Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

Yes

 

 

It doesn't say it was the same thing. At all.

 

Just it was an anti-competition claim.

 

 

Edited by Rocker

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

True. And I mean, it's all obviously arguable -- thus, people arguing about it. To me -- grain of salt time -- the rules make it clear that this issue is not one of PIF being a body/entity that is legally "separate" and distinguishable from KSA: I think it can be admitted that it is. The issue is rather whether KSA has the raw power, whether exercised or not, to control the PIF. That's where I see potential problems and haven't seen anything that convinces me that KSA couldn't exercise control over PIF if it decided it wanted to. It's also where I don't have enough insight into the underling facts or applicable law to be particularly helpful. :lol:   

Yep, I mean I don't doubt that KSA can make PIF do what they want. Guess layman questions would be stuff like whether that can be proven in law, or whether them nominating directors to the fund should mean that those people should be assessed instead. I don't even understand what gives the PL the ability to ask for other directors which the buyers haven't nominated themselves. 

Also I doubt whether that was the real reason for delaying the takeover, or just an excuse because of pressure from clubs and Qatar. 

They should just allow the takeover, it's a lot simpler :lol:

 

 

Edited by AyeDubbleYoo

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rocker said:

Was it?

Judging from twitter yeah. He’s back slapping Liam Kennedy over it. 

I thought he said if it didn’t come out it would be great news 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rocker said:

It doesn't say it was the same thing. At all.

 

Just it was an anti-competition claim.

What a lot of fucking rubbish :lol:

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II
3 minutes ago, gdm said:

What a lot of fucking rubbish :lol:

Aye, he had nowt, and is now claiming this news as his (own) big news, that he conveniently never released... The man is a gobshite, and as one myself, I should know!

 

 

Edited by HTT II

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TheHoob said:

A hard man to please [emoji38]

It just doesn’t really follow on what they were saying? How would that info need to be legally checked? Why weren’t they allowed to announce it and they said not announcing would mean it was great news. Obviously that hasn’t come to pass and the PL just aren’t giving in. So no time for celebrating yet 

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

So it's bad news because it's been released?

Read it both ways. I would hazard a guess you could say he hasn’t released the story as the club has went first which is what he meant by it’s even better if he doesn’t have to reveal anything. He hasn’t. The club are taking it on his behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't sully the positive-optimism thread with this, but the crowing from the Consortium Supporters dude is a bit much to take. Seems pretty clear-ish the reason the case was "transferred" was because the club had a lot clearer standing to bring it than he did--despite him going on about how standing wasn't an issue. Ultimately kind of neither here nor there, I guess, just a bit ... much.

 

 

Edited by B-more Mag

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really interesting news, and I think it's good news to get that validation that the parties are still working towards the result we all want. But the chance of reaching that result is anyone's guess beyond the ultimate decision makers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

That's not how it works :lol:

I'll admit that my corporate law knowledge is a little dated, but surely you would need to prove anti-competitive behaviour in order to stand a chance of winning such a case?

A very plausable outcome of the arbitration is that the PL are found to have been unduly influenced and the whole O&Ds process has been flawed/compromised but the ruling stops short of saying that PIF must be approved.

We then have the anti-competitive slant to take this to an alternative route where MA can go for a ruling that confirms the behaviour existed and therefore a remedy is required. This could be to pass the test as it stood (especially if we have 'proof' that the ink was being prepped) or to pay damages. The damages wouldn't be restricted by the sales price, but it could/would be argued that if the sale had gone through then MA would have been looking at buying Topman etc. Even if the test had been failed rather than stalled there may even have been a second buyer that he has lost a sale to.

It's only a 51% certainty bar to pass as well - on balance of probabiliites

If arbitration was lost then surely there would be no case of any improper behaviour? Or certainly much harder to prove 

 

Or maybe I've watched too many US legal dramas!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shearergol said:

Every time I read Keith's tweets I feel I'm reading something from @Whitley mag or @manorpark

Coincidence though I guess.

(Hi Keith btw)

The uncomfortable truth for some tonight. Keith’s anti competition case will now probably get heard before Arbitration. I think John Lennon wrote a song called ‘working class hero’ once upon a time. Chin up lads I’ll get back to the positive thread.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s fuck all chance this gets done before next season. The PL are clearly not backing down. If pre arbitration discussions and arbitration itself was going well this move wouldn’t be needed 

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

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