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

[ToonArmy1892]

So more waiting, sound.

[Jackie Broon]

19 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

That's basically right. The submission is to the CAT itself, and it could do the two things you mentioned, or possibly a sort of in-between option of saying "there may be something here for us, but we've got to wait until after the arbitration decides certain things before it gets to our part, so this is on hold until then". 

 

Thinking about it seems a strange move from the PL to delay the jurisdiction challenge. By getting an extension of the deadline they've probably ensured that the arbitration decision will come before the CAT case really starts, which seems like it would weaken their argument on jurisdiction.

[Yorkie]

28 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

That's basically right. The submission is to the CAT itself, and it could do the two things you mentioned, or possibly a sort of in-between option of saying "there may be something here for us, but we've got to wait until after the arbitration decides certain things before it gets to our part, so this is on hold until then". 

 

  again.

 

So - in the event of that - could we surmise that, tactically, us going to CAT is just an insurance move, in the event that we don't get what we want from arbitration?

 

Or does the looming prospect of CAT (and things being made public) actually work in our favour during the course of arbitration, regardless of whether or not it eventually goes in front of a judge? A pressure tactic, basically; scare the PL into settling during arbitration?

[Slim]

16 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

  again.

 

So - in the event of that - could we surmise that, tactically, us going to CAT is just an insurance move, in the event that we don't get what we want from arbitration?

 

Or does the looming prospect of CAT (and things being made public) actually work in our favour during the course of arbitration, regardless of whether or not it eventually goes in front of a judge? A pressure tactic, basically; scare the PL into settling during arbitration?

 

Depends of the evidence really.  If they have nothing to hide then they probably wont care.  But I think we all suspect there must be something dodgy. 

[Ben]

Could these tactics be so that the Saudis can't buy us at this time but they could purchase some other club at a later date ? 

[ToonArmy1892]

So was that the response? Or are we still waiting for something in the next hour?

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by ToonArmy1892

[bowlingcrofty]

There won't be anything to see I'd suggest - most likely all behind closed doors, might hear something in the next few days when the judges have pored over it but there'll be nowt until then I reckon.

[ToonArmy1892]

Oh right, thought it was going to be something public.

[B-more Mag]

54 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

  again.

 

So - in the event of that - could we surmise that, tactically, us going to CAT is just an insurance move, in the event that we don't get what we want from arbitration?

 

Or does the looming prospect of CAT (and things being made public) actually work in our favour during the course of arbitration, regardless of whether or not it eventually goes in front of a judge? A pressure tactic, basically; scare the PL into settling during arbitration?

 

My guess is that it's a bit of both. One prong of the relief Ashley's holding company is asking for in the CAT case is an order that the PL must reverse its decision about KSA being a director. That's pretty much what the club is after in the arbitration, through a different channel and probably somewhat different legal theories. But it's also additional pressure on the PL--and pressure is always what you're looking for in any kind of litigation, etc., as it's what brings things to a head.  

[Jackie Broon]

16 minutes ago, bowlingcrofty said:

There won't be anything to see I'd suggest - most likely all behind closed doors, might hear something in the next few days when the judges have pored over it but there'll be nowt until then I reckon.

 

The next thing will probably be the dates for the case management conference and/or jurisdiction hearing, which will be publicly streamed on the CAT website.

[BennyBlanco]

I’m sure I read somewhere that the premier league wanted access to a key piece of evidence that NUFC submitted as part of the CAT case but were denied by the judge. I believe it was in the same request for an extension. Funny how they’ve wanted some transparency.

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, BennyBlanco said:

I’m sure I read somewhere that the premier league wanted access to a key piece of evidence that NUFC submitted as part of the CAT case but were denied by the judge. I believe it was in the same request for an extension. Funny how they’ve wanted some transparency.

 

It was the amount in damages Ashley is claiming. Judge denied them as it involved commercially sensitive information.

[Jackie Broon]

18 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

It was the amount in damages Ashley is claiming. Judge denied them as it involved commercially sensitive information.

 

I think it's how they calculated the amount Ashley is claiming, rather that the amount of damages, which I think they will know.

 

Also, I think they were only denied access to it at this stage because it's not relevant to the preparation of their jurisdiction case. If their jurisdiction challenge is unsuccessful and the case goes ahead I think they will probably get access to it when the confidentiality ring is established.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[BennyBlanco]

1 hour ago, Wandy said:

 

It was the amount in damages Ashley is claiming. Judge denied them as it involved commercially sensitive information.

Fair play, cheers for clearing that up.

 

At this point I’m clinging to anything that seems ever so slightly positive. 
 

Firmly of the opinion that the league will come out on top though, we’re Newcastle, we aren’t allowed to have something nice!?

[Dr Jinx]

Yep it’s best to stick to what we know.

 

The PL requested the document of how Newcastle came to the figure of compensation that they are seeking. The judge denied this.

 

They had until today to submit their evidence of why the case should be thrown out for jurisdiction reasons. They did this today. The judge will look over what will likely be a mountain of paperwork and make a decision in a couple of weeks most likely.

 

There’s nothing new or that could be perceived as a negative, or a positive for that matter. We knew there would be a wait.

 

If we lose this jurisdiction thing I would not be confident of any other route being successful. It’s a hugely important.

[nbthree3]

I think this is very interesting https://www.gdlaw.co.uk/site/blog/our-services/competition-and-regulatory/mike-ashley-competition-appeal-tribunal-sell-newcastle-united

 

Already the Premier League is challenging the jurisdiction of the CAT; this challenge will be based on the fact that there is a binding arbitration clause covering disputes between clubs and the Premier League and that a similar claim is already before an arbitral tribunal. Based on past authorities the Premier League may be able to obtain a stay of the action before CAT pending the outcome of the arbitration.

 

I think they're on about "to submit all disputes which arise between them... to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this Section of these Rules;" this line from the PL handbook. It's section X.2.1

 

[ToonArmy1892]

[Dr Jinx]

29 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

I think this is very interesting https://www.gdlaw.co.uk/site/blog/our-services/competition-and-regulatory/mike-ashley-competition-appeal-tribunal-sell-newcastle-united

 

Already the Premier League is challenging the jurisdiction of the CAT; this challenge will be based on the fact that there is a binding arbitration clause covering disputes between clubs and the Premier League and that a similar claim is already before an arbitral tribunal. Based on past authorities the Premier League may be able to obtain a stay of the action before CAT pending the outcome of the arbitration.

 

I think they're on about "to submit all disputes which arise between them... to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this Section of these Rules;" this line from the PL handbook. It's section X.2.1

 

The point that you’re ignoring is that Mike Ashley is taking action through CAT because The PL’s rules and regulations are a rigged game as far as our objective is.

 

There is nothing in the arbitration case which covers a financial damages claim. This is what he’s looking for equally to the objectives of clearing the way for a takeover.

 

The document which the judge has refused the PL access to is the commercial information which sets out the financial damages claim. So I guess the most important question is, how can the PL convince a judge that his court doesn’t have jurisdiction over a financial damages claim if they don’t have access to the document which sets out that claim?

[et tu brute]

That moment when during that Master’s interview he made it plainly obvious how gutted he was that we actually stayed up. No doubt it was due to the fact that the issue of the takeover was not going away, but the fact that this person is in charge of representing the interests of ALL member clubs and is blatantly not in the case of NUFC. Edit: In actual fact he is will fully attempting to ensure that the best interests of one of his member clubs he represents are deliberately curtailed. Of course the takeover is the important end game, but I would love also if evidence submitted by Ashley’s legal team can bring down and implicate this prick.

 

I can totally understand that financial issues should be stopped. This is certainly not an issue with the takeover, but the fact that another member club (Burnley) is allowed to be taken over by owners with a massively questionable financial operation, together with the fact that another member club is allowed to hide details of who are part of the direct owners (Crystal Palace) is a total pisstake. 
 

The real reason this is being blatantly fought against has been put across by the media against has been reported as piracy issues. The thing about this is that if the Premier League are stopping the takeover due to this reason, then why is very little being done to stop the mass amount of IPTV receivers in use across the UK. The real reason is two fold imho:

 

1. The so called ‘big 6’ not prepared to allow another big player to compete with the strong possibility of overtaking and threatening their financial position through champions league qualification and the hold on honours.

