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

[Fantail Breeze]

Just now, Whitley mag said:

The consortium told them they would not be submitting the state as a director. I’d like to see them try and argue a timeline to the above.

It’s clear as day it should have been rejected.

Looks like you’ll only need to wait until July to hear them argue their case.

It’s so ‘clear as day’ that the PL are willing to fight it in court. Rightio.

 

[Armchair Pundit]

I guess there could be an argument to be had over clarification of what is a reasonable timescale to reject if someone flat out refuses to provide further information from the buying party, but then, does that lead to an argument over what is deemed as reasonable proof of the division between state and PIF? 

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

They should have just applied their own rules and rejected the consortium if they though they hadn't provided all information. 

 

But they didnt as they were up to something. Time will tell...

I don’t disagree they’re bent as fuck. But they’re also bent and snide enough to know what to do to cover their tracks and make them look like the innocent party.

[Hhtoon]

Only real positive from today is that it shows arbitration tribunal hearing is July. Though I thought that was now the weaker case and CAT was the killer blow.

I'm confused ?

[Whitley mag]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

Looks like you’ll only need to wait until July to hear them argue their case.

It’s so ‘clear as day’ that the PL are willing to fight it in court. Rightio.

 

Are they though ? I’m just seeing delay, they’re even trying to delay arbitration.

The same arbitration where it is supposedly clear cut in their favour according to some.

Delay is not fighting, it is delaying.

[Scoot]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

I don’t disagree they’re bent as fuck. But they’re also bent and snide enough to know what to do to cover their tracks and make them look like the innocent party.

Let's just wait and see. All I know is the PL stink of corruption and hopefully it all comes out.

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

Are they though ? I’m just seeing delay, they’re even trying to delay arbitration.

The same arbitration where it is supposedly clear cut in their favour according to some.

Delay is not fighting, it is delaying.

They’re not trying to delay arbitration, where is that from?

They’re trying to get the CAT case thrown out before it’s even been heard though.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Fantail Breeze

[Whitley mag]

12 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

They’re not trying to delay arbitration, where is that from?

They’re trying to get the CAT case thrown out before it’s even been heard though.

Mr Justice Roth, who granted the extra time on behalf of the CAT, noted in his reasons for doing so: "As of present, it is not known whether the defendant will be granted the separate extensions of time which it is currently seeking from the arbitral tribunal but in any event, the extension which it is there seeking for disclosure is to 26 May, 2021, which is also its current deadline for filing its evidence.

 

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

Mr Justice Roth, who granted the extra time on behalf of the CAT, noted in his reasons for doing so: "As of present, it is not known whether the defendant will be granted the separate extensions of time which it is currently seeking from the arbitral tribunal but in any event, the extension which it is there seeking for disclosure is to 26 May, 2021, which is also its current deadline for filing its evidence.

 

Their evidence submission, not the actual hearing, right? Unless I’ve interpreted that wrong.

They can delay their evidence submission all they like as long as the hearing goes ahead in July.

[Robster]

I totally get why there's doubt.
Every day we watch the government flaunting corruption right in front of our faces and it feels like those people are untouchable. The powerful are tough to beat and bring to task.
We've just got to hope that Ashley has the bit between his teeth and is prepared to be as nasty as possible in return.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Robster
Crap typing

[Whitley mag]

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

Their evidence submission, not the actual hearing, right? Unless I’ve interpreted that wrong.

They can delay their evidence submission all they like as long as the hearing goes ahead in July.

Yeah that’s the evidence submission, lets see what they’re next delaying tactic is though.

They can try and get the CAT case thrown out, but even the Athletic conceded this morning that the case is far more encompassing than arbitration so don’t like there chances.

The real question here is do the club want arbitration to go ahead before disclosure, as that may be their breaking point.

 

[bealios]

There's really far too much being read into that judgement - it is just normal procedure, and it is neither good nor bad. 

The first thing you consider in any claim like this is whether you can knock the claim out with a jurisdiction argument - i.e. that the claim is such that it doesn't cover things that the CAT have authority to decide upon. You would try that even if you thought you only had a 1 in 4 (or less) chance - when you consider the sums at stake, there is no reason not to do that. It means you can try and get rid of a claim before spending time and money arguing against its actual merits. All that this judgement does is recognise that because the PL have arbitration proceedings happening at the same time, which happens to have the same submission deadline as the CAT claim, it is reasonable to think they have a lot on their plate and it would be unfair if they lost the chance to defend it - so the judge was willing to give them an extra couple of weeks. 

