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

[Happinesstan]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

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

 

What? It's written in the rules that they're not allowed to know who to test before commencing?

[Fantail Breeze]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

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.

 

 And your legal qualifications to make that determination?

 

I’m fairly confident the PL (you know, the people who wrote the rules) and their lawyers will have the edge on you here.

[Whitley mag]

2 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

You’ve still not answered the question.

 

Why would the consortium pull out and blame COVID? How can you not see how counter-productive that is to their argument?

 

The PL have acted in accordance to their rules, there is no time limit on making the determinations that they did.

 

If the consortium had waited it out, we’d also have had some form of decision by now and the court action would have been sooner. Both sides have caused delays.

PIF pulled out to save face and embarrassment, simple as that. The PL had basically took the piss for 17 weeks, and the price of the deal had gone up as a result. In their eyes there was no way forward and what the PL we’re asking in relation to the state was unreasonable. They obviously believed arbitration wasn’t the answer a the time, but due to support of fans and persuasion from Ashley they agreed to wait in the background until pathway to deal was cleared. To an organisation like PIF this could be damaging to reputation if linked to state, I would also think in their eyes they we’re hugely insulted by the PL’s behaviour in the end.

 

The PL did not act in accordance with their rules but we’ll agree to disagree on this, even though you still haven’t referred to the guidance where they did follow their rules.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Ben]

Fuck that, Masters will concede on Friday and Amanda will be sitting on her sybian in Charners old office by the middle of next week.

[Fantail Breeze]

Just now, Whitley mag said:

PIF pulled out to save face and embarrassment, simple as that. The PL had basically took the piss for 17 weeks, and the price of the deal had gone up as a result. In their eyes there was no way forward and what the PL we’re asking in relation to the state was unreasonable. They obviously believed arbitration wasn’t the answer a the time, but due to support of fans and persuasion from Ashley they agreed to wait in the background until deal pathway was cleared. To an organisation like PIF this could be damaging to reputation if linked to state, I would also think in their eyes they we’re hugely insulted by the PL’s behaviour in the end.

 

The PL did not act in accordance with their rules but we’ll agree to disagree on this, even though you still haven’t referred to the guidance where they did follow their rules.

 

 

 

No they didn’t, their own public statement says otherwise. Hence why it was damaging to withdraw and issue that statement.

 

Arbitration “wasn’t the answer”… but a year later, it is? We could have gone through arbitration a year ago. 

 

It’s been explained to you many times, including on this very page. But you’ve got your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen.

 

You’re on the wrong thread, again. 

[Fantail Breeze]

19 minutes ago, 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...

 

I mean the discussion was absolutely fine until the normal group of delusional folk came in with their ramblings, which they have their own thread for.

 

 

[Scoot]

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

I mean the discussion was absolutely fine until the normal group of delusional folk came in with their ramblings, which they have their own thread for.

 

 

 

I could say the exact same thing about the other thread once all the Luke Edwards fan boys come steaming in. Suck it up sunshine!

[Whitley mag]

6 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

No they didn’t, their own public statement says otherwise. Hence why it was damaging to withdraw and issue that statement.

 

Arbitration “wasn’t the answer”… but a year later, it is? We could have gone through arbitration a year ago. 

 

It’s been explained to you many times, including on this very page. But you’ve got your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen.

 

You’re on the wrong thread, again. 

There statement wasn’t going to read we’ve pulled out because the PL think we are basically the Saudi state now was it ? 
 

No it hasn’t been explained, show us the reg in the PL rule book where they have acted accordingly.

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Fantail Breeze]

46 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

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.  

 

 

 

 

Wrong. Again. The PL does need to be satisfied the correct people have been tested.

 

F26. No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
F.26.1. the Board provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule F.24.1.1 and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1;
F.26.2. the Board provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule F.24.1.2; and
F.26.3. the Club and Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule F.25.

[Fantail Breeze]

3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

There statement wasn’t going to read we’ve pulled out because the PL think we are basically the Saudi state now was it ? 
 

No it hasn’t been explained, show us the reg in the PL rule book where they have acted accordingly.

 

 

Well their statement has been damaging to the club’s case, that’s the whole point. 

 

See above.

[ToonArmy1892]

This is more boring than the Keith/Bein thing.

[Jackie Broon]

50 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

 

What? It's written in the rules that they're not allowed to know who to test before commencing?

 

This makes it clear that the rules apply to anyone who is declared as a proposed director from the point they are declared: 

 

F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules;

 

That includes rule F.1.1.1 which, as detailed above, applies to any proposed director from the point they are declared and requires that they be disqualified if any other directors (including new owners) have not been disclosed:

 

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. 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);

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[ToonArmy1892]

It's fucking off, again. Carroll

 

[Happinesstan]

11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

This makes it clear that the rules apply to anyone who is declared as a proposed director from the point they are declared: 

 

F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules;

 

That includes rule F.1.1.1 which, as detailed above, applies to any proposed director from the point they are declared and requires that they be disqualified if any other directors (including new owners) have not been disclosed:

 

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. 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);

 

I feel like you've been spamming this for months now. I thought the entire argument was about whether SA [or whoever] would qualify as a director.

