Jump to content

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


Yorkie

Will the takeover be complete by this summer?  

312 members have voted

  1. 1. Will the takeover be complete by this summer?

    • Yes
      87
    • No
      183


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

Bang........or maybe not after all then, I hope Jacobs was referring to something else.

 

The story he links is from August last year. Sorry I dont follow?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really enjoy listening to Keith on Wraith's show but I'm not sure if its just because I'm hearing stuff I want to hear ie Premier are fucked etc. Unfortunately I think Keith is becoming too aggressive with Jacobs on twitter. As the days go by it seems this NCSL twitter account is getting more childish and petty, constantly trying to put Ben Jacobs down on every single point (personally think Jacobs has come across very well. Lots of detailed knowledge and has been very polite in responding to fans questions) 

 

Time will tell who was correct but I'm starting to fear that Jacobs could well be right and that PL have a much stronger case then what Keith tells us. People say try and switch off but this is probably the biggest 2 months potentially in the history of our club and I'll be devastated if the Premier League win arbitration 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Robster said:

Remember when you were absolutely certain that your ITK was right?
Halcyon days.

Aye. He was working for nufc as well. 
Difference  is I let it go when he was proved wrong. 
Keith is not connected with the club. He may have been used, but it’s now obvious he’s nowhere near involved in the finer detail
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

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.

Why would I tell you when I don’t have a clue? But what Jacobs says, imo, sounds plausible and much more likely than anything else.

Plus, knowing the fact the PL have had legal advice from day one - I’m assuming they’ve not scored such a massive own goal as ‘Xander’ is trying to highlight.

The paragraph (and interpretation) has been pointed out to you. Sadly, you don’t want to listen - but looking at your last couple of posts in here you’re absolutely a lost cause.

You and others have screamed like 53 year olds at a Westlife reunion gig about how important your own thread is and how everyone else should stay out. Why are you in here posting stuff which is proven time and time again to be factually incorrect? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

Anyone think we'll be under new ownership come the first game of the season?

No. Even if we ‘won’ arbitration, I’d assume it’d drag on into the season. The deal would need to be re-negotiated, plus the O&D process would need to resume. We’ll see how serious Ashley is about selling when the re-negotiations start.

Others have made it clear the club are worth less now than they were before.

I do think we’ll be sold soon(ish) though. If the PIF deal is confirmed as a dud during 2021, either through arbitration or CAT, I expect someone else to come in and Ashley get rid.

Would be over the moon if arbitration went in our favour, but just can’t see it happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robster said:

You can almost taste the smug " I told you so's " though.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Why would I tell you when I don’t have a clue? But what Jacobs says, imo, sounds plausible and much more likely than anything else.

Plus, knowing the fact the PL have had legal advice from day one - I’m assuming they’ve not scored such a massive own goal as ‘Xander’ is trying to highlight.

The paragraph (and interpretation) has been pointed out to you. Sadly, you don’t want to listen - but looking at your last couple of posts in here you’re absolutely a lost cause.

You and others have screamed like 53 year olds at a Westlife reunion gig about how important your own thread is and how everyone else should stay out. Why are you in here posting stuff which is proven time and time again to be factually incorrect? 

How is it factually incorrect because Jacobs said so ? Show me the reg where it is factually incorrect instead of just referring to Jacobs.

I based my opinion on reading the PL rule book long before ‘Xander’ highlighted it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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 by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...