Whitley mag Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 20 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said: Why would anyone want to take this stance? Everyone in this thread wants the takeover to go through. If I’m wrong expecting it to fail, fucking fabulous. I’ll carry Whitley naked up and down Barrack Road before plunging Fab ice lollies into every orifice he has if it goes through. Couldn’t give a toss about being right or wrong - just want Ashley to fuck off at the earliest opportunity. That’s just plain disturbing Fanny, don’t ever speak about me in this context again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattoon Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 We're literally playing a game of school playground "he said, she said". With what little information is available it's easy for either side to spin it any way they want and depending how your opinion lies, your own gut feeling, you're going to gravitate to whoever is interpreting your feelings best. Euros can't come quick enough, we need something to distract us from the giant middle eastern elephant in the room. Let this play out in the background, let the grown ups do their jobs and see what comes out the other side. I don't trust Jacobs and I don't trust Keith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Just had a read through the high court judgements and something I didn't realise was that letter the PL sent the club following it's decision in June 2020 is published in the background information. At the end of the letter it states: "if you disagree with either of these provisional conclusions, we would welcome your reasoned response. Following receipt of any submissions, we will fully consider them before reaching a final decision on the issues." So the PL said on 12th June that the believed the KSA would control the club and they were essentially giving the consortium a chance to respond before they make a final decision. At some point between then and the end of July they changed their mind and insisted on arbitration instead. That doesn't really look very consistent or reasonable behaviour from the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 27 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: Just had a read through the high court judgements and something I didn't realise was that letter the PL sent the club following it's decision in June 2020 is published in the background information. At the end of the letter it states: "if you disagree with either of these provisional conclusions, we would welcome your reasoned response. Following receipt of any submissions, we will fully consider them before reaching a final decision on the issues." So the PL said on 12th June that the believed the KSA would control the club and they were essentially giving the consortium a chance to respond before they make a final decision. At some point between then and the end of July they changed their mind and insisted on arbitration instead. That doesn't really look very consistent or reasonable behaviour from the PL. You could just as reasonably argue that the move to arbitration being offered was due to the buyers refusing to give a full reasoned response. There's a bit of supporting evidence (for either side) missing when just taking the letter. Reading through the last few pages here, I'm not sure that arbitration will be around F.1.1.1. As you say on page 910 there is no reference to what happens if the PL do not respond within 5 days and the wording of F.4 (which feeds into F.1.1.1) sets out what happens for people put forward as directors should they fail. So arbitration has to be centred around the phrasing of F.4 and the term shadow director - who are the PL to overrule Saudi law in defining a shadow director? If we can win on that point then it becomes a seemingly straight forward path to passing the test. The CAT action is also going to concentrate on F.4 and not F.1.1.1, only this time it will be on whether the PL gave assurances or indicated that the proposed board would be accepted only for it to then change it's mind following interference from other clubs or partners. It will be the actions of others that will win or lose us this case - and if we prove that competition law was breached through using F.4 to stall the takeover then for arbitration you can bypass the legal definition of a shadow director and whether UK Company Law prevails by showing that the PL were happy not to consider KSA as directors or owners. You then go straight to F.4.1 and F.4.2 on the submitted directors My guess is that the case for interference leading to the collapse of the test is stronger than the case for forcing the PL to accept Saudi law on shadow directors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 5 hours ago, Whitley mag said: Bang........or maybe not after all then, I hope Jacobs was referring to something else. Who is EUFA? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandy Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 One thing that surely everyone can agree on is that the O&D test rules have been written in a vague enough manner to give the PL a significant chance of winning the arbitration. And I imagine that the same applies for their conduct in regards to the CAT case. I dont believe for a second that they have made some kind of glaring schoolboy errors in the way they have handled themselves in all of this, which is why I tend to think Jacobs' take on the situation is a lot closer to reality than Keith's, unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonArmy1892 Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 14 minutes ago, Happinesstan said: Who is EUFA? Pro evo version of UEFA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: You could just as reasonably argue that the move to arbitration being offered was due to the buyers refusing to give a full reasoned response. There's a bit of supporting evidence (for either side) missing when just taking the letter. Reading through the last few pages here, I'm not sure that arbitration will be around F.1.1.1. As you say on page 910 there is no reference to what happens if the PL do not respond within 5 days and the wording of F.4 (which feeds into F.1.1.1) sets out what happens for people put forward as directors should they fail. So arbitration has to be centred around the phrasing of F.4 and the term shadow director - who are the PL to overrule Saudi law in defining a shadow director? If we can win on that point then it becomes a seemingly straight forward path to passing the test. The CAT action is also going to concentrate on F.4 and not F.1.1.1, only this time it will be on whether the PL gave assurances or indicated that the proposed board would be accepted only for it to then change it's mind following interference from other clubs or partners. It will be the actions of others that will win or lose us this case - and if we prove that competition law was breached through using F.4 to stall the takeover then for arbitration you can bypass the legal definition of a shadow director and whether UK Company Law prevails by showing that the PL were happy not to consider KSA as directors or owners. You then go straight to F.4.1 and F.4.2 on the submitted directors My guess is that the case for