Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, POOT 2.0 said:

It was apparent, to me, that this is a case that's purely about compensation. I don't think there is a "we" in this, and it's a "him" kind of thing (Ashley). In order to win his case his legal team will be extensively talking about the ins and outs of the takeover saga, but it's not for the club's benefit, as in "we". It's all about Mike. 

 

I think any PL inside revelations, that come from the hearing, would be as a consequence of the loss of earnings case, and not as a purpose of it. It's about money and Mike. 

 

May be wrong :dontknow:

 

It's in the interest of our case right now to make it seem like PIF have walked away. The PL seem very sure that they haven't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

This is okay though, isn't it? The likelihood was always going to be that CAT came after arbitration (in the event that the result of the arbitration didn't go in Ashley's favour). 

 

Yeah, I don't think it really changes anything. Some had hoped the CAT case would come first due to the public nature, but that wasn't really ever likely to be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Still seems absolutely shite that the PL seem to be doing everything to stop this rather than saying what needs to be done or how they can help make the takeover run through smoothly.

 

Just becoming more and more apparent that they have been sponsored lapdogs of the big six all along. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, xLiaaamx said:

All this shite about "Can't punish fans etc" we heard earlier this year - it comes out they actually threatened to expel us for our owner trying to sell the club.

Unreal isn’t it?

 

Hope Hoffman keels owa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the important work is now done, this goes through and the PL shake hands under the table, there's no way the whole process goes public. The result of this has to be the linchpin that makes the decision, if CAT decide against jurisdiction then the PL will never back down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Cp_i8GHWAAAQXOq.jpg
 

Kieth ready to tw@tter up for a night full of following twits


Boring isn’t it, repeating the same old Tweets every night. Not for me, I enjoy it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

Probably asking a really basic year old question here… but what’s the issue with the KSA being director anyway? Why would they not pass the test? Or maybe I have completely misunderstood stuff [emoji38]

 

No state would agree to that, certainly not one like the KSA, it would essentially bind them to abide by English law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Would fail it due to piracy issues.

 

To which the WTO report and a French Court did not directly link to KSA, only 'individuals' located in the Saudi area. If WTO and a court don't have the evidence, then I fail to see how the Premier League would. I think it's more the case KSA just do not want to be a director.

 

 

Edited by et tu brute

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...