[Joey Linton]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amanda-staveley-rebuffed-by-judges-over-barclays-damages-z2ztmf3xb

[Jackie Broon]

4 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I feel like you've been spamming this for months now. I thought the entire argument was about whether SA [or whoever] would qualify as a director.

 

And yet people are still coming back with the same erroneous stuff about the PL not having been able to carry out the test because they didn't agree on the directors. If people stop posting that I'll stop showing that they're wrong.

 

That's the argument for arbitration, but for the CAT case I think the fact that the PL haven't properly followed their own rules is going to seriously weaken their defence, which could increase the chances that they will settle the arbitration to get out of the CAT case.

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Wrong. Again. The PL does need to be satisfied the correct people have been tested.

 

F26. No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
F.26.1. the Board provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule F.24.1.1 and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1;
F.26.2. the Board provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule F.24.1.2; and
F.26.3. the Club and Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule F.25.

So what should happen when rule F.26.1. cannot be satisfied. What you have quoted there only details what is required at -

F.24.1.2.
submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of each Person who will become a Director upon the proposed acquisition of Control;

 

So when this has not been complied with what should happen next. You still haven’t shown a reg that satisfies your argument.

 

 

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Well their statement has been damaging to the club’s case, that’s the whole point. 

 

See above.

Who’s said their statement is damaging apart from Jacobs ? I’m not sure anyone knows if that will be the case or not. Once again your hanging off Jacobs every word.

[Jackie Broon]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Wrong. Again. The PL does need to be satisfied the correct people have been tested.

 

F26. No Person may acquire Control of a Club and no Club may permit a Person to acquire Control of it until such time as:
F.26.1. the Board provides confirmation that all Persons that are required to do so have complied with the process set out in Rule F.24.1.1 and no such Persons are liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1;
F.26.2. the Board provides confirmation of its satisfaction with the information provided pursuant to Rule F.24.1.2; and
F.26.3. the Club and Person proposing to acquire Control have acceded to any powers and/or accepted any conditions imposed pursuant to Rule F.25.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but rules F.24 to F.27 didn't exist in April 2020, they were inserted in January 2021.

[B-more Mag]

Do we know for sure that the PIF submitted its signed director declaration? I honestly can't remember. 

[Bimpy474]

50 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

Do we know for sure that the PIF submitted its signed director declaration? I honestly can't remember. 

Not sure it matters now mate, it'll just add more fire on the aids that this discussion ends up being.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Bimpy474

[Jackie Broon]

23 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

Do we know for sure that the PIF submitted its signed director declaration? I honestly can't remember. 

 

They must have, from the PL's 'decision letter' letter in the High Court judgement "PIF expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of “Director” under [PLL’s] Rules".

[cubaricho]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

And yet people are still coming back with the same erroneous stuff about the PL not having been able to carry out the test because they didn't agree on the directors. If people stop posting that I'll stop showing that they're wrong.

 

That's the argument for arbitration, but for the CAT case I think the fact that the PL haven't properly followed their own rules is going to seriously weaken their defence, which could increase the chances that they will settle the arbitration to get out of the CAT case.

That’s literally what everyone (including Jacobs) have been talking about though  
 

That’s what the entire arbitration case is built on; that we (Mike Ashley) missed out on hundreds of millions because the Prem never even did the test/never gave a verdict.

 

The CAT case is completely different and has nothing to do with the ODT. 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by cubaricho

[B-more Mag]

6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

They must have, from the PL's 'decision letter' letter in the High Court judgement "PIF expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of “Director” under [PLL’s] Rules".

 

That's ambiguous, though, and leaves open the possibility it was done through informal correspondence. I'm wondering if they actually submitted the formal declaration. Hopefully they weren't stupid enough not to. 

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, cubaricho said:

That’s literally what everyone (including Jacobs) have been talking about though  
 

That’s what the entire arbitration case is built on; that we (Mike Ashley) missed out on hundreds of millions because the Prem never even did the test/never gave a verdict.

 

The CAT case is completely different and has nothing to do with the ODT. 

 

From the summary of the CAT claim:

 

"The Claim states that the Defendant exercised its power to block the Proposed Takeover when it decided between June and September 2020 that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a director exercising “control” over NUFC, for the purposes of the Rules (“the Director Decision”). In reaching the Director Decision, the Defendant failed to apply the Rules in a fair, objective and non-discriminatory fashion and/or used its powers under the Rules for the improper purpose of promoting its own commercial interests and/or the interests of its business associates and/or certain of the PL member-clubs in a manner that was detrimental to competition and consumers."

 

For the CAT case the club probably need to demonstrate something like that, on the balance of probabilities, there was some kind of anticompetitive influence and the PL acted on that to block the takeover.

If the club can show that the PL didn’t correctly follow their own O&D process, which they clearly haven’t, that probably puts the PL in a very weak position on the second part of that.