The "win" for NUFC in this is the confidential memo which goes to damages doesn't need to be disclosed at this stage. I know someone mentioned this earlier, but this isn't really relevant to a "win" or "lose" decision, it is something NUFC have submitted to support its claim for damages IF they win. And it probably does contain confidential information for example, Ashley might be saying that if the takeover had gone through, he would have bought Debenhams, and as such lost out on £100m - that's just an example, I don't think that is true! But you can see why any evidence submitted by Ashley as to what he has lost as a result of the takeover not going though is going to be confidential (and also why that isn't relevant to PL's ability to argue why CAT don't have jurisdiction).

The other useful information is confirmation that the arbitration hearing itself is likely to happen in July, and it will be on an expedited basis. I know it won't seem like this to the long-suffering members of this forum, but that genuinely is a really short/expedited timeline. That doesn't mean nothing has been happening in the background until now - plenty will be happening in terms of gearing up for the arbitration in terms of disclosure and expert reports/opinions. That tends to be the long part of an arbitration process - the short part is the hearing itself, which in my experience can take a week or two. And then you have a short period of time whilst arguments are considered and awards are made. So essentially on the arbitration both sides are in a final 6/8 week push to put themselves in the best position possible before the hearing, you have the hearing in July, and then you would expect an award in August. 

The CAT case is completely separate to that - but assuming PL lose the jurisdiction argument and the claim proceeds, you would expect that the PL will use the same argument to extend relevant filing deadlines i.e. they have a parallel case so it would be reasonable to have more time to deal with any filings in the CAT case. 

It is worth saying that although the proceedings are separate, there is always scope for tactics to effectively link the two. So if (as others have said) the CAT claim was taken on because there is a heavier disclosure obligation on the PL, then it is in the PL interest to push that out so that any disclosure comes much later in the day to be able to assist NUFC with the arbitration claim. 

 

 

[Guest HTT II]

3 minutes ago, bealios said:

There's really far too much being read into that judgement - it is just normal procedure, and it is neither good nor bad. 

The first thing you consider in any claim like this is whether you can knock the claim out with a jurisdiction argument - i.e. that the claim is such that it doesn't cover things that the CAT have authority to decide upon. You would try that even if you thought you only had a 1 in 4 (or less) chance - when you consider the sums at stake, there is no reason not to do that. It means you can try and get rid of a claim before spending time and money arguing against its actual merits. All that this judgement does is recognise that because the PL have arbitration proceedings happening at the same time, which happens to have the same submission deadline as the CAT claim, it is reasonable to think they have a lot on their plate and it would be unfair if they lost the chance to defend it - so the judge was willing to give them an extra couple of weeks. 

The "win" for NUFC in this is the confidential memo which goes to damages doesn't need to be disclosed at this stage. I know someone mentioned this earlier, but this isn't really relevant to a "win" or "lose" decision, it is something NUFC have submitted to support its claim for damages IF they win. And it probably does contain confidential information for example, Ashley might be saying that if the takeover had gone through, he would have bought Debenhams, and as such lost out on £100m - that's just an example, I don't think that is true! But you can see why any evidence submitted by Ashley as to what he has lost as a result of the takeover not going though is going to be confidential (and also why that isn't relevant to PL's ability to argue why CAT don't have jurisdiction).

The other useful information is confirmation that the arbitration hearing itself is likely to happen in July, and it will be on an expedited basis. I know it won't seem like this to the long-suffering members of this forum, but that genuinely is a really short/expedited timeline. That doesn't mean nothing has been happening in the background until now - plenty will be happening in terms of gearing up for the arbitration in terms of disclosure and expert reports/opinions. That tends to be the long part of an arbitration process - the short part is the hearing itself, which in my experience can take a week or two. And then you have a short period of time whilst arguments are considered and awards are made. So essentially on the arbitration both sides are in a final 6/8 week push to put themselves in the best position possible before the hearing, you have the hearing in July, and then you would expect an award in August. 

The CAT case is completely separate to that - but assuming PL lose the jurisdiction argument and the claim proceeds, you would expect that the PL will use the same argument to extend relevant filing deadlines i.e. they have a parallel case so it would be reasonable to have more time to deal with any filings in the CAT case. 

It is worth saying that although the proceedings are separate, there is always scope for tactics to effectively link the two. So if (as others have said) the CAT claim was taken on because there is a heavier disclosure obligation on the PL, then it is in the PL interest to push that out so that any disclosure comes much later in the day to be able to assist NUFC with the arbitration claim. 

 

 

Aye, it seems standard legal fare tbh, I wouldn’t read much into anything takeover related, positive or negative. Again we will all know once and for all when Mike Ashley himself says it’s done, as he has said from the start (of all the numerous takeover attempts, real or otherwise). Ironically of all the people involved, his word, would be the one I’d trust most. I’m positive we will be free of Ashley sooner rather than later whoever ends up ‘owning’ the club. Me, I just want a club that tries, that is set up to do the best it can, by good people, for the club, fans and the city. If that comes with Saudi level money great, if not, I’m not too concerned. Give me a club ran like Leicester, or Southampton (or any fucking club really given how we are ran). 

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

This point gets trotted about a lot, but doesn’t actually make sense.

The PL’s whole argument is they can’t make a decision to approve or reject because the consortium are refusing to comply. If the PL rejected it, that’d bring down a huge piece of their point.

As for your final paragraph, there’s a really good post in your positive thread about why this ‘few weeks’ delay is actually quite important.

How many times does this point need to be addressed?

Rule F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

F.6. Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 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 therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and F.6.2. give written notice to the relevant Club that the Person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from his office as such.

 

The PL Board made "a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition" in June. Therefore the PL board 'became aware' that the proposed directors had failed to provide all relevant information relating to someone who the PL board determined would qualify as a director. Rule F.6. required the PL board to give written notice to the proposed directors that they were disqualified, which could then have been appealed.

The PL did not need that information to make a decision, in fact their rules require that without that information they disqualify the proposed directors immediately.

[Wandy]

6 hours ago, B-more Mag said:

 

What's the relevance of the June 9th date in reason 4? Is that to do with seeking an extension to the arbitration?

[Fantail Breeze]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

How many times does this point need to be addressed?

Rule F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

F.6. Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 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 therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and F.6.2. give written notice to the relevant Club that the Person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from his office as such.

 

The PL Board made "a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition" in June. Therefore the PL board 'became aware' that the proposed directors had failed to provide all relevant information relating to someone who the PL board determined would qualify as a director. Rule F.6. required the PL board to give written notice to the proposed directors that they were disqualified, which could then have been appealed.

The PL did not need that information to make a decision, in fact their rules require that without that information they disqualify the proposed directors immediately.

If you’re right - why do the PL believe they are in a position to defend? They’d have folded by now, if it was that straightforward.

[Candi_Hills]

So if we lose this arbitration gig in July, and I assume we will because the panel is in the cartel's pocket, where does that leave us? Are we fucked or is it onwards with the other case?

 

[bealios]

5 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Aye, it seems standard legal fare tbh, I wouldn’t read much into anything takeover related, positive or negative. Again we will all know once and for all when Mike Ashley himself says it’s done, as he has said from the start (of all the numerous takeover attempts, real or otherwise). Ironically of all the people involved, his word, would be the one I’d trust most. I’m positive we will be free of Ashley sooner rather than later whoever ends up ‘owning’ the club. Me, I just want a club that tries, that is set up to do the best it can, by good people, for the club, fans and the city. If that comes with Saudi level money great, if not, I’m not too concerned. Give me a club ran like Leicester, or Southampton (or any fucking club really given how we are ran). 

Agree with that re Ashley - he clearly wants out, and this is the best possible chance he has of getting £300m +, with a ton of side benefits re opening markets, but if this one doesn't go through, it really is a matter of time. And I've never believed the line that previous takeovers were somehow an attempt to push up season ticket renewals/dampen transfer expectations. He does want out - and I happen to know first hand that he was so willing to get out after the first relegation the price was dropped to £80m!

