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

[TRon]

11 hours ago, Hhtoon said:

It has pretty much nil impact on anyone outside of football so I'm not too sure how much a judge is going to be swayed by the PL. Though we should probably attempt to dismiss any judge who supports a big 6 team due to bias 

Which is why the opponents of the takeover are making such a big deal of the buyers being part of an evil Saudi regime. Even if a judge isn't interested in football, that is likely going to see them unconsciously wanting to side with the PL. One of the reasons surely why the PL will still be hoping arbitration goes in their favour. 

[Ankles Bennett]

Whatever argument we rely upon in the CAT and Arbitration tribunals it must be supported by binding case law otherwise our argument will be as effective as a bucket of water full of holes.

[Jackie Broon]

18 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

That’s not really how it works at all.

Getting the case thrown out before it even starts is ideal. They don’t have to go through any court case at all.

Even if they are 95% certain they’ll win, getting the case thrown out removes the 5% possibility of losing.

Nobody can go into a court case being 100% certain they’ll win. So it’s fairly straightforward to want to challenge it. 

That's why I think there is a reasonable chance the PL will settle if their challenge fails.

Even if they are 95% certain they'll win both the arbitration and CAT cases, that 5% chance would have huge consequences both for the PL and personally for the board. Whereas, it's risk free for Ashley, already paid for by the deposit.

If the PL go through with the arbitration and lose, they would no longer have any leverage to get out of the CAT case.

There's also no chance that the PL are really 95% confident in winning the arbitration. If that were the case they would have just made a formal decision last June, allowed the club to appeal that decision and it would have been wrapped up one way or the other long ago.

 

 

[RS]

Does Mike ever win a court case?

[Ben]

My main hope for this court case was that the EPL would see the court documents, make up some excuse about their robust O & D test and wave it through.

It looks like this could get messy and take a long time, its just so exhausting and tedius.

[Candi_Hills]

38 minutes ago, RS said:

Does Mike ever win a court case?

Ashley vs The Parents of St. Lukes Primary School 1981

Mike successfully had a memorial to 17 bus crash victims taken down after the judge agreed that it was partially blocking an 'everything must go' sign.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Candi_Hills

[gjohnson]

50 minutes ago, RS said:

Does Mike ever win a court case?

Dave Whelan says hi

[Guest HTT II]

He has in the past allegedly had a successful court case stopping some unsavoury reporting of his ‘activities’ in the media go in his favour...

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, Ankles Bennett said:

Whatever argument we rely upon in the CAT and Arbitration tribunals it must be supported by binding case law otherwise our argument will be as effective as a bucket of water full of holes.

They're not going to bring a case that's not supported by case law, Barristers are walking encyclopedias of case law and experts at fitting pieces of case law to suit their argument, that's what they get paid a lot of money to do. It won't be a simple as there being one identical case that is entirely relied on. Also, new case law is regularly established, how would that happen without judges making decisions on matters that aren't fully covered by existing case law or reinterpreting / contradicting previous case law?

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

That's why I think there is a reasonable chance the PL will settle if their challenge fails.

Even if they are 95% certain they'll win both the arbitration and CAT cases, that 5% chance would have huge consequences both for the PL and personally for the board. Whereas, it's risk free for Ashley, already paid for by the deposit.

If the PL go through with the arbitration and lose, they would no longer have any leverage to get out of the CAT case.

There's also no chance that the PL are really 95% confident in winning the arbitration. If that were the case they would have just made a formal decision last June, allowed the club to appeal that decision and it would have been wrapped up one way or the other long ago.

 

 

By the same token, if the case is not costing Ashley money because it's already paid out of the deposit, he might be taking the approach it's worth a punt even if he doesn't think he'll win. Not sure the idea that it's risk free is necessarily a good thing in that regard. If he was sinking significant investment into fighting the case then you would imagine he'd only do that if he thought he had a very good chance of winning.

[Bishops Finger]

1 hour ago, Ben said:

My main hope for this court case was that the EPL would see the court documents, make up some excuse about their robust O & D test and wave it through.

It looks like this could get messy and take a long time, its just so exhausting and tedius.

Plus it's giving Bacon Boy another chance to get us relegated 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Bishops Finger

[Chris_R]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

That's why I think there is a reasonable chance the PL will settle if their challenge fails.

Even if they are 95% certain they'll win both the arbitration and CAT cases, that 5% chance would have huge consequences both for the PL and personally for the board. Whereas, it's risk free for Ashley, already paid for by the deposit.

If the PL go through with the arbitration and lose, they would no longer have any leverage to get out of the CAT case.

There's also no chance that the PL are really 95% confident in winning the arbitration. If that were the case they would have just made a formal decision last June, allowed the club to appeal that decision and it would have been wrapped up one way or the other long ago.

 

 

They may well settle, but settling won't mean allowing the takeover through.

It'll be cash to Ashley or something. Last thing the PL will ever do is let the takeover through.

[Bishops Finger]

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

They may well settle, but settling won't mean allowing the takeover through.

It'll be cash to Ashley or something. Last thing the PL will ever do is let the takeover through.

