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

[gdm]

33 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

I was really in we will get takeover camp for a while. Not anymore we don't need to sugercoat things we are against the odds lets wait and see but anyone who thinks takeover will be completed soon is deluded.

Genuinely believe it’ll be half way in to next season before we get a definitive answer 

[Jinky Jim]

35 minutes ago, Strawberry said:

I was really in we will get takeover camp for a while. Not anymore we don't need to sugercoat things we are against the odds lets wait and see but anyone who thinks takeover will be completed soon is deluded.

What’s your definition of “Soon”……if you mean next few weeks, then I would agree, but there is every chance of the takeover in the coming months….obviously depending on the outcome of CAT and/or Arbitration 

[Toon No9]

I think we still sit here in 2 years saying that in 2 months it will be done.

[Pons Alias]

I think if we stopped posting ‘I think’ posts on this subject life would be much more tolerable.

[Fantail Breeze]

6 minutes ago, Toon No9 said:

I think we still sit here in 2 years saying that in 2 months it will be done.

... but we just need to #wait.

[Dr Jinx]

This is the rule that the PL are challenging.

Disputing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
34.—(1) A defendant who wishes to—
(a) dispute the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the claim; or
(b) argue that the Tribunal should not exercise its jurisdiction,
may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that it has no such jurisdiction or should not exercise any jurisdiction which it might have.
(2) A defendant who wishes to make such an application shall first file an acknowledgment of service in accordance with rule 33.
(3) A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service does not by doing so lose any right it may have to dispute the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and does not need to file a defence before the hearing of its application under this rule.
(4) An application under this rule shall—
(a) be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service; and (b) be supported by evidence.
(5) If the defendant—
(a) files an acknowledgment of service; and
(b) does not make an application within the period specified in paragraph (4),
the defendant is to be treated as having accepted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
(6) An order containing a declaration that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or will not exercise its jurisdiction may also make further provision as to the disposal or stay of the proceedings.
(7) If on an application under this rule the Tribunal does not make a declaration under paragraph (6), the Tribunal shall give directions regarding the future conduct of the proceedings.

 

Any legal buffs got any idea why the judge might side with them?

[Wandy]

Keith might want to rethink the idea that Boris is on our side... https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-thought-european-super-24184609

[B-more Mag]

1 hour ago, Dr Jinx said:

This is the rule that the PL are challenging.

Disputing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction
34.—(1) A defendant who wishes to—
(a) dispute the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the claim; or
(b) argue that the Tribunal should not exercise its jurisdiction,
may apply to the Tribunal for an order declaring that it has no such jurisdiction or should not exercise any jurisdiction which it might have.
(2) A defendant who wishes to make such an application shall first file an acknowledgment of service in accordance with rule 33.
(3) A defendant who files an acknowledgment of service does not by doing so lose any right it may have to dispute the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and does not need to file a defence before the hearing of its application under this rule.
(4) An application under this rule shall—
(a) be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service; and (b) be supported by evidence.
(5) If the defendant—
(a) files an acknowledgment of service; and
(b) does not make an application within the period specified in paragraph (4),
the defendant is to be treated as having accepted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.
(6) An order containing a declaration that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or will not exercise its jurisdiction may also make further provision as to the disposal or stay of the proceedings.
(7) If on an application under this rule the Tribunal does not make a declaration under paragraph (6), the Tribunal shall give directions regarding the future conduct of the proceedings.

 

Any legal buffs got any idea why the judge might side with them?

Because Section X of the EPL rules provides for arbitration as the exclusive forum for resolving disputes between a club and the league. 

Quote

Agreement to Arbitrate

X.2. Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement in writing between the League and Clubs and between each Club for the purposes of section 5 of the Act in the following terms:

     X.2.1. to submit all disputes which arise between them (including in the case of a Relegated Club any dispute between it and a Club or the League, the cause of action of which arose while the Relegated Club was a member of the League), whether arising out of these Rules or otherwise, to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this Section of these Rules;

     X.2.2. that the seat of each such arbitration shall be in England and Wales;

     X.2.3. that the issues in each such arbitration shall be decided in accordance with English law; and

     X.2.4. that no other system or mode of arbitration will be invoked to resolve any such dispute.

 

[Dr Jinx]

Jesus that last bit is fairly black and white. But then, that's just the PL's rules.
 

Which court holds more weight?

[InspectorCoarse]

On 24/05/2021 at 15:44, Jawdaw said:

I hate to bring this up but Nic the photographic baker mentioned September in one of his cryptic tweets a while back.

Im in 

[Wandy]

32 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

Jesus that last bit is fairly black and white. But then, that's just the PL's rules.
 

Which court holds more weight?

The CAT case is Mike Ashley V the PL though, not NUFC.

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, Dr Jinx said:

Jesus that last bit is fairly black and white. But then, that's just the PL's rules.
 

Which court holds more weight?

I can't see how that could affect the jurisdiction of the CAT.

That would be like a rule saying the clubs should only report criminal offences the PL, not the police.