 

[Jackie Broon]

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

If you’re right - why do the PL believe they are in a position to defend? They’d have folded by now, if it was that straightforward.

Because they believe they have a position to defend on the control issue. Their handling of the process is completely indefensible, they should have made a decision, which would have enabled the club to appeal and this would have possibly been all over 10 months ago. That won't come into the arbitration case, because that is purely about control of the club (as confirmed in the High Court judgement), but it will come into the CAT case.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[bealios]

Just now, Candi_Hills said:

So if we lose this arbitration gig in July, and I assume we will because the panel is in the cartel's pocket, where does that leave us? Are we fucked or is it onwards with the other case?

 

The CAT proceedings are based on completely different arguments, so in theory it will still go ahead. I'm less convinced personally on the success of that one, competition law and what is unlawful anti-competitive behaviours is very different from what most non-lawyers think is anti-competitive. Most businesses try and harm the competition in the market in some way and seek to advance their own businesses, that's just the nature of business - competition law is geared towards stopping certain businesses getting so dominant that they stifle all competition in the market i.e. Asda and Sainsburys merging, Apple not letting Epic take payments etc. 

As for whether anything can happen if the arbitration goes the wrong way, I don't know - but I wonder if the CAS route will kick in at that point, which is what Man CIty used to overturn the transfer ban.

[Consortium of one]

1 hour ago, neesy111 said:

Here we go again....

"ROUND AND ROUND SHE GOES, WHERE SHE STOPS...NOBODY KNOWS..."

[B-more Mag]

4 minutes ago, Wandy said:

What's the relevance of the June 9th date in reason 4? Is that to do with seeking an extension to the arbitration?

That's the way it reads to me, too: i.e., in the arbitration the PL asked to extend disclosure to 26 May, which is also the current deadline for the PL to file its evidence in the arbitration, and he PL is also asking for that deadline (the one to file evidence) to be extended to June 9. Then the CAT guy says it doesn't matter whether the arbitrators grant those extensions or not--I think you can prepare evidence for that and this at the same time.  

[Robster]

9 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

How many times does this point need to be addressed?

Rule F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has:

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

F.6. Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 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 therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and F.6.2. give written notice to the relevant Club that the Person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from his office as such.

 

The PL Board made "a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition" in June. Therefore the PL board 'became aware' that the proposed directors had failed to provide all relevant information relating to someone who the PL board determined would qualify as a director. Rule F.6. required the PL board to give written notice to the proposed directors that they were disqualified, which could then have been appealed.

The PL did not need that information to make a decision, in fact their rules require that without that information they disqualify the proposed directors immediately.

I am sorry if I am not seeing something that is right in front of me Jackie, but I suppose I can see Fantail's point in that I cannot see where it states that the information must be provided within a certain time frame.
Am I being thick ?
(my excuse is that i've had a shite day at work)

[Candi_Hills]

3 minutes ago, bealios said:

The CAT proceedings are based on completely different arguments, so in theory it will still go ahead. I'm less convinced personally on the success of that one, competition law and what is unlawful anti-competitive behaviours is very different from what most non-lawyers think is anti-competitive. Most businesses try and harm the competition in the market in some way and seek to advance their own businesses, that's just the nature of business - competition law is geared towards stopping certain businesses getting so dominant that they stifle all competition in the market i.e. Asda and Sainsburys merging, Apple not letting Epic take payments etc. 

As for whether anything can happen if the arbitration goes the wrong way, I don't know - but I wonder if the CAS route will kick in at that point, which is what Man CIty used to overturn the transfer ban.

Thanks for that reply. You seem to know your onions. What's your background, if I may ask?

[bealios]

Just now, B-more Mag said:

That's the way it reads to me, too: i.e., in the arbitration the PL asked to extend disclosure to 26 May, which is also the current deadline for the PL to file its evidence in the arbitration, and he PL is also asking for that deadline (the one to file evidence) to be extended to June 9. Then the CAT guy says it doesn't matter whether the arbitrators grant those extensions or not--I think you can prepare evidence for that and this at the same time.  

I read it that the existing deadlines were both 26 May, hence why it was reasonable to give them an extra couple of weeks in the CAT claim.