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

[Whitley mag]

57 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

He’s been proven to be talking bollocks, you have your own thread for stuff like this.

Yeah Jacobs was proved to be talking bollocks. Section F of the rule book should have been applied, you might be easily fooled by the PL spouting gobshite but others aren’t.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Teasy]

9 hours ago, Joey Linton said:

What a load of rubbish.

 

Nufc trust council member too.

What's your reason for assuming its rubbish?  I have no idea personally, but I'd like to know more.

[Teasy]

45 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Yeah Jacobs was proved to be talking bollocks. Section F of the rule book should have been applied, you might be easily fooled by the PL spouting gobshite but others aren’t.

Absolutely, its quite plain that they've broken their rules.  The consortium gave the PL the info they say is correct.  The PL believe that's not correct, or not complete info and asked for more and the consortium told them they've provided all info.  By the PL rules that means the takeover should be rejected.  That then leads to the next stage, the consortium being able to appeal.  That's the PL's own rules, and its important for them to stick to those rules.  Because those of the rules the consortium understood would govern this process when they agreed to buy the club.  The idea I've heard so often here that they didn't reject the takeover because they were being helpful, allowing the consortium to finally give the info they wanted, is just so ridiculous.  You can't set rules for a process and then change them on the basis that you know best about the well being of the other group in that process.  Of course in reality its nothing to do with helping anyone, its a political move and anyone who's honest with themselves can see that.

[Ben]

Qatar wrote to 19 clubs asking them not to let the takeover happen, they got their wish and the Premier League have spent a year covering their tracks, whilst the likes of Burnley get taken over by borrowed money that will ultimately be the undoing of the club.

[Happinesstan]

9 hours ago, Joey Linton said:

Usually a Friday. 

3pm.

[mrmojorisin75]

2 hours ago, Ben said:

Qatar wrote to 19 clubs asking them not to let the takeover happen, they got their wish and the Premier League have spent a year covering their tracks, whilst the likes of Burnley get taken over by borrowed money that will ultimately be the undoing of the club.

Is there actual proof of this?  

[Joey Linton]

3 hours ago, Ben said:

Qatar wrote to 19 clubs asking them not to let the takeover happen, they got their wish and the Premier League have spent a year covering their tracks, whilst the likes of Burnley get taken over by borrowed money that will ultimately be the undoing of the club.

I thought we were saying they'd definitely only written to the top six?

[Hhtoon]

3 hours ago, Ben said:

Qatar wrote to 19 clubs asking them not to let the takeover happen, they got their wish and the Premier League have spent a year covering their tracks, whilst the likes of Burnley get taken over by borrowed money that will ultimately be the undoing of the club.

 

38 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

Is there actual proof of this?  

 

26 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

I thought we were saying they'd definitely only written to the top six?

Didn't Ben J speak to the some of the other clubs and said they also got them?

Have to say I never understood what it proves either way. PL can't stop people sending letters and unless you can prove the PL let it sway them then why does it matter?

[Fantail Breeze]

9 hours ago, Teasy said:

What's your reason for assuming its rubbish?  I have no idea personally, but I'd like to know more.

More people sprouting crap on Twitter they know nothing about and being explained they’re wrong, again (see Xander above). Whitley will probably believe it still though.

9 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

Yeah Jacobs was proved to be talking bollocks. Section F of the rule book should have been applied, you might be easily fooled by the PL spouting gobshite but others aren’t.

It’s already been clearly explained by Jacobs why Section F isn’t applicable. If you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and believe crap on Twitter from some chap with 12 followers, that’s your own problem.

But again, you have your own thread for all of this fake twitter ITK crap - please use it.

[The Prophet]

As I've said, I don't mind Jacobs, he actually explains his position with relevant information and laws.  At the same time its probably best to be mindful he will get a majority of his information from Quatari sources.

That's the problem here, it's just his interpretation. The same as I have my interpretation and other NUFC fans will have theres. Granted Jacobs has access to more information, but he won't have the full picture. The only arguments that matter are the ones made before the arbitration panel. No amount of Twitter debate will impact the outcome.

