Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, gdm said:

Not really interesting at all. I personally suspect arbitration will put an end to it so 6-8 weeks sounds about right. 
 

I believe Keith had an in. Via that QC but I suspect that is long gone unless he’s stupidly still paying him. 
 

His claim to be itk over the new spurs manager and spectacularly getting it wrong within 48 hrs put the seal on it for me. The guy is a gobshite basking in his 15 mins of twitter fame.

 

 

 

It is sort of interesting though that you regularly slate a guy but then link his tweet quoting exactly what he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Whitley mag

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

It is sort of interesting though that you regularly slate a guy but then link his tweet quoting exactly what he said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Why are you trying to start yet another argument? Very strange that you constantly feel the need to defend Keith. Is he yer Da?

 

 

Edited by gdm

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, reefatoon said:

Wait there fellas, let me just grab me popcorn.

He won’t get an argument from me? I’m fully aware people are sick of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yelevats said:

A serious chemical imbalance inside MOTT's brain.

It is not like they will confirm it is true if it is true. 

 

not a fan of MOTT i blocked him on twitter

 

 

Edited by Strawberry

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gdm said:

 Why are you trying to start yet another argument? Very strange that you constantly feel the need to defend Keith. Is he yer Da?

 

 

 

Not defending him, just pointing out that you seemed happy to post his tweet a few days ago to validate your opinion that it would be 6 to 8 weeks.

 

If you’ve changed your opinion on him based on the Martinez prediction then so be it.

 

But I do seem to recall you also slating him after Jacobs claimed he got the Spurs PIF investment info from a message board also.

 

I’m way past defending Keith on here believe me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Not defending him, just pointing out that you seemed happy to post his tweet a few days ago to validate your opinion that it would be 6 to 8 weeks.

 

If you’ve changed your opinion on him based on the Martinez prediction then so be it.

 

But I do seem to recall you also slating him after Jacobs claimed he got the Spurs PIF investment info from a message board also.

 

I’m way past defending Keith on here believe me.

 

I put stuff on Twitter I see and a lot of it is either stuff I think other people will be interested in or stuff that will start discussion. On this particular occasion his 6-8 weeks ties in with what I believe and I might be wrong but I’m sure I saw 6-8 weeks in the press too. It really is as simple as that. Won’t be replying on this again. The Keith guy is a complete twat. He lets his mouth run via his keyboard. Fuck that guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gdm said:

I put stuff on Twitter I see and a lot of it is either stuff I think other people will be interested in or stuff that will start discussion. On this particular occasion his 6-8 weeks ties in with what I believe and I might be wrong but I’m sure I saw 6-8 weeks in the press too. It really is as simple as that. Won’t be replying on this again. The Keith guy is a complete twat. He lets his mouth run via his keyboard. Fuck that guy

Oh well that’s that night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/club-statement-010721/

 

The Club continues to receive requests for updates on its current arbitration claim against the Premier League (‘EPL’) considering the lawfulness of the EPL’s decisions regarding the proposed takeover of the Club involving the PIF.

Unfortunately, the Club is unable to make any comment about the arbitration. The EPL Rules provide the entire arbitration process is confidential.

However, both parties can agree for it to be in public. The Club believes it should be.

The issues at stake, including the lawfulness of the EPL’s decision making process and the widely publicised alleged influence of the EPL’s commercial partners on the EPL’s decisions, are of far wider interest to other football clubs, fans and the public in general.

The recent attempted breakaway by some EPL clubs - and the reaction of the government and public to it - has again highlighted the need for transparency and fairness in football governance. Gone are the days when important decisions that affect clubs and their fans should be made secretly, behind closed doors and away from the public eye.

The Club has nothing to hide with respect to the arbitration and invites the EPL to agree that it should no longer be held behind closed doors. If the EPL has acted lawfully and properly, it should have no reason to be afraid of the public spotlight.

