Jump to content

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


Will the takeover be complete by this summer?  

312 members have voted

  1. 1. Will the takeover be complete by this summer?

    • Yes
      87
    • No
      183


Recommended Posts

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

 

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 :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 [emoji38]

 

Yeah I got the impression that he doesn’t really know reading that

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 :lol:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...