Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

 

That's a big change in position from him.

 

Aye, he seems to be suddenly favouring the takeover going through if I'm reading it right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that he starts out taking about "separate" and "different" and doesn't give any reason why the definitions of "director" and "control" would or wouldn't wrap in the KSA is a pretty clear indication that his understanding is superficial at best. That's not to say he may not ultimately turn out to be right -- but that would be more down to happenstance than him actually knowing how the legal analysis by the arbitrators is likely to turn out. (To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest I do, either. )

 

 

Edited by B-more Mag

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

If you watch the entire thing he's not quite as positive with the rest of his thoughts.

 

So in other words he covers all bases as he's done from the very start. No change there then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

If you watch the entire thing he's not quite as positive with the rest of his thoughts.

What an infinitely better podcast. I mean, I wouldn't listen to it( regularly), but it isn't a gaggle of cunts flogging tacky merch and talking utter shite. 

 

 

Edited by Rocker

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rocker said:

Still listening to the podcast, and Jacobs thinks the arbitration hearing will 99% be a private one.

 

Yes, we have made (and are still making) a truly valiant attempt to make it public, but the EPL have so much to hide, there was always very little chance of that happening.

 

Their refusal to agree with everyone else though, will have confirmed, in many peoples eyes, what most of us always thought about the EPLs need for secrecy.

 

The CAT case will bring it all out, it will just come cascading out . . . and please can the usual susupects try not to ask me how I "know" that !!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shearergol said:

If you watch the entire thing he's not quite as positive with the rest of his thoughts.

 

I mean, I'm an hour in and he's still not overly negative at all. 

 

At the hour mark, he's asked how he think it will play out and he says 'we have a strong chance'. Twice actually, as the O&D test isn't robust enough.

 

 

Edited by Rocker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HTT II

Maybe a dumb question, but can the whole findings/ruling/case of of the CAT case not be FOIA requested?

 

 

Edited by HTT II

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Maybe a dumb question, but can the whole findings/ruling/case of of the CAT case not be FOIA requested?

 

 

 

It'll all be in public anyway, that one.

 

You'll be able to watch it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rocker

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

 

That's a big change in position from him.

I still don’t get why we have to prove anything. They have told you who is going to be owning and controlling the club, so do the test on the information in front of you! What gives them the right to say we think you’re lying to us and the owners are different to what has been shared, I just don’t get it

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, andyc35i said:

I still don’t get why we have to prove anything. They have told you who is going to be owning and controlling the club, so do the test on the information in front of you! What gives them the right to say we think you’re lying to us and the owners are different to what has been shared, I just don’t get it

 

Unfortunately the PL's rules give them that right, the definition of 'control' in the PL's rules is very broad and, unlike the legal definition of a shadow director, can include people who have the potential to control the club whether or not they will actually act on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, B-more Mag said:

The fact that he starts out taking about "separate" and "different" and doesn't give any reason why the definitions of "director" and "control" would or wouldn't wrap in the KSA is a pretty clear indication that his understanding is superficial at best. That's not to say he may not ultimately turn out to be right -- but that would be more down to happenstance than him actually knowing how the legal analysis by the arbitrators is likely to turn out. (To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest I do, either. )

 

 

 

He says he's talking about what he's been told from sources on both sides, so he doesn't need to understand the specifics as long as the sources do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Teasy said:

He says he's talking about what he's been told from sources on both sides, so he doesn't need to understand the specifics as long as the sources do.

 

Then I don't have any confidence his sources have an understanding that's anything more than superficial. 

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...