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

[B-more Mag]

We all need to erase the concept of "separate entity" from our heads -- that's not the issue, and by all accounts KSA and PIF are "separate entities" that have distinct legal identities. The issue is whether the EPL's provisional decision that KSA could be deemed a director, due to control, violated any of the standards I quoted earlier. (PIF and KSA can be  separate legal entities with KSA still having sufficient control to be a director.)

[GWN]

These Ashley years have been a fucking mess.

 

It goes on , it’s grim.

[Doctor Zaius]

 

This is the key, always has been.

 

MBS chairman, deal with state owned companies, .gov address and a board made up of ministers but not a separate entity to KSA. Alright, good luck proving that.

 

 

[gdm]

I think today this has cleared up a few things, I think the need for two threads is pointless at this point. Can they be merged, or the other deleted?

 

If you read the full rulings, there’s 50 times more info to digest than all of the Twitter itk bollocks on the other thread.

 

It’s good news that PIF are still at the table, De Marco couldn’t be arguing on their behalf if they hadn’t given some input. So there is optimism.

 

The bad news is that the establishment are conspiring to block this still. That’s the reality.

 

I think both can live on the same thread?

 

What happens when the inevitable wind up merchants appear and scuttle any optimisn we might have.....I’m sure the optimism thread will remain quiet for a while, but needs to remain in place ........just in case.

 

There is wind up merchants on both sides. It needs to stop. We are not going to hear anything until the arbitration ruling so there’s no real point of a thread to see what RE Maine says because unless he is privy to the arbitration dealings as said many times he knows fuck all.

 

Also the constant ‘look who Ashley has hired, how can we lose patter irks me too. Both sides have very competent and impressive people on their side.

 

Let’s try and concentrate on facts only or we are going to drive ourselves and each other mad until this plays out

[Dr Jinx]

We all need to erase the concept of "separate entity" from our heads -- that's not the issue, and by all accounts KSA and PIF are "separate entities" that have distinct legal identities. The issue is whether the EPL's provisional decision that KSA could be deemed a director, due to control, violated any of the standards I quoted earlier. (PIF and KSA can be  separate legal entities with KSA still having sufficient control to be a director.)

 

I don’t believe the PL have accused the buyers or the sellers or violating the rules of the o&d’s test.

 

Also at this point I don’t even believe they rejected it out of hand. The sticking point was getting KSA (or MBS) listed as a director. It never moved on from that point.

 

Any NUFC fan trying to reason that PIF is not under control by KSA is clutching at straws and to be honest, Mike Ashley probably was too by hiring that legal team, they are basically arguing semantics. If they win it’ll be on the technicality of wording.

 

Or, and again tin foil hat time, the other two on the arbitration panel, both have political ties, NUFC’s nominee Lord Neuberger was brought in by Conservative Ken Clarke whereas the PL’s choice was brought in by Jack Straw. Some lobbying by KSA/PIF could be useful, corrupt yes but that’s the game they’re playing.

[gdm]

These Ashley years have been a fucking mess.

 

It goes on , it’s grim.

 

Listened to that press box confidential podcast with Craig hope and Luke edwards going thru the Eras from Keegan, dalglish, SBR and the Ashley years and fuck me it hit home how grim things have been since Sir Bobby

[B-more Mag]

We all need to erase the concept of "separate entity" from our heads -- that's not the issue, and by all accounts KSA and PIF are "separate entities" that have distinct legal identities. The issue is whether the EPL's provisional decision that KSA could be deemed a director, due to control, violated any of the standards I quoted earlier. (PIF and KSA can be  separate legal entities with KSA still having sufficient control to be a director.)

 

I don’t believe the PL have accused the buyers or the sellers or violating the rules of the o&d’s test.

 

Also at this point I don’t even believe they rejected it out of hand. The sticking point was getting KSA (or MBS) listed as a director. It never moved on from that point.

Any NUFC fan trying to reason that PIF is not under control by KSA is clutching at straws and to be honest, Mike Ashley probably was too by hiring that legal team, they are basically arguing semantics. If they win it’ll be on the technicality of wording.

