Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Quote from statement:

 

‘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.’

 

This is the most significant element of the statement.

 

PL aren’t trying to get it thrown out on jurisdiction any more which means they lost that argument, so have moved on to trying to ensure secrecy

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, James said:

Quote from statement:

 

‘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.’

 

This is the most significant element of the statement.

 

PL aren’t trying to get it thrown out on jurisdiction any more which means they lost that argument, so have moved on to trying to ensure secrecy

Aye I was happy with that being in there. Definitely a good sign. 
 

Not even going to try and form an opinion on the rest of it and whether it’s positive or negative. Can see both sides.  We need this takeover so badly, the club is on life support at the minute and not getting bought will turn it off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, James said:

Quote from statement:

 

‘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.’

 

This is the most significant element of the statement.

 

PL aren’t trying to get it thrown out on jurisdiction any more which means they lost that argument, so have moved on to trying to ensure secrecy

 

Never noticed that, good point 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, James said:

Quote from statement:

 

‘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.’

 

This is the most significant element of the statement.

 

PL aren’t trying to get it thrown out on jurisdiction any more which means they lost that argument, so have moved on to trying to ensure secrecy

Excellent point. 
 

Club trying to create leverage so they can settle this quietly from the looks of that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, James said:

Quote from statement:

 

‘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.’

 

This is the most significant element of the statement.

 

PL aren’t trying to get it thrown out on jurisdiction any more which means they lost that argument, so have moved on to trying to ensure secrecy

 

I thought that on first view but I think it can be interpreted either way.


Particularly with it saying "that too should be held in confidential arbitration", the CAT claim is not arbitration.

 

What I think it is most likely actually saying is that the PL are trying to prevent the CAT case, which would be public, from going ahead arguing that should be dealt with under the arbitration instead.

 

That suggests to me that the PL's jurisdiction challenge is still yet to be decided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I thought that on first view but I think it can be interpreted either way.


Particularly with it saying "that too should be held in confidential arbitration", the CAT claim is not arbitration.

 

What I think it is most likely actually saying is that the PL are trying to prevent the CAT case, which would be public, from going ahead arguing that should be dealt with under the arbitration instead.

 

That suggests to me that the PL's jurisdiction challenge is still yet to be decided.

 

That’s how I interpreted it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

So that suggests the jurisdiction claim has been thrown out? 


Im leaning about 70/30 in that direction yes, the 30 being what Jackie Broon just said

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was noticeable that De Marco tweeted about the statement last night. Remember, it was him a few months ago who said he always advises clients to come to an arrangement before arbitration goes ahead because it can be a lottery. I think the statement was a call to the PL to accept an arrangement that has been offered to them by the club.

 

The main reason I think the PL are resisting is that they have come too far down the line to be seen losing face by backing down before legal proceedings. More importantly though, if they lose then they can go back to their six overlords and say "we tried lads, but the law took it out of our hands".

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Only during this utterly painful saga could the club release a clarifying statement which only leads to more confusion, more interpretation and even less of an understanding of what is going on.

Yes, though I’m sure it will have been agreed with the legals, part of a strategy. I’m also sure the legals will have agreed to the wording before it was released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Yes, though I’m sure it will have been agreed with the legals, part of a strategy. I’m also sure the legals will have agreed to the wording before it was released.

 

This. I wonder how anyone could think that the statement was made by Ashley and Chanchanman in panic mode scrambling for words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I thought that on first view but I think it can be interpreted either way.


Particularly with it saying "that too should be held in confidential arbitration", the CAT claim is not arbitration.

 

What I think it is most likely actually saying is that the PL are trying to prevent the CAT case, which would be public, from going ahead arguing that should be dealt with under the arbitration instead.

 

That suggests to me that the PL's jurisdiction challenge is still yet to be decided.

This is what I couldn't make fit, but that does make alot of sense. 

 

One point of note though, is that it seems the PL are no longer arguing for it to be 'thrown out' because of both cases being materially the same, but now arguing it should be absorbed into the arb case (I suspect to avoid public scrutiny) which does suggest a different tact and a significant come down from their initial positioning which was that this case shouldn't even be heard in the first place. 

 

 

Edited by Thumbheed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II

As much as Ashley is a fucking whopping hypocrite for wanting transparency and communications to be public, it does piss me off that the media in general haven’t exactly pulled him up on neglecting to inform NUFC fans of what’s happening or not at NUFC over the last decade plus, I think that Spider-Man meme is apt for all of the cunts, they are all hypocrites. Fuck them all. 

 

 

Edited by HTT II

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

 

 

 

Tbh I’m a bit sick about everyone pointing out the irony of Newcastle asking for transparency like we’ve all forgotten what it’s been like and they are the first to point it out.

 

this is obviously a play from the lawyers not Ashley 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, HTT II said:

As much as Ashley is a fucking whopping hypocrite for wanting transparency and communications to be public, it does piss me off that the media in general haven’t exactly pulled him up on neglecting to inform NUFC fans of what’s happening or not at NUFC over the last decade plus, I think that Spider-Man meme is apt for all of the cunts, they are all hypocrites. Fuck them all. 

 

 

 

Exactly mate the media are all whingeing about the double standards of statement.

 

I couldn’t give a fuck if this is hypocrisy from club and I couldn’t give a fuck about journalist’s.

 

We all know Ashley has fucked us over for 14 years, it’s a bit late for transparency now.

 

What do they want us to do be up in arms ? No ones barely listened to us for 14 years.

 

It’s all well and good thinking it would be nice to see the roles reversed on Ashley, but he’ll quickly get over 340 million whilst swanning it down Miami Beach.

 

We won’t get over this takeover though, it’s all that fucking matters, the be all and end all for NUFC in the short, medium and long term.

 

Fuck the journalists self pity, I support Ashley entirely at this point and I’ll also be delighted as anyone when the cunt finally goes.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Whitley mag

Link to post
Share on other sites

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