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

[Jackie Broon]

38 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

"I'll be the CAT"

[Fantail Breeze]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

"I'll be the CAT"

 Fantastic 

[Fantail Breeze]

“Hey lads; I know the takeover is really close - but in 16 months time do you realise you’ll be listening to George Galloway’s thoughts on whether the takeover should go through?”

Wish someone pre-warned us. What next? Jimmy Carr?

[loki679]

'We need a thread where the numpties can spout all their shite in peace'

Result - two threads full of numpty shite.

[TRon]

2 hours ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

If that fucking idiot is in, I'm probably out

Amazed to see this is all still going on in here, been out of it for ages.  I'd tend to side with the idea we're fucked like but hold onto the hope that if Ashley is burning money on legal teams to fight this then presumably he's been told they've a decent chance of winning.  Granted he got £17m for fuck all but still, not like him to chuck money away.

This is what I'm holding onto. Otherwise if there is any room for wiggle room in a legal case, I would always feel that a judge would side with the PL against the Saudis. 

[Guest reefatoon]

Go into the positive thread. See Fanny going on about people talking shite. Come into this thread. See Fanny talking just as much shite. 

[Whitley mag]

Far be it from me to question the balanced, informative and eloquent views of Benjamin Jacobs again, but I hope he isn’t providing misleading information again ?

hmmmm

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.
F.1.1.2.
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); or

 

 

[Whitley mag]

What a load of fucking rubbish. The consortium as Caulkin confirmed wanted them to reject it, then we could have gone down the route of the appeal court. They wanted to kick the can down the road and not make a decision, they also know arbitration is very difficult to appeal. 

 

[Doc]

8 hours ago, Candi_Hills said:

George Gallowgate

George Will you just fuck off.

[Whitley mag]

Still waffling does he really think the PL we’re doing us a favour by offering arbitration. The reason we had to start arbitration is because they wouldn’t make a fucking decision. 

 

[Joey Linton]

Jacobs certainly seems to have rattled the twitter mob by getting the better of Keith in Friday night's discussions. 

[mouldy_uk]

9 hours ago, Ben said:

 

When you agree with George Galloway

 

[B-more Mag]

19 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

Whilst I understand the point you are making, I can see how broad the definition of 'control' is in the PL handbook, and that makes me nervous about the arbitration. The legal opinion from Football Law, Thomas Horton, a barrister whose practice covers sports law and commercial disputes, is clearly implicitly stating that his opinion is the KSA would not meet the definition of 'control' over PIF when he refers to the "degree of separation" being "sufficient for PIF to avoid disqualification as a director".

Also, I think you may have misinterpreted what you say about PIF reporting to the Saudi Council of Economic and Development Affairs. I think that was a one-off resolution issued by the Saudi government in 2015 for PIF to report to the CEDA after which the board of PIF was reformed. I don't think it's an ongoing requirement for them to report to the CEDA. I believe, from what I can gather, PIF is completely autonomous and doesn't have to report back to the government.

And I know you're probably going to say well the government have the power to remove members of the board of PIF so meet the definition of 'control'. Which may be the case, but set against Section 251 of the Companies Act 2006 that's possibly going to look a bit of an unreasonable position to take:

“Shadow director”

(1)In the Companies Acts “shadow director”, in relation to a company, means a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act.

(2)A person is not to be regarded as a shadow director by reason only that the directors act [F1—

(a)on advice given by that person in a professional capacity;

(b)in accordance with instructions, a direction, guidance or advice given by that person in the exercise of a function conferred by or under an enactment;

(c)in accordance with guidance or advice given by that person in that person's capacity as a Minister of the Crown

Possibly. But the definitions of Director and Control aren't limited to what "shadow director" means under the Companies Act -- they're specifically defined terms that are effectively contractually agreed by virtue of the club accepting membership in the PL-- and they expressly contemplate control of board composition as something making a person a director. Maybe the arbitrators can be convinced there's a basis for determining that the definitions aren't enforceable -- I don't know. I'd rather it be clear KSA is outside the definitions, as written, so it doesn't matter whether they're enforceable or not.

Also, here's the what the PIF website says is the PIF Law: https://www.pif.gov.sa/en/GDP Attachments/PIFLawDocument-En.pdf

Quote

 

Article 2The Fund shall report to the Council of Economic and Development Affairs. It shall have a public legal personality as well as financial and administrative independence. The Fund's headquarters shall be in the city of Riyadh; it may, as needed, establish branches within the Kingdom or abroad.

....

Chapter 3The BoardArticle 5The Fund shall have a board of directors to be chaired by the President of the Council of Economic and Development Affairs. Its membership shall include the Governor, as well as a minimum of four experts and specialists, provided they include representatives from relevant agencies; they shall be appointed pursuant to a royal order for a renewable term of five years.

....

Chapter 7Annual ReportArticle 24The Board shall, within 150 days from the end of the Fund’s fiscal year, submit to the Council of Economic and Development Affairs a detailed report on the Fund's operations and activities. The report shall, at a minimum, include:1. The final accounts of the last fiscal year;2. A detailed account of the Fund’s assets and investments and their performance during the last fiscal year;3. The Fund’s audited financial statements;4. An account of any compensations received by Board members; and5. Any other information required by the Council of Economic and Development Affairs.Article 25The Council of Economic and Development Affairs may, upon reviewing the report referred to in Article 24 of this Law, direct the Board to take any action it deems appropriate.

 

Quote

Article 30The Fund may not be dissolved or liquidated except by royal decree, and cases related to dissolution or liquidation shall be heard by the competent judicial authority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by B-more Mag

[Scoot]

10 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Jacobs certainly seems to have rattled the twitter mob by getting the better of Keith in Friday night's discussions. 

Jacobs just making an arse of himself on twitter again. Class the way hes been schooled on twitter with people posting the PL's rules up and how they didnt follow their own rules. Unlucky Ben. Keep your trap shut talking shite in future.

[Teasy]

58 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Jacobs certainly seems to have rattled the twitter mob by getting the better of Keith in Friday night's discussions. 

Aye he's rattled them into exposing his nonsense and lack of knowledge 😂. His claim that the PL couldn't reject the takeover because the consortium wouldnt put the person they wanted to test, and likely reject, forward is patently wrong.  It's right there quoted in the PL rules.  The PL can fail the test for lack of info including failure to put forward a director that the PL believe is involved.  The bloke hasn't got a clue.

[Mattoon]

Like I said a few pages back, each side has their agenda, Jacobs might be a little more clued up than others but he's still a layman. It's in his vested interest to play down the other side and try and discredit them, just as it is for Keith to do the same for the buyers. Not worth getting riled up about, Jacobs has chosen his side.

[Hhtoon]

1 hour ago, Joey Linton said:

Jacobs certainly seems to have rattled the twitter mob by getting the better of Keith in Friday night's discussions. 

Someone with absolutely no say or influence getting the better of someone else with no say or influence. 

Since when did these 2 become symbolic of whether or not the takeover happens? Their verbal jousting means fuck all.

[Wandy]

55 minutes ago, Scoot said:

Jacobs just making an arse of himself on twitter again. Class the way hes been schooled on twitter with people posting the PL's rules up and how they didnt follow their own rules. Unlucky Ben. Keep your trap shut talking shite in future.

Yeah, his impartiality is looking a bit suss today mind. 

[Fantail Breeze]

6 hours ago, reefatoon said:

Go into the positive thread. See Fanny going on about people talking shite. Come into this thread. See Fanny talking just as much shite. 

Where’s my post about people talking shite in the positive thread? Not like people to exaggerate and make things up.

As I’ve said to others, don’t like my posts? Block me. Or, contribute to the threads with something worthwhile rather than drivel like the above.

[BlueStar]

11 hours ago, Ben said:

 

I mean there's "cutthroat" and there's "cuts throats"

[Guest reefatoon]

Loves the sound of his own drivel. Has  a misplaced sense of superiority. Fanny breeze is KI isn’t he.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by reefatoon

[Whitley mag]

This Xander is spot on.

 

[Fantail Breeze]

5 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

This Xander is spot on.

 

Jacobs’ follow up tweets point out how Xander is wrong, fyi.

 

[Whitley mag]

13 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Jacobs’ follow up tweets point out how Xander is wrong, fyi.

 

Disagree entirely he claims it was unfair to disqualify and therefore arbitration offer was made. The rule book allows for disqualification and consortium made clear KSA would not be put forward as director. 

[Joey Linton]