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by The Prophet

[Fantail Breeze]

4 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

As I've said, I don't mind Jacobs, he actually explains his position with relevant information and laws.  At the same time its probably best to be mindful he will get a majority of his information from Quatari sources.

That's the problem here, it's just his interpretation. The same as I have my interpretation and other NUFC fans will have theres. Granted he Jacobs has access to more information, but he won't have the full picture. The only arguments that matter are the ones made before the arbitration panel. No amount of Twitter debate will impact the outcome.

 

He was fairly clear on the podcast - his sources are BeIN, PL and the consortium side. He has sources across all three. Hence why he’s posted balanced content and even some positive snippets.

He also checks out the legal stuff with a legal eagle before he posts it. 

Probably more reliable than Xander then.

[The Prophet]

Again though, he might give us some insight into what arguments could be made by both parties, but he's still a total irrelevance when all is said and done. Neither party will be disclosing their plan of attack to a journo.

Anything that likely is leaked will be a distraction or an attempt to discredit.

[Thumbheed]

Can someone clarify Jacob's point about why rule F.1.1.1 is not applicable? 

From what I gather, he's saying the test never got to that stage because the 2 sides couldn't agree on who/what should be tested.

Is that right? 

[Jackie Broon]

2 hours ago, Thumbheed said:

Can someone clarify Jacob's point about why rule F.1.1.1 is not applicable? 

From what I gather, he's saying the test never got to that stage because the 2 sides couldn't agree on who/what should be tested.

Is that right? 

He might be right as in that's what happened, but he's wrong that the PL couldn't have disqualified PIF on the basis of F.1.1.1 or that it was a reasonable thing for the PL to do to require arbitration rather than make a decision that could be appealed.

The two sides don't need to agree, the PL are the decision maker and are there to make a decision, if the club/consortium didn't agree with the decision they could then appeal it.

Jacobs presents stuff in a convincing seemingly balanced way but if you actually look into what he's saying it often isn't correct, or there's a element of truth that has been twisted or overplayed. He definitely has an agenda.

 

 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[mrmojorisin75]

I mean it's law/rules right, so he's arguing over an interpretation of that just as the twitter legal team are arguing the opposite

That's what everything will come down to in the end, did they reasonably apply the rules and as none of us know the details of what took place in terms of direct correspondence and requests/provisions it's all pointless speculation as what both sides are saying could be correct depending on the details

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

I mean it's law/rules right, so he's arguing over an interpretation of that just as the twitter legal team are arguing the opposite

That's what everything will come down to in the end, did they reasonably apply the rules and as none of us know the details of what took place in terms of direct correspondence and requests/provisions it's all pointless speculation as what both sides are saying could be correct depending on the details

Well, not really, he actually said the "EPL wouldn’t be following their own guidelines if they just said “it’s rejected due to names affiliated to the bid you don’t think are affiliated or haven’t listed.”" then he was presented with rule F.1.1.1, which says almost exactly that. That's not a matter of interpretation, that's just wrong. He was caught out not really knowing what he was talking about.

[mrmojorisin75]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

Well, not really, he actually said the "EPL wouldn’t be following their own guidelines if they just said “it’s rejected due to names affiliated to the bid you don’t think are affiliated or haven’t listed.”" then he was presented with rule F.1.1.1, which says almost exactly that. That's not a matter of interpretation, that's just wrong. He was caught out not really knowing what he was talking about.

Hm, perhaps you're making my point for me.

I'm not following this as closely as some, you presumably, but look at your own post a few up:

Quote

He might be right as in that's what happened, but he's wrong that the PL couldn't have disqualified PIF on the basis of F.1.1.1 or that it was a reasonable thing for the PL to do to require arbitration rather than make a decision that could be appealed.

Do the rules say they have to disqualify them in these specific circumstances?  That's how laws and rules work, if it's not black & white then you argue interpretation.  We simply don't know what went back and forth between the lawyers so it could be that he's right, it could also be that he's wrong.  I don't know and neither do you because you haven't seen the details of what was requested or provided.