 

2. Although it’s reported relations have eased, Qatar will be concerned of a far richer country coming to the table, which will very likely threaten there control of media revenue in future years.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by et tu brute

[veriaqa]

4 hours ago, et tu brute said:

That moment when during that Master’s interview he made it plainly obvious how gutted he was that we actually stayed up. No doubt it was due to the fact that the issue of the takeover was not going away, but the fact that this person is in charge of representing the interests of ALL member clubs and is blatantly not in the case of NUFC. Edit: In actual fact he is will fully attempting to ensure that the best interests of one of his member clubs he represents are deliberately curtailed. Of course the takeover is the important end game, but I would love also if evidence submitted by Ashley’s legal team can bring down and implicate this prick.

 

I can totally understand that financial issues should be stopped. This is certainly not an issue with the takeover, but the fact that another member club (Burnley) is allowed to be taken over by owners with a massively questionable financial operation, together with the fact that another member club is allowed to hide details of who are part of the direct owners (Crystal Palace) is a total pisstake. 
 

The real reason this is being blatantly fought against has been put across by the media against has been reported as piracy issues. The thing about this is that if the Premier League are stopping the takeover due to this reason, then why is very little being done to stop the mass amount of IPTV receivers in use across the UK. The real reason is two fold imho:

 

1. The so called ‘big 6’ not prepared to allow another big player to compete with the strong possibility of overtaking and threatening their financial position through champions league qualification and the hold on honours.

 

2. Although it’s reported relations have eased, Qatar will be concerned of a far richer country coming to the table, which will very likely threaten there control of media revenue in future years.

 

 

 

 

From what I gather, it's not "the big 6" per se, but it's Anglo-American owner who has problem with non Anglo-American (read Arab) owner take their slice of PL money pie. The Man City owner supposedly not opposed the Saudi takeover of Newcastle. But it's Liverpool and Tottenham owners who strongly opposes the Saudi takeover of Newcastle. Supposedly The Glazers and the Kroenke also oppose the takeover.

 

But this is only my opinion.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by veriaqa

[LFEE]

I agree ref the American owners. I still think the long game is for them to allow as many American owners in and around the EPL so one day they can all vote collectively to rewrite the rules on relegation and formation of the top division.

[veriaqa]

That's what I hear too basically. And a new financially very strong non American owner could wreck their plan. So they oppose it.

 

It's not about piracy (well maybe it is for Qatar) or about human rights, or anything else. It's all about control and money.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by veriaqa

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, veriaqa said:

 

From what I gather, it's not "the big 6" per se, but it's Anglo-American owner who has problem with non Anglo-American (read Arab) owner take their slice of PL money pie. The Man City owner supposedly not opposed the Saudi takeover of Newcastle. But it's Liverpool and Tottenham owners who strongly opposes the Saudi takeover of Newcastle. Supposedly The Glazers and the Kroenke also oppose the takeover.

 

But this is only my opinion.

 

 

 

When Man City we’re under investigation for FFP and we’re subsequently cleared, Fenway we’re up in arms saying it threatened their whole financial model. I agree don’t think City would have objected overly, as Abhu Dhabi have close links with Saudi Arabia.

 

I’m inclined to think at the moment this CAT case is the key to unlocking all this. If the PL are already trying to get the case heard privately, I think that tells us everything. If their challenge fails I have a feeling they fold due to potential risks of losing case.
 

I also think these Clubs and Bein will have been naive / arrogant enough to not even consider anti competition. As long as this case doesn’t get thrown out on some technicality, I’m convinced it gets us our takeover.
 

This case is unprecedented, I think realisation will quickly set in at the PL of the enormity of the consequences if it gets green light from judge.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Scoot]

57 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

When Man City we’re under investigation for FFP and we’re subsequently cleared, Fenway we’re up in arms saying it threatened their whole financial model. I agree don’t think City would have objected overly, as Abhu Dhabi have close links with Saudi Arabia.

 

I’m inclined to think at the moment this CAT case is the key to unlocking all this. If the PL are already trying to get the case heard privately, I think that tells us everything. If their challenge fails I have a feeling they fold due to potential risks of losing case.
 

I also think these Clubs and Bein will have been naive / arrogant enough to not even consider anti competition. As long as this case doesn’t get thrown out on some technicality, I’m convinced it gets us our takeover.
 

This case is unprecedented, I think realisation will quickly set in at the PL of the enormity of the consequences if it gets green light from judge.

 

 

 

I wonder when we'll find out if the case will be heard or not?

[relámpago blanco]

Cans