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

[Robster]

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

Because they never agreed on who the test was going to include.

Says who for absolute certainty? Bearing in mind that this is, to quote the PL, a "Confidential Process"
 

[Joey Linton]

Just now, Robster said:

Says who for absolute certainty? Bearing in mind that this is, to quote the PL, a "Confidential Process"
 

But we're expected to blindly believe what Rob Draper put in an article according to a post only a few above this one? 

[Fantail Breeze]

3 minutes ago, Robster said:

Says who for absolute certainty? Bearing in mind that this is, to quote the PL, a "Confidential Process"
 

 

Well why else are we heading into arbitration?

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

But we're expected to blindly believe what Rob Draper put in an article according to a post only a few above this one? 

You’re forgetting we blindly believe the journalists who post positive things and completely refute any journalist who posts something neutral or negative.

[nbthree3]

(4) Decision letter: "If [PLL] then decides that KSA will not become a Director, then it will proceed to a decision on the application of Section [F] to the individuals who have been declared, including PIF. However, should the Board decide that KSA is also to be regarded as a future Director, then there will have to be a declaration in respect of KSA and the Board’s decision on the application of [Section F] will have to be made in respect of KSA also.” https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/349.pdf 

 

(37) "The text of the letter makes it abundantly clear that the sole issue that PLL had decided (and then only provisionally) was that KSA satisfied the definitions so that it was to be regarded as a Director for the purpose of applying Section F of PLL’s Rules."

 

I get the impression section F had not been applied because only the provisional determination (which might still be reversed if we "win" arbitration) had been made by the Premier League board. The consortium was free to disagree despite turning down arbitration initially, and that's alright because we're now at that stage. Section F hasn't been applied and the test remains an impasse unless the 'director decision' in paragraph 4 is reversed like I said

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by nbthree3

[Jackie Broon]

22 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

That doesn’t apply though, does it? Because they never agreed on who the test was going to include.

 

That’s the whole point, that you seem to be missing… over and over again.

 

I've already explained why that is incorrect. I know that's how the PL looked at it, they were just very clearly wrong to do it that way.

 

That almost certainly won't have any impact on the arbitration, but it will look very bad for them in the CAT case.

[Thumbheed]

Where's the provision that states that the PL need to agree on who to test before the test can begin?

 

Surely that must be written down somewhere?

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Thumbheed

[nbthree3]

If the league doesn't agree who to apply section F on then how can they start? (Edit: start meaning which "legal entities" to apply section F on - the legal background work gaining further information and questions via the club was ongoing throughout, so I hope I'm not implying that didn't happen as it did)

 

PIF - the league wanted to speak to the media minister who sits on the PIF board Al-Qasabi for instance, for additional information. Same goes for named directors Al-Rumayyan, bin Mogren etc. If PIF ultimately are controlled by KSA according to section A and are thus a shadow director, it makes applying section F a lot easier. Likewise, if they are proven to not. Because with a provisional determination which the consortium could disagree with - settled now via arbitration - that has the chance to force the PL to reconsider their not-set-in -stone decision. The league sought legal advice coming to that 'minded (inclined to think) conclusion' too, just as the club via consortium who disagree.

 

Reubens + Staveley there's nothing up in the air about so they'll be a comparative breeze. 

 

I imagine it's a very quick process in the majority of cases once they start applying it. Saves trouble down the line knowing exactly who needs to be assessed before finding out there's someone else they may've not included which makes the process even more complicated. 

 

It's all very messy.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by nbthree3

[Joey Linton]

29 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

You’re forgetting we blindly believe the journalists who post positive things and completely refute any journalist who posts something neutral or negative.

Even if it's negative in the nonsense thread, or positive in the realism one? 

[Happinesstan]

15 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Where's the provision that states that the PL need to agree on who to test before the test can begin?

 

Surely that must be written down somewhere?

 

 

Does it really need to be written down that who should be tested is decided before any test is applied?

[Thumbheed]

15 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Does it really need to be written down that who should be tested is decided before any test is applied?

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, then yes, surely it must be as important if not more important than any other of the rules that are written down. 