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

Hm, perhaps you're making my point for me.

I'm not following this as closely as some, you presumably, but look at your own post a few up:

Do the rules say they have to disqualify them in these specific circumstances?  That's how laws and rules work, if it's not black & white then you argue interpretation.  We simply don't know what went back and forth between the lawyers so it could be that he's right, it could also be that he's wrong.  I don't know and neither do you because you haven't seen the details of what was requested or provided.

As far as I can see Jacobs was the one taking in absolutes, that they couldn't refuse on that basis, but they clearly could have. Whether that was correct for the PL to do is a matter for interpretation and debate, but he made an absolute statement that was shown to be incorrect.

[Dr Jinx]

I think it's a simplification to say they couldn't agree on who to test. The consortium put forward their relevant nominations who all would have flown through the test based on its normal criteria.

The issue is an agenda by the PL to sort out copyright infringement, so by requesting a state to be a director (which is unprecedented) hoping that they could gain leverage.

There's nowhere in their rulebook that covers this so they have acted well outside the bounds on their test. They should have disqualified PIF based on their assumptions.

[Thumbheed]

I don't even know if the point is relevant to the arbritation case, but I just don't understand how it can be argued that the PL needed to agree with who should be tested before the test can progress to the stage where they can disqualify said party for not disclosing a Director as per Jacob's point? 

Any ideas?

[mrmojorisin75]

4 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

I think it's a simplification to say they couldn't agree on who to test. The consortium put forward their relevant nominations who all would have flown through the test based on its normal criteria.

The issue is an agenda by the PL to sort out copyright infringement, so by requesting a state to be a director (which is unprecedented) hoping that they could gain leverage.

There's nowhere in their rulebook that covers this so they have acted well outside the bounds on their test. They should have disqualified PIF based on their assumptions.

Do you know this for a fact?  I know we all believe it, and that's what Staveley has implied, but proving it might well be a very different matter.

[andyc35i]

It seems that the scenario was that the PL stated the information given was not correct - ‘we don’t believe the information given to us on owners proposed so we can’t test you’.... In that scenario, the outcome is that the PL have to either fail the bidders according to the rules or offer arbitration. Surely they will argue that they have done everything correctly even if the rules appear different on paper.

[mrmojorisin75]

3 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

It seems that the scenario was that the PL stated the information given was not correct - ‘we don’t believe the information given to us on owners proposed so we can’t test you’.... In that scenario, the outcome is that the PL have to either fail the bidders according to the rules or offer arbitration. Surely they will argue that they have done everything correctly even if the rules appear different on paper.

Arbitration in that case would be over the individual  failure decision though no, whereas they offered arbitration over who to test (apparently).

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

More people sprouting crap on Twitter they know nothing about and being explained they’re wrong, again (see Xander above). Whitley will probably believe it still though.

It’s already been clearly explained by Jacobs why Section F isn’t applicable. If you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and believe crap on Twitter from some chap with 12 followers, that’s your own problem.

But again, you have your own thread for all of this fake twitter ITK crap - please use it.

I’d like you to show us why section f shouldn’t have been applied rather than rely on Jacobs ? Jacobs is towing the PL line that you seem quick to accept. If you can point me to the para in PL rule book that would be greatly appreciated Fanny.

[gjohnson]

1 minute ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

Arbitration in that case would be over the individual  failure decision though no, whereas they offered arbitration over who to test (apparently).

Long and the short of it is that no-one outside of the proceedings knows what was actually submitted. 

Jacobs might well be arguing semantics, but he won't know the details of who and what has been submitted.

The PL didn't make a decision either way, and while their own rules read that they should have the interpretation of them is what the arbitration is ultimately about.

Given that they were happy to approve Burnleys takeover which has basically screwed them into a Sunderland situation, this all appears to be a delaying tactic to keep the 'Rich 6' happy (refuse to say top6 anymore since its clearly not the case).