 

Or, and again tin foil hat time, the other two on the arbitration panel, both have political ties, NUFC’s nominee Lord Neuberger was brought in by Conservative Ken Clarke whereas the PL’s choice was brought in by Jack Straw. Some lobbying by KSA/PIF could be useful, corrupt yes but that’s the game they’re playing.

 

Correct. The judgment expressly says the issue is the PL's decision that KSA would be a director and that the PL had not gone on to make any decision about whether KSA would be disqualified as a director.

 

I don’t believe the PL have accused the buyers or the sellers or violating the rules of the o&d’s test.

 

My point about the standards wasn't so much about violation of the O&D tests as it is that the PL has to prove one of these grounds with respect to the PL's decision that KSA is a director:

 

Here are the available grounds for review in a Board Dispute:

 

Section XX.5. In the case of a Board Dispute, the only grounds for review shall be that the decision:

 

    X.5.1. was reached outside the jurisdiction of the Board;

 

    X.5.2. could not have been reached by any reasonable Board which had applied its mind properly to the issues to be decided;

 

    X.5.3. was reached as a result of fraud, malice or bad faith; or

 

    X.5.4. was contrary to English law; and

 

directly and foreseeably prejudices the interests of a Person or Persons who were in the contemplation of the Board at the time that the decision was made as being directly affected by it and who suffer loss as a result of that decision.

[Scoot]

 

This is the key, always has been.

 

MBS chairman, deal with state owned companies, .gov address and a board made up of ministers but not a separate entity to KSA. Alright, good luck proving that.

 

 

 

Simple as that eh? Give de Marco a message on Twitter, tell him not to bother as you've cracked it.

[Yorkie]

 

This is the key, always has been.

 

MBS chairman, deal with state owned companies, .gov address and a board made up of ministers but not a separate entity to KSA. Alright, good luck proving that.

 

 

 

Simple as that eh? Give de Marco a message on Twitter, tell him not to bother as you've cracked it.

 

Aye, basically. To an absolute layman like all of us, it looks like there's a fundamental connection. But there's a reason why some lawyers are on a million quid an hour.

[B-more Mag]

The thing about litigation and arbitration is even if you've got a case you think you're 100% going to win, there's at least a 10% chance you lose, and when you've got a case you think you're 100% going to lose, there's always at least a 10% chance you win. And most cases don't come anywhere close to approaching either of those poles.

[B-more Mag]

Based on what I do know--which isn't any greater than anyone else who's not directly involved--I'd probably feel more comfortable in the PL's position than NUFC's.

 

Section X.5. In the case of a Board Dispute, the only grounds for review shall be that the decision:

 

    X.5.1. was reached outside the jurisdiction of the Board;

 

    X.5.2. could not have been reached by any reasonable Board which had applied its mind properly to the issues to be decided;

 

    X.5.3. was reached as a result of fraud, malice or bad faith; or

 

    X.5.4. was contrary to English law; and

 

directly and foreseeably prejudices the interests of a Person or Persons who were in the contemplation of the Board at the time that the decision was made as being directly affected by it and who suffer loss as a result of that decision.

 

X.5.1 -- Can't see this being an issue. The determination of KSA being a director is pretty squarely within the Board's remit.

 

X.5.2 -- From what I've seen, I wouldn't feel great having to prove this. But, again, I don't know what evidence NUFC has.

 

X.5.3 -- Maybe, if they can cobble evidence sufficient to establish that the whole director thing is artifice and the real issue is the IP/broadcasting stuff.

 

X.5.4 -- I've got no clue.

 

I can't imagine NUFC would have any problem establishing the final part, about its interests being prejudiced or suffering loss.

[Dr Jinx]

I’d call what’s going on as a game of chess at the moment by the legal team.

 

They might have expected to lose today’s verdict, the victory might be that the information is now in the public domain.

 

Things inevitably leak out. If the PL have been dishonest in how they’ve conducted themselves there might be more to come out where they will eventually decide it’s not worth playing all of this out, as even if the proceedings are not going to be public, the ruling will be.

