gobs then the rest of us can just carry on with a genuine conversation.

 

Its opinions.  Nothing more.

 

 

[gdm]

Newcastle United remains up for sale with Mike Ashley still eager to sell the club he took over in 2007 - but bargain hunters have been told to forget hopes an early price reduction this week.

 

And while there have been suggestions that United had effectively been taken off the market amid the threat of relegation this week, such a stance emerged after a flurry of new enquiries for Newcastle.

 

Indeed, Chronicle Live has learned that Newcastle have been approached by overseas buyers who had enquired about the prospect of buying the Magpies IF they are relegated and whether a knockdown price - as low as £50million in one case - would be acceptable to Ashley.

 

[Kaizero]

Big Mike's getting heavy in bed with PIF regardless of the NUFC debacle, would imagine that is positive.

[Pokerprince2004]

[Robster]

Well, that cannot possibly be good news.

[joeyt]

[Optimistic Nut]

NUFC v EPL public statement to be considered following publication of the two judgments:

Today the High Court handed down judgment in NUFC’s application to have the Chairman of the Arbitration Panel under the Premier League’s (‘EPL’) Rules removed from hearing its claim concerning the proposed takeover of the Club. The Club asked for the Chairman to be removed on the ground of apparent bias.

The Club made the application because two weeks after the Chairman had been appointed the lawyers representing the Premier League, Bird & Bird, disclosed information that the Club had previously been unaware of. In particular, Bird & Bird disclosed that the Chairman had provided confidential advice to the EPL in 2017.

Although the advice was not provided to the Club, the Club was informed that the Chairman had advised the EPL on amendments to its ‘Owners and Directors Test’ (‘OADT’) in Section F of its Rules. Shortly after the Chairman provided that advice in 2017 the Rules were changed to prevent a foreign owner involved in alleged broadcasting piracy from passing the test.

This information concerned the Club given the following context: in a much publicised letter to EPL clubs in April 2020, BeIN Sports called for the EPL to “strictly apply” the OADT to prevent the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, PIF, from being involved in the takeover of the Club because BeIN alleged that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘the KSA’) was involved in broadcasting piracy. Later that year, the EPL decided that the KSA controlled the PIF and was therefore a ‘Director’ under its Rules. The Club disputes this analysis and brought an arbitration to reverse the decision. As today’s Judgment records, the Club’s case is that the arbitration is wider than simply the definition of ‘Director’ and part of the Club’s challenge is to the lawfulness of the EPL’s approach when considering the takeover.

The Chairman had also failed to disclose, when he was appointed, that he had previously been appointed by Bird & Bird and, in the last 3 years, had been an arbitrator in 12 cases involving Bird & Bird. When challenged by the Club, prior to the High Court claim, the Chairman did not agree to step down. The Club’s concerns were heightened when he then engaged in unilateral communications with Bird & Bird about the Club’s challenge, which is expressly against the EPL arbitration rules. In his private emails with the EPL’s lawyers he asked if they wanted him to carry on as Chairman, and he later explained that if they had asked him to step down he would have done so. The private email exchange was only disclosed after Bird & Bird suggested it should be.

Although the Court was critical of these communications, describing them as an “error of judgment” the Court refused the Club’s application to remove the Chairman on grounds of apparent bias.

The Club is disappointed with the Court’s judgment on this issue. As noted at the end of the Judgment, the Club submitted that the Judge did not address all of the Club’s arguments. The Club is committed to the speedy and fair determination of its claim so that the proposed takeover can go ahead as soon as possible. However, it felt it had to make this application given the need for the dispute to be determined by way of a fair process. The Club is considering whether or not to pursue an appeal.

The Club argued for the hearing to be in public but lost on that argument. The Club also wanted the Judgment to be published, even though it was dissatisfied with the outcome. Meanwhile, the EPL attempted to prevent it from being published at all. The EPL said that if it was published it should be heavily redacted and anonymised so that readers would not be able to identify the dispute. Unfortunately, this is consistent with the EPL’s lack of transparency over the takeover. The Club won on this point. The Judge rejected the EPL’s arguments and said there was a “public interest” in publication of the Judgment. The Club welcomes the fact that at least its supporters, and the wider public interested in the takeover and the dispute, will now be able to have some information about the process.

