Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I don't buy the 'club wanted to make a point' stuff. The club thought that Beloff should have been removed and lost that argument.

 

I personally (and admittedly completely unqualified to do so) think the decision was flawed and probably challengeable (I see High Court decisions overturned by the Court of Appeal all the time in my line of work, so they're not infallible). Basically the Judge said that the arbitration is just about section A (which is just definitions) not section F (the O&D test) which Beloff forgot to disclose he had given advise on changes to. However, fundamentally section A is just definitions, those definitions only have meaning in relation to the rules themselves, which in this case is section F, so I can't see how the Judge could conclude that section A is a completely separate matter to section F. It just would have taken too long to appeal it.

 

 

 

If arbitration decides the definition of "a director", under section A of the rules, cannot encompass a sovereign state (i.e. the KSA) then the knock on effect on section F will be that the EPL carries out the O&D test solely on the declared directors, and as we all know from last year, there were no red flags in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The legislative basis for the arbitration is the Arbitration Act 1996, that allows appeal on a point of law. Irrespective of what it says in the PL's rules I don't think they could override the right to appeal in primary legislation. Seems to be a common theme in the PL's rules to go above and beyond UK law with no legislative basis to do so.

 

Although, if the arbitration fails I would think the fall-back will be the CAT case rather than an appeal, but I think that would be more likely to be for compensation rather than a route to the takeover because it will take too long.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, "final and non-appealable" was my shorthand for arbitration generally being binding. The EPL rules do lay out a list of circumstances in which appeal can be taken Rule X.5), including decisions contrary to English law, and it is expressly subject to the arbitration act. It's still pretty limited (e.g., determinations of fact are generally going to stand).

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Yeah, "final and non-appealable" was my shorthand for arbitration generally being binding. The EPL rules do lay out a list of circumstances in which appeal can be taken Rule X.5), including decisions contrary to English law, and it is expressly subject to the arbitration act. It's still pretty limited (e.g., determinations of fact are generally going to stand).

 

Not necessarily, I deal with decisions that can only be challenged on a point of law, there's pretty much always a point of law that can be found to challenge on and I've seen many challenges go one way at the High Court, then the other way at the Court of Appeal and even back again at the Supreme Court. Although, I can't see it coming to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Not necessarily, I deal with decisions that can only be challenged on a point of law, there's pretty much always a point of law that can be found to challenge on and I've seen many challenges go one way at the High Court, then the other way at the Court of Appeal and even back again at the Supreme Court. Although, I can't see it coming to that.

 

Okay. You all must have a much more expansive right of appeal of arbitration awards than we do, if they're effectively freely appealable and regularly overturned. Neither here nor there, but that undercuts one of the main purposes of arbitration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not watching that but if he's suggesting that she's using the media to push an agenda and/or improve her chances of taking a particular business opportunity - er, yeah. Obviously. I'm okay with that.

 

Doesn't mean the points she raises aren't valid either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the 17minute interview with Staveley. Judging by what she said and how she came across, she seems a good sort. Particularly paying attention to her saying things aren't always about getting your own way and compromise is a better way of working. 

 

I have faith they'll get somewhere this time. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon

We will have to get used to this. When the takeover goes through, expect to see so much shit spouted out by absolute tosspots. Fuck the lot of them the ill informed wankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wandy said:

What an absolute cunt Jordan is. If this goes through we are going to be hated and it will be fucking great.


We already are hated by southerners. Only not as loudly in the last 10+ years thanks to Ashley fucking the club up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rocker said:

That extended Staveley interview has given me a little kick up the arse, positivity wise. 

How come ? As in what was said ? Not having a go just at work so haven’t been able to see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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