 

 

[Toon No9]

So can anyone explain to me, as if I was a six year old, what's going on?

Is the takeover any closer or more far away than it was yesterday?

[Yorkie]

So can anyone explain to me, as if I was a six year old, what's going on?

Is the takeover any closer or more far away than it was yesterday?

 

It's closer to a resolution but there's nothing to be gleaned from today with regards to whether or not we'll eventually get the result we want.

[GWN]

So can anyone explain to me, as if I was a six year old, what's going on?

Is the takeover any closer or more far away than it was yesterday?

 

Log off, stop the dream and you will find peace mate 

[gdm]

[junkhead]

So where can we read the full judgement?

[Robster]

So where can we read the full judgement?

 

 

[Fantail Breeze]

So after all of the companies house searching... This is the one we needed:

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12388231

 

Interesting date of incorporation...

[Awaymag]

So can anyone explain to me, as if I was a six year old, what's going on?

Is the takeover any closer or more far away than it was yesterday?

 

I'm back for one statement and then Im off again

 

A bit of pre-amble - bare with me:

 

Crystal Palace

 

On 18 December 2015, it was announced that a new deal had been signed with American investors Josh Harris and David Blitzer.[103] The club stated that Steve Parish would continue as chairman alongside Harris and Blitzer as general partners in a new structure, and that Browett, Long and Hosking would also retain a substantial investment.[104]

 

The company accounts later showed that the ownership figures were: Steve Parish 18%, Steve Browett 5%, Jeremy Hosking 5% and Martin Long 2.5% with the remainder being owned by Palace Holdco LP (a limited partnership registered in Delaware) 67.5% and Palace Parallel LLC (a company also registered in Delaware) 1.5%. Both Palace Holdco and Palace Parallel have 180 preference shares each. As the Delaware companies do not have to reveal their owners the exact ownership of the club is therefore unknown but Steve Parish confirmed that each of Harris and Blitzer had an 18% share to match his own.

 

So the Premier League doesn't know who owns 67.5% of Crystal Palace as Delaware companies don't have to reveal their owners.  The Premier League accepted this as they can't argue against the rule of Law in the USA.  Remember this as its important.

 

Now onto NUFC and PIF.

 

Premier League are arguing that they can't separate PIF from KSA and as such the KSA is a potential director of NUFC.  This, as has been said previously could then allow them to link MBS to owning NUFC and the state piracy of Bein, Beout.    PIF apparently sent details stating that PIF is separate to KSA in Saudi Law but PL didn't accept this. 

 

So the PL approved  a Delaware Company which doesn't disclose its owners/Directors because in US law where the company is based,that is its right but on the NUFC takeover, wont accept that PIF is separate under Saudi Law and choses to ignore/reject.

 

This is the crux of the matter and why Shaheed Fatima is on the case with Nick. 

 

How can PL accept US Law and not even know who owns Crsytal Palace (For all they know, it could be MBS) but reject Saudi Law stating PIF is separate to the state?  In essence, they shouldn't be able to and hopefully this will come out in Court.

 

Im off again, enjoy your baiting of each other, you sad f***s!

 

[Yorkie]

So after all of the companies house searching... This is the one we needed:

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12388231

 

Interesting date of incorporation...

 

Explain the date

[andyc35i]

I’m back in then

[Fantail Breeze]

So after all of the companies house searching... This is the one we needed:

 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12388231

 

Interesting date of incorporation...

 

Explain the date

 

The company set up by the consortium to take over NUFC was incorporated in very early January 2020. News didn’t break until late January/early February IIRC. The deal was obviously at a very, very advanced stage by that point.

 

Just goes to show how little anyone knew about it really. Also interesting we were still pissing around with the O&D test 6 months later.

 

Edit - also reveals Staveley’s husband is likely to play a key role in the club too.

[Robster]

Im off again, enjoy your baiting of each other, you sad f***s!

 

What's the chances that the test has changed since 2015 ?

[B-more Mag]

While it's creative, there's nothing there suggesting the PL didn't require disclosure of the ownership of the Delaware entities.