The Club shall continue to actively pursue its claim in the arbitration and calls on the EPL to resolve the matter in a speedy and transparent way that does not prevent the substantial investment into English football, and the North East region, that the proposed takeover would bring.

[Ketsbaia]

Not a clue

[TheHoob]

Shots fired.

 

NUFC v EPL public statement to be considered following publication of the two judgments:

 

Today the High Court handed down judgment in NUFC’s application to have the Chairman of the Arbitration Panel under the Premier League’s (‘EPL’) Rules removed from hearing its claim concerning the proposed takeover of the Club. The Club asked for the Chairman to be removed on the ground of apparent bias.

 

The Club made the application because two weeks after the Chairman had been appointed the lawyers representing the Premier League, Bird & Bird, disclosed information that the Club had previously been unaware of. In particular, Bird & Bird disclosed that the Chairman had provided confidential advice to the EPL in 2017.

 

Although the advice was not provided to the Club, the Club was informed that the Chairman had advised the EPL on amendments to its ‘Owners and Directors Test’ (‘OADT’) in Section F of its Rules. Shortly after the Chairman provided that advice in 2017 the Rules were changed to prevent a foreign owner involved in alleged broadcasting piracy from passing the test.

 

This information concerned the Club given the following context: in a much publicised letter to EPL clubs in April 2020, BeIN Sports called for the EPL to “strictly apply” the OADT to prevent the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, PIF, from being involved in the takeover of the Club because BeIN alleged that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (‘the KSA’) was involved in broadcasting piracy. Later that year, the EPL decided that the KSA controlled the PIF and was therefore a ‘Director’ under its Rules. The Club disputes this analysis and brought an arbitration to reverse the decision. As today’s Judgment records, the Club’s case is that the arbitration is wider than simply the definition of ‘Director’ and part of the Club’s challenge is to the lawfulness of the EPL’s approach when considering the takeover.

 

The Chairman had also failed to disclose, when he was appointed, that he had previously been appointed by Bird & Bird and, in the last 3 years, had been an arbitrator in 12 cases involving Bird & Bird. When challenged by the Club, prior to the High Court claim, the Chairman did not agree to step down. The Club’s concerns were heightened when he then engaged in unilateral communications with Bird & Bird about the Club’s challenge, which is expressly against the EPL arbitration rules. In his private emails with the EPL’s lawyers he asked if they wanted him to carry on as Chairman, and he later explained that if they had asked him to step down he would have done so. The private email exchange was only disclosed after Bird & Bird suggested it should be.

 

Although the Court was critical of these communications, describing them as an “error of judgment” the Court refused the Club’s application to remove the Chairman on grounds of apparent bias.

 

The Club is disappointed with the Court’s judgment on this issue. As noted at the end of the Judgment, the Club submitted that the Judge did not address all of the Club’s arguments. The Club is committed to the speedy and fair determination of its claim so that the proposed takeover can go ahead as soon as possible. However, it felt it had to make this application given the need for the dispute to be determined by way of a fair process. The Club is considering whether or not to pursue an appeal.

 

The Club argued for the hearing to be in public but lost on that argument. The Club also wanted the Judgment to be published, even though it was dissatisfied with the outcome. Meanwhile, the EPL attempted to prevent it from being published at all. The EPL said that if it was published it should be heavily redacted and anonymised so that readers would not be able to identify the dispute. Unfortunately, this is consistent with the EPL’s lack of transparency over the takeover. The Club won on this point. The Judge rejected the EPL’s arguments and said there was a “public interest” in publication of the Judgment. The Club welcomes the fact that at least its supporters, and the wider public interested in the takeover and the dispute, will now be able to have some information about the process.

 

The Club shall continue to actively pursue its claim in the arbitration and calls on the EPL to resolve the matter in a speedy and transparent way that does not prevent the substantial investment into English football, and the North East region, that the proposed takeover would bring.

[Robster]

De Marco's first loss ?

[Candi_Hills]

Does this mean the bloke who'll be overseeing arbitration is in the PL / Qatar / Liverpool's pocket? We've tried to have him removed but failed. Am I understanding this correctly?

[Matt]

Christ that is so badly written.