interference leading to the collapse of the test is stronger than the case for forcing the PL to accept Saudi law on shadow directors. Yeah, the arbitration is only on whether the KSA meets the definition of control in Section A, it doesn't relate to section F at all. Although, I think the arbitrators will probably look at that letter and wonder why the PL are at arbitration in the first place, after they said they were in a position to make a final decision. Even if the consortium didn't put its reasons for disagreeing with that preliminary conclusion it would hardly put them in less of a position to make that final decision. It also make me think even more than before; if they're so confident in their position, why didn't they just make that final decision? It seems like either the consortium submitted a response that made them think that arbitration was necessary to decide it, or they weren't confident in winning an appeal and chose to kick the can further down the road with arbitration. Edited June 1, 2021 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Keith and Ben are having a set to again tonight Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted June 1, 2021 Share Posted June 1, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 It's gotten tetchy this week, I knew it would. We're a week away from things actually happening. It still doesn't help, feels like am in purgatory. Maybe I died last year of Covid and the punishment for all my sins is a never ending takeover, Ben Jacobs, Like Edwards, Caulkin and that awful Keith chap, oh and the bum chums on Wraiths show. It's fucking awful. I nearly don't want a takeover just so these prats won't claim it as their own victory. How have we allowed such a rabble to represent us? Surely there's brighter folk who could step in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Ben said: Keith and Ben are having a set to again tonight Fuck sake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Linton Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 7 hours ago, Ben said: Keith and Ben are having a set to again tonight Yes, that's definitely a good look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandy Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 6 hours ago, Decky said: Fuck sake. Someone needs to sit him down and tell him to just shut the fuck up now. He may have obtained the strongest evidence possible but he is just making himself look like a complete tit. "Sauces" ffs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danh1 Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Lost a lot of respect and faith in Keith this week. Thought he handled himself well on that podcast last week but he has shown himself up and come across as a big bairn on Twitter. With that, my faith in the takeover has wained as I put a lot of hope in the positivity coming from Keith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Like a lass on facebook too deep in prosecco, take the fucking phone away from him man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Life these days is so polarised, you're either pro-brexit or the worst of humanity, remainer or the worst of humanity, vax/anti vax, BLM/ALM. On our side or the scum of the earth and if you show any sign of dissent you're on their side, no middle ground. A sad indictment of modern society and with victory comes smugness, gloating and vitriol I'll make a prediction, if this goes the way of the EPL those championing the takeover will be reminded relentlessly of their 'crimes' Fucking sad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Ben said: Keith and Ben are having a set to again tonight Well said Keith. It is interesting how all these obsessive "negative types" (the let's deny facts and logic types) always claim words like 'balanced' or 'realistic' for their negative exagerations. As I have said many times, when logic points to a positive outcome, then positive = logical and balanced. That is why the 'positive' thread should be renamed as the 'realistic' thread. Keep it up Keith, you are fighting for us all (though some don't realise it) and you are fighting for the future of our NUFC. Edited June 2, 2021 by manorpark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 8 minutes ago, manorpark said: Well said Keith. It is interesting how all these obsessive "negative types" (the let's deny facts and logic types) always claim words like 'balanced' or 'realistic' for their negative exagerations. As I have said many times, when logic points to a positive outcome, then positive = logical and balanced. That is why the 'positive' thread should be renamed as the 'realistic' thread. Keep it up Keith, you are fighting for us all (though some don't realise it) and you are fighting for the future of our NUFC. Shark's been jumped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 Can we not all just go back to plane spotting? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandy Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 12 minutes ago, manorpark said: Well said Keith. It is interesting how all these obsessive "negative types" (the let's deny facts and logic types) always claim words like 'balanced' or 'realistic' for their negative exagerations. As I have said many times, when logic points to a positive outcome, then positive = logical and balanced. That is why the 'positive' thread should be renamed as the 'realistic' thread. Keep it up Keith, you are fighting for us all (though some don't realise it) and you are fighting for the future of our NUFC. You are nothing but a troll. And if it all falls through you will be off in a huffy shot, just like you did in July when the Saudis made their statement of withdrawal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 15 minutes ago, manorpark said: Well said Keith. It is interesting how all these obsessive "negative types" (the let's deny facts and logic types) always claim words like 'balanced' or 'realistic' for their negative exagerations. As I have said many times, when logic points to a positive outcome, then positive = logical and balanced. That is why the 'positive' thread should be renamed as the 'realistic' thread. Keep it up Keith, you are fighting for us all (though some don't realise it) and you are fighting for the future of our NUFC. Fuckin embarrassing accusing the guy of being paid off by the PL with no proof what so ever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 5 minutes ago, Pixelphish said: Shark's been jumped. Jumping the shark is an idiom used to describe the moment of a misguided attempt at generating new publicity for something once, but no longer, widely popular. Really? The Takeover is no longer popular? Here's to a lifetime of Ashley and Bruce then, I never knew that is what (by default) you want. Well, perhaps we can be "11th" next season eh? That is an exciting thought. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted June 2, 2021 Share Posted June 2, 2021 1 minute ago, Wandy said: You are nothing but a troll. And if it all falls through you will be off in a huffy shot, just like you did in July when the Saudis made their statement of withdrawal. 100% false. Why waste your life writing gibberish like that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts