Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

PL decided that ksa would be a director, PL did then not proceed to question of OADT cos PIF was not prepared to proceed with the transaction unless PL decided that KSA would not be a director. 

 

What's arbitration actually for then? To decide whether KSA is a director or not? If so there's no chance we win that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shearergol said:

 

What's arbitration actually for then? To decide whether KSA is a director or not? If so there's no chance we win that.

Yeah I assume your right there, Or to arbitrate that the KSA doesn't need to be down as a Director from the PL's point of view. So not to argue if they are or not, to argue that obviously they are but they don't need to be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much, it's using the words "control" and "director" in section A of the PL rules to apply those terms to KSA to see if it meets the criteria.

 

PIF would refuse to proceed as it stands if KSA needed to be a director, it opens up piracy talk and it gets complicated at that stage. But it is the KSA's sovereign wealth fund so it'll take some proper manoeuvring to get around the definitions

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Lost now, like. Dunno what he's going on about. 

 

Basically NUFC have agreed to and are therefore bound by the PL and FA rules which state arbitration is the sole method of settling disputes like this. 


He’s just reading the rules and past examples.

 

Will be surprised if this doesn’t get paused for arbitration imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...