To date the EPL has strongly resisted any public scrutiny of its decision-making process. It tried, and failed, to prevent the High Court’s judgment about elements of the arbitration being published last February. It is currently attempting to prevent the competition courts considering a claim by the Club’s sellers from taking place in public, arguing that too should be held in confidential arbitration.

So the Club has invited the EPL to agree - as the claim raises such important issues of sports governance, transparency and openness - that it should be held in public. The Club is prepared for every stage of the process to be in public: the public should be able to see the parties’ evidence and arguments as well as the full decision of the Tribunal when it is made.

The government quite rightly threatened to intervene in reaction to the proposed breakaway from the EPL earlier this year, and the reaction of football fans and the wider public was instrumental in stopping the emergence of the European Super League (ESL).

If the EPL continues to insist that the Club’s claim must be determined behind closed doors, the Club asks that MPs, the government, the media and the general public call on the EPL to finally accept public scrutiny of its decision-making process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/club-statement-010721/

 

The Club continues to receive requests for updates on its current arbitration claim against the Premier League (‘EPL’) considering the lawfulness of the EPL’s decisions regarding the proposed takeover of the Club involving the PIF.

Unfortunately, the Club is unable to make any comment about the arbitration. The EPL Rules provide the entire arbitration process is confidential.

However, both parties can agree for it to be in public. The Club believes it should be.

The issues at stake, including the lawfulness of the EPL’s decision making process and the widely publicised alleged influence of the EPL’s commercial partners on the EPL’s decisions, are of far wider interest to other football clubs, fans and the public in general.

The recent attempted breakaway by some EPL clubs - and the reaction of the government and public to it - has again highlighted the need for transparency and fairness in football governance. Gone are the days when important decisions that affect clubs and their fans should be made secretly, behind closed doors and away from the public eye.

The Club has nothing to hide with respect to the arbitration and invites the EPL to agree that it should no longer be held behind closed doors. If the EPL has acted lawfully and properly, it should have no reason to be afraid of the public spotlight.

To date the EPL has strongly resisted any public scrutiny of its decision-making process. It tried, and failed, to prevent the High Court’s judgment about elements of the arbitration being published last February. It is currently attempting to prevent the competition courts considering a claim by the Club’s sellers from taking place in public, arguing that too should be held in confidential arbitration.

So the Club has invited the EPL to agree - as the claim raises such important issues of sports governance, transparency and openness - that it should be held in public. The Club is prepared for every stage of the process to be in public: the public should be able to see the parties’ evidence and arguments as well as the full decision of the Tribunal when it is made.

The government quite rightly threatened to intervene in reaction to the proposed breakaway from the EPL earlier this year, and the reaction of football fans and the wider public was instrumental in stopping the emergence of the European Super League (ESL).

If the EPL continues to insist that the Club’s claim must be determined behind closed doors, the Club asks that MPs, the government, the media and the general public call on the EPL to finally accept public scrutiny of its decision-making process.

Strange statement to make. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Fantail Breeze said:

Sounds like desperation times that like.

 

Glad to hear fighting talk, but drains any confidence I had left tbh.

 

I think it means the opposite. Basically puts pressure on the PL to make it public. If they don't, it indicates they may well be hiding something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PlymouthGeordie said:

 

I think it means the opposite. Basically puts pressure on the PL to make it public. If they don't, it indicates they may well be hiding something.

 

So what if they are? Unless the club can get a victory through arbitration or CAT, it’s not going to matter what they’re hiding from the public eye.

 

This shows the PL are holding the cards and we’re desperately trying to change that by throwing everything we can at them.

 

It clearly asks for fan (and other) pressure and hopefully something can be organsied to put that pressure on. Wonder if the Trust could come out of hiding?

 

 

Edited by Fantail Breeze

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PlymouthGeordie said:

 

I think it means the opposite. Basically puts pressure on the PL to make it public. If they don't, it indicates they may well be hiding something.

There's no pressure. If they say no then that's the end of the discussion. The rules dictate its carried out in private.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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