They have to have a valid reason for refusing the takeover though. They can't just say its not happening 

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, TRon said:

By the same token, if the case is not costing Ashley money because it's already paid out of the deposit, he might be taking the approach it's worth a punt even if he doesn't think he'll win. Not sure the idea that it's risk free is necessarily a good thing in that regard. If he was sinking significant investment into fighting the case then you would imagine he'd only do that if he thought he had a very good chance of winning.

Yeah, there's a chance of that too.

Personally I think the arbitration case is the important one, that'll be done well before the CAT case and if the club lose that there'll probably not be much of a CAT case. The noises we've had are that the club and consortium are very confident in their case in the arbitration (the PL likewise but, again, why not make a formal decision?) However, there will always be a certain level of doubt, so they'll want to put as much pressure as possible on the PL to settle beforehand. That's what the CAT case does, without any real risk to Ashley. It also gives him the opportunity of vengeance if the PL don't settle and lose the arbitration, and we all know what a vengeful cunt he is.

[manorpark]

6 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

They may well settle, but settling won't mean allowing the takeover through.

It'll be cash to Ashley or something. Last thing the PL will ever do is let the takeover through.

It is inevitable that the Takeover will have to be approved, as there will be shown to be NO legal reason for it not to be.

That is what these legal actions are all about.

It is not relevant what some of our perceptions are about what the EPL might "want" to do (or want not to do) that is why fact-based legal action is being taken. 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by manorpark

[Jackie Broon]

15 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

They may well settle, but settling won't mean allowing the takeover through.

It'll be cash to Ashley or something. Last thing the PL will ever do is let the takeover through.

Ashley would hold all of the cards in a settlement negotiation, these cases are zero risk for him. 

Settling the arbitration in the club's favour would be the absolute starting point, because that's the only leverage the PL would have, the negotiation would probably be about how much money the PL have to pay on top of that to get out of the CAT case.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Fantail Breeze]

4 minutes ago, manorpark said:

It is inevitable that the Takeover will have to be approved, as there will be shown to be NO legal reason for it not to be.

That is what these legal actions are all about.

It is not relevant what some of our perceptions are about what the EPL might "want" to do (or want not to do) that is why fact-based legal action is being taken. 

Can you please stay in your own thread.

Your last paragraph is bollocks (again). You could say the same for the PL and their fact-based legal response.

[1964]

8 minutes ago, manorpark said:

It is inevitable that the Takeover will have to be approved, as there will be shown to be NO legal reason for it not to be.

That is what these legal actions are all about.

It is not relevant what some of our perceptions are about what the EPL might "want" to do (or want not to do) that is why fact-based legal action is being taken. 

That's obviously not entirely true mate or we would not be where we are, the PL do feel they have a case or we would not be a year into a costly exercise.

[Wandy]

I watched Wraith's catch up with Ben Jacobs this morning and, to be honest, the guy was completely reasonable. I think we are underestimating just how strong a case the PL have, unfortunately and, for me, the odds are firmly stacked against this going through. Not saying it's impossible of course but I'm about 30/70 in the negative camp now.

Of course we all know that if this was Man Utd, Liverpool etc then the PL wouldn't even be presenting a case. So they are still a bunch of complete cunts.

[Pokerprince2004]

7 minutes ago, Wandy said:

I watched Wraith's catch up with Ben Jacobs this morning and, to be honest, the guy was completely reasonable. I think we are underestimating just how strong a case the PL have, unfortunately and, for me, the odds are firmly stacked against this going through. Not saying it's impossible of course but I'm about 30/70 in the negative camp now.

Of course we all know that if this was Man Utd, Liverpool etc then the PL wouldn't even be presenting a case. So they are still a bunch of complete cunts.

Well tune in tonight as both Keith Patterson and Ben Jacobs are going to be on NUFC Matters show. Should be good fun watching them argue as both sound clued up and confident 

[Dr Jinx]

10 minutes ago, manorpark said:

It is inevitable that the Takeover will have to be approved, as there will be shown to be NO legal reason for it not to be.

That is what these legal actions are all about.

It is not relevant what some of our perceptions are about what the EPL might "want" to do (or want not to do) that is why fact-based legal action is being taken. 

Every Premier League club signs up to the PL's rules and regulations. Including the owners and directors test.

The section about who should be a director or more specifically a person with a controlling interest is quite clear, including the information a party looking to purchase a club should provide.

They didn't approve the takeover because the consortium would not agree that the KSA should be a director. That's where it stopped.

The only way we win this case is if they can prove emphatically that KSA would have no controlling interest in the running of the club, and by extension that they don't have autonomy over the PIF. Which is absurd.

The back door to this is if they can provide evidence that the PL were conspiring with others against the interests of the club. That's the only grey area where we could get them to back down. Time will tell if they have a smoking gun.

[Wandy]

Just now, Pokerprince2004 said:

Well tune in tonight as both Keith Patterson and Ben Jacobs are going to be on NUFC Matters show. Should be good fun watching them argue as both sound clued up and confident 

Yeah, that will be an interesting watch.

[ToonArmy1892]

So. Fucking. Bored.

[Ben]

Right, where are those pigeons. 

[Guest neesy111]

29 minutes ago, 1964 said:

That's obviously not entirely true mate or we would not be where we are, the PL do feel they have a case or we would not be a year into a costly exercise.

I'm sure the PL has legal advice from lawyers etc.