Even if would breach the rule it wouldn't affect the jurisdiction of the police to investigate.

I also think it would probably be an unfair contract term if used in that way to preclude access to the CAT.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Jackie Broon]

17 minutes ago, Wandy said:

The CAT case is Mike Ashley V the PL though, not NUFC.

Actually it's St James Holdings Limited V the PL.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Can anyone do a quick update of how the arbitration is ‘expedited’. We’ve already delayed it several months.

I haven’t been following that closely, soz. 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Jackie Broon]

21 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Can anyone do a quick update of how the arbitration is ‘expedited’. We’ve already delayed it several months.

I haven’t been following that closely, soz. 

I don't think anyone outside of the process knows exactly what the effect of it being expedited is. We know from the High Court judgement that the arbitration is following the PL's process but the arbitration rules in the PL handbook are pretty vague and don't shed any light on how an expedited process would be different.

[Dr Jinx]

10 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Can anyone do a quick update of how the arbitration is ‘expedited’. We’ve already delayed it several months.

I haven’t been following that closely, soz. 

Well, the process would normally take a lot longer but the courts are less busy at the moment so it can be fast tracked. But yes I agree, the requested delays are setting that back a bit.

My opinion on it right now is that the delays in the arbitration case are no bad thing but a longer delay in the CAT doesn't help us.

We want disclosure, we want that evidence so it can be used in the arbitration case.

June 11th is when they submit their challenge for jurisdiction. If we lose that I think the game is up. Don't expect a quick decision, they're going to hand over a mountain of crap for the judge to mull over, taking up as much time as possible as if they can get this starting after the arbitration case begins properly, they'll see that as a win too.

If the judge rules in our favour and it begins quickly, that will be good for us. They could settle ASAP.

[B-more Mag]

38 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

I can't see how that could affect the jurisdiction of the CAT.

That would be like a rule saying the clubs should only report criminal offences the PL, not the police.

Even if would breach the rule it wouldn't affect the jurisdiction of the police to investigate.

I also think it would probably be an unfair contract term if used in that way to preclude access to the CAT.

That would be the case if it were an enforcement matter by the Competition and Markets Authority or something like that, but this is just a private action. 

49 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

Actually it's St James Holdings Limited V the PL.

It may be able to get somewhere with that argument (i.e., that it's not a party to the arbitration agreement), the fact that it's the sole owner of the club may complicate it, though.

[Jackie Broon]

Obviously you’re far more qualified than me to give an opinion on this but, as far as I understand it, if the club is deemed to have broken that rule the consequence would potentially be disciplinary action via the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules. The PL’s rules could not restrict the jurisdiction of the CAT or otherwise remove rights of access to other forms of legal process (unless there were a specific statutory provision for allowing the removal of such rights).

[gjohnson]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

Obviously you’re far more qualified than me to give an opinion on this but, as far as I understand it, if the club is deemed to have broken that rule the consequence would potentially be disciplinary action via the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules. The PL’s rules could not restrict the jurisdiction of the CAT or otherwise remove rights of access to other forms of legal process (unless there were a specific statutory provision for allowing the removal of such rights).

Since when does breaking the rules result in an actual punishment (cough ESL)

[B-more Mag]

7 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

Obviously you’re far more qualified than me to give an opinion on this

Not really.

 

7 hours ago, gjohnson said:

as far as I understand it, if the club is deemed to have broken that rule the consequence would potentially be disciplinary action via the disciplinary procedures set out in the rules. The PL’s rules could not restrict the jurisdiction of the CAT or otherwise remove rights of access to other forms of legal process (unless there were a specific statutory provision for allowing the removal of such rights).

Yeah, I don't know how that works under U.K. law. On a really quick look I didn't find anything right on point (though I did find a U.K. case where a court stayed a competition case pending resolution of underlying arbitration, but it wasn't a CAT case and wasn't the same type of competition claim).

[Ben]

This takeover is not happening is it ? 

[Fantail Breeze]

12 minutes ago, Ben said:

This takeover is not happening is it ? 

No.

But don’t let that stop you being distracted from the lack of transfer activity, Bruce being in charge, shit football, a lack of protests and no ambition.

Uncle Mike is on our side. He’s spending the deposit money on a fruitless public court case... That’s right, it’s not even his own money he needs to use to carry on this whole charade. 

[Guest reefatoon]

that’s some effort for a charade mind.

[Fantail Breeze]

Just now, reefatoon said:

that’s some effort for a charade mind.

It’s no-lose in reality for him, isn’t it?

£17m to spend, not a single penny is his own. Lose the case? Drags on for two years and keeps him away from the pressure of doing anything remotely ambitious.

Small chance of winning? Great. The takeover happens.

[Thumbheed]

7 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

It’s no-lose in reality for him, isn’t it?

£17m to spend, not a single penny is his own. Lose the case? Drags on for two years and keeps him away from the pressure of doing anything remotely ambitious.

Small chance of winning? Great. The takeover happens.

All of the £17m belongs to him...