 

It also leads us into a bizarre situation where the 2 parties need to agree on who gets tested before the test can progress to the stage where the PL can disqualify said party for not disclosing someone(or something in this case) who should have been tested. That just makes no sense to me. 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Thumbheed

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Where's the provision that states that the PL need to agree on who to test before the test begins?

 

Surely that must be written down somewhere?

 

 

 

There isn't one, quite the opposite.

 

It's clear that the test starts on submission of the declaration: F.4.1. "submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration" "at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules".

 

F.4.2 "within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1 and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6"

 

Rule F.1 includes having failed to provide "all relevant information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed"

 

Rule F.6 states that "upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration... that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore."

 

 

"at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules" is immediate and unequivocal.

 

"within five Working Days of receipt thereof" is unequivocal with no alternative given.

 

"upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration" is an immediate and unequivocal.

 

The rules are clear and unequivocal, there is no room for interpretation, the test starts when the declaration is submitted and should be completed within five working days. The PL have chosen to ignore that and do it their own way, and there is no easy way for the club to have required them to follow their own process as set out. But it is absolute clear that they have not properly followed their own rules.

 

Before, Penn of whoever it is behind the Fantail Linton accounts says "well they didn't provide enough information to make a decision". This is a civil law decision, balance of probabilities is the standard of proof, such decisions can and should be made on the basis of the information available at the point the decision needs to be made.  

 

 

 

[Happinesstan]

6 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Unless I'm missing something really obvious, then yes, surely it must be as important if not more important than any other of the rules that are written down. 

 

It also leads us into a bizarre situation where the 2 parties need to agree on who gets tested before the test can progress to the stage where the PL can disqualify said party for not disclosing someone(or something in this case) who should have been tested. That just makes no sense to me. 

 

I think you're missing the fact that it's obvious the people to be tested should be decided before the test is applied.

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, Happinesstan said:

I think you're missing the fact that it's obvious the people to be tested should be decided before the test is applied.

 

You're wrong, one of the rules the test can be failed on is that is that all directors must have been be disclosed (F.1.1.1.). If it were the case that the test doesn't start until all directors are decided on that rule would be pointless, because it would never come into effect.

[Consortium of one]

[Thumbheed]

5 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I think you're missing the fact that it's obvious the people to be tested should be decided before the test is applied.

This answer doesn't offer as much substance as you think. 

[Happinesstan]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

You're wrong, one of the rules the test can be failed on is that is that all directors must have been be disclosed (F.1.1.1.). If it were the case that the test doesn't start until all directors are decided on that rule would be pointless, because it would never come into effect.

 

Well if the rule wasn't applied then it is a bit pointless.

[Joey Linton]

3 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

This answer doesn't offer as much substance as you think. 

In your opinion of course. 

[Happinesstan]

2 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

This answer doesn't offer as much substance as you think. 

I never thought it did. Wasn't even in my thoughts. It's a pretty straightforward comment, I'm just not as emotionally involved as you.

[Thumbheed]

Just now, Joey Linton said:

In your opinion of course. 

Of course.

 

In fact it's been followed up with a post saying one of the written rules is pointless as the unwritten rule was not 'passed' so to speak. 

[Thumbheed]

Just now, Happinesstan said:

I never thought it did. Wasn't even in my thoughts. It's a pretty straightforward comment, I'm just not as emotionally involved as you.

What an odd comment.

 

Moving on then, still interested to hear what I'm missing.

[Scoot]

Let Ashley's QC's sort it out rather than argue about something we know nothing about if we're honest. 

 

Or you could be a thick twat and decide to listen to ben Jacob's and luke Edward's. They'll know...

[Joey Linton]

Just now, Scoot said:

Let Ashley's QC's sort it out rather than argue about something we know nothing about if we're honest. 

 

Or you could be a thick twat and decide to listen to ben Jacob's and luke Edward's. They'll know...

If you are intent on calling people thick twats you probably want to drop those two apostrophes. 

[Jackie Broon]

40 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

Does it really need to be written down that who should be tested is decided before any test is applied?

 

It does given that the opposite of that actually is written down in the rules.

[Scoot]

1 minute ago, Joey Linton said:

If you are intent on calling people thick twats you probably want to drop those two apostrophes. 

 

I blame auto correct and a "can't be arsed to change it" attitude and then I'll still call people thick twats who listen to those two utter fart pellets.