Jump to content

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


Will the takeover be complete by this summer?  

310 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      87
    • No
      181


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Joey Linton said:

Which I acknowledged pretty soon after had been clearly incorrect. I'll look forward to others doing similar in the fullness of time. 

What was the point in posting those Edwards tweets then? He doesn't say anything new or interesting, just the same Edwards shtick he's been running with for the past two years. 

When you know that he's the most hated journalist on the planet on here, why bother posting his shite unless there's some genuine news? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cos he’s a troll.

 

And loves to take the piss out of the prospective takeover.

 

Posted something about Staveley not getting any money out of her court case yesterday too just for the hell of it and to pour scorn on it all. 

 

 

Edited by LV

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, LFEE said:

 

 

Weird how that works. A rival bidder comes in and they secure the rights at a cheaper right.

 

Then I realise it’s UEFA and I immediately understand it’ll be due to the backhanders and Saudi hate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Weird how that works. A rival bidder comes in and they secure the rights at a cheaper right.

 

Then I realise it’s UEFA and I immediately understand it’ll be due to the backhanders and Saudi hate.

Tbf ksa don't have the setup to make this work. It's gone to the best bidder, not the highest 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dokko said:

Tbf ksa don't have the setup to make this work. It's gone to the best bidder, not the highest 

 

The bidder whose president sits on UEFA's exec committee and is chairman of the European Club Association. Nowt fishy about that at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@DokkoAbsolutely right, the planning in KSA is absolutely woeful and it would be terrible for the PL brand to accept their offer. Also the fact that PIF still owes billions to European construction consortiums would make it a pretty risky proposition; nothing to do with backhanders (imo) in this particular instance.

 

 

Edited by McCormick

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The bidder whose president sits on UEFA's exec committee and is chairman of the European Club Association. Nowt fishy about that at all.

 

Did the clubs that will financially lose out in this deal not get a say ? If I was them I would form a breakaway league.

 

 

Edited by Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RS said:

When was the last time there any real takeover news?  Ashley’s statement a few weeks back?

 

I doubt there will be anything new of substance until the decision on the CAT jurisdiction challenge drops, which will probably not be until sometime around the end of the month.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I doubt there will be anything new of substance until the decision on the CAT jurisdiction challenge drops, which will probably not be until sometime around the end of the month.


So there isn’t any timeframe set for the review of the jurisdiction challenge to be heard / resulted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading the CAT rules for guidance https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/The_Competition_Appeal_Tribunal_Rules_2015.pdf // https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-05/1402_StJames_Reasoned_Order__130521_1.pdf

 

I don't think there is a time frame set for the review to be heard. Ashley's case is under "section 47A of the Competition Act 1998" so the guidance I can apply is from rule 29 onwards, part 4. 

 

An acknowledgement of service was filed by the PL on the 4th May - which needed to be done within 1 week of receiving the claim -  and ordinarily they would have 28 days (until 1st June) to file a defence. Within 2 weeks, they could challenge jurisdiction by submitting an application to contest said jurisdiction, which they did on 11th May through rule 34. This means that the PL do not need to submit a defence until after the hearing of the jurisdiction claim which has drawn out proceedings by many weeks. Perhaps similarly that we did with trying to remove Beloff as chair of the PL arbitration. 

 

Rule 35 talks about how 4 weeks after receiving the copy of the claim form, which was 4th May ordinarily, the PL must file a defence but it's subject to rule 34. I assume because the hearing of the jurisdiction application must happen first, the league have 4 weeks after that application is heard to file a defence but I might be wrong there. It'd make sense because it's the length of time they would have anyway dedicated to filing a response. 

 

Within 3 weeks of receiving the defence whenever that is because the dates are uncertain, Ashley could file a response. He doesn't have to, but he could. I'm expecting people to play the long game and that has already brought us up to 7 weeks extra before we consider when the jurisdiction application might be heard. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

I'm reading the CAT rules for guidance https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/The_Competition_Appeal_Tribunal_Rules_2015.pdf // https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-05/1402_StJames_Reasoned_Order__130521_1.pdf

 

I don't think there is a time frame set for the review to be heard. Ashley's case is under "section 47A of the Competition Act 1998" so the guidance I can apply is from rule 29 onwards, part 4. 

 

An acknowledgement of service was filed by the PL on the 4th May - which needed to be done within 1 week of receiving the claim -  and ordinarily they would have 28 days (until 1st June) to file a defence. Within 2 weeks, they could challenge jurisdiction by submitting an application to contest said jurisdiction, which they did on 11th May through rule 34. This means that the PL do not need to submit a defence until after the hearing of the jurisdiction claim which has drawn out proceedings by many weeks. Perhaps similarly that we did with trying to remove Beloff as chair of the PL arbitration. 

 

Rule 35 talks about how 4 weeks after receiving the copy of the claim form, which was 4th May ordinarily, the PL must file a defence but it's subject to rule 34. I assume because the hearing of the jurisdiction application must happen first, the league have 4 weeks after that application is heard to file a defence but I might be wrong there. It'd make sense because it's the length of time they would have anyway dedicated to filing a response. 

 

Within 3 weeks of receiving the defence whenever that is because the dates are uncertain, Ashley could file a response. He doesn't have to, but he could. I'm expecting people to play the long game and that has already brought us up to 7 weeks extra before we consider when the jurisdiction application might be heard. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand much of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wandy said:

 

Jacobs seems to be enjoying this a bit too much. I'm starting to have reservations about his "impartiality".

 

1. That post has nothing to do with our takeover.

2. I’m not sure where you think he’s enjoying in his post. His post is practically the same as the other tweet above. Is Martyn Ziegler the enemy now too?

 

Posts like this are as bad as (and very similar to) ‘Magedia’ on RTG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Yorkie changed the title to Takeover Thread - July 1st statement, Staveley letter to Tracey Crouch (and response) in OP
  • Yorkie locked this topic
  • Yorkie unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...