Jump to content

Takeover Thread


Can the Saudi's get the deal 'over the line'? (Reset 27/02/21)  

711 members have voted

  1. 1. Can the Saudi's get the deal 'over the line'? (Reset 27/02/21)

    • Yes - and want it to.
    • No - but want it to.
    • Yes - and don't want them as NUFC Owners
    • No - and don't want the as NUFC Owners


Recommended Posts

Guest godzilla

Is this one for the Mauriss takeover?

In his simple mind he thinks so, let's say the takeover is knocked back; there will be an appeal and then a court case to follow before any bid can be even agreed. Not very bright is Mr Edwards, unless he actually thinks the Saudi bid will win (somehow I don't think he does)

What evidence is there to suggest that there'd be a court case ?

Would there even be grounds for taking it to court?

It's the PL's O&D test, it's not British law to the best of my knowledge. If the buyers fail it,and then are unsuccessful with their appeal, then it's basically tough s*** isn't it ?

 

Do you know how many civil cases are taken to court by businesses each year? If the consortium feel (rightly) that they have evidence to show that they have been disqualified due to something outside the remit of the O&D test then they most certainly can and will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This shit needs to end soon like. Totally drained with it all now. Im expecting the worst tbh. Nothing good ever happens to this club apart from the few good years we had with King Kev and Sir Bobby. I think that's going to be the only good memories I'll have of the club. I can't even call it my club anymore. Ashley has sucked the life out of it.

This is the only chance we have of seeing this club challenging the top teams. Anyone else that comes in will be doing it for profit only, and as Ashley has already stripped the club of all assets then how will they do it.

I'm finished with football completely when this takeover fails. I just can't watch another season of Bruceball (clueless twat)

Just put us out of our misery PL ffs. Let us move on and at least get back to some kind of reality instead of dreaming of what we could be. This is going to be one hell of a comedown

Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to give it a rest with the "there will be a legal battle if it fails" bollocks. There will be no legal repercussions. All parties will say nothing and try to pretend that the whole farce never happened, allowing it to fizzle out with barely a murmur of complant. Meanwhile we will be left to pick up the pieces once again.

 

I get why people keep peddling the legal action line. Its because they feel that someone, somewhere needs to pay a price for making us fans suffer like this. But its not going to happen. Unfortunately we are the ones who will be in bits about this and all of the other parties will just walk away with a shrug.

 

Absolutely no way it fizzles out with the current state of play between Qatar and Saudi. Whoever gets the outcome they favour will immediately spin it as a victory.

 

I was referring to the fact that it will fizzle out for us as fans who hoped for a takeover. Political tensions will rumble on between SA and Qatar but that will no longer have any relevance for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this one for the Mauriss takeover?

In his simple mind he thinks so, let's say the takeover is knocked back; there will be an appeal and then a court case to follow before any bid can be even agreed. Not very bright is Mr Edwards, unless he actually thinks the Saudi bid will win (somehow I don't think he does)

What evidence is there to suggest that there'd be a court case ?

Would there even be grounds for taking it to court?

It's the PL's O&D test, it's not British law to the best of my knowledge. If the buyers fail it,and then are unsuccessful with their appeal, then it's basically tough shit isn't it ?

 

I think they could possibly take it to the Court for Arbitration for Sport.

 

Pure speculation but I suspect what may be happening is that the decision has been put before the PL board with a recommendation to approve at least once but the board hasn't agreed, due to their concerns over the piracy issue for which there is most likely no legally sound basis for refusal based on. That could explain the times when it was confidently reported that a positive decision was about to be made.

 

If the board were to actually refuse the O&D test they could appeal. The appeal would be heard by an appeal panel which would be appointed by a legally qualified chairman, rather than the PL board who make the initial decision and, whilst I'm not sure of the make-up of the board, may not be in any way qualified to be making decisions on points of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still seen very little to suggest it won't go through. I can't wait until we're filthy rich.

 

Your continued optimism is what keeps me going tbh :lol:

 

No idea where you get it from.

 

 

 

Same place as me!

 

Truth is, great news will be coming soon, meanwhile . . .

 

C A L M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this one for the Mauriss takeover?

In his simple mind he thinks so, let's say the takeover is knocked back; there will be an appeal and then a court case to follow before any bid can be even agreed. Not very bright is Mr Edwards, unless he actually thinks the Saudi bid will win (somehow I don't think he does)

What evidence is there to suggest that there'd be a court case ?

Would there even be grounds for taking it to court?

It's the PL's O&D test, it's not British law to the best of my knowledge. If the buyers fail it,and then are unsuccessful with their appeal, then it's basically tough s*** isn't it ?

 

Do you know how many civil cases are taken to court by businesses each year? If the consortium feel (rightly) that they have evidence to show that they have been disqualified due to something outside the remit of the O&D test then they most certainly can and will.

 

Have you read the O&D test recently?

 

It seems pretty obvious that the PIF/PCP/RB bid can (and possibly should) fail the O&D test as written.

 

It seems equally obvious that the PL don't want to do that - because if they did, they would have done it four months ago.

 

The consortium is being given the opportunity to rectify the issues related to piracy. Whether the take that opportunity or not remains to be seen.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I think I have found a definitive answer to the answer about "What happens if the bid is rejected?" Well, the first phase...

 

The Premier League Handbook lists all the "rules" of the league. It's fascinating reading - and can be found here https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e4c2e3b55f49e2eb34df4d9/t/5ed50a94aba8826769043841/1591020239522/PL+Handbook+-+27+May+2020.pdf

 

Page 67 of that pdf (pages 125-126 of the handbook) lists the appeal process for someone who is disqualified from being a director (and elsewhere it confirms that "disqualification" means "failed on initial application", not just existing directors)

 

 

 

F. 1 3 .Any  Person  or  Club  who  receives  notice  under  Rule  F.6  has  a  right  to  appeal  the disqualification  notice(s)  in  accordance  with  the  following  Rules.  However,  for  the avoidance of doubt, unless and until any such appeal is upheld, the disqualification notice(s) will remain in full effect.

 

F. 14 .Any Person or Club wishing to appeal a disqualification notice must, within 21 days of the date of that notice, send or deliver to the Board a notice of appeal, setting out full details of the grounds of appeal of that Person or Club, together with a deposit of £1,000.

 

F. 1 5 .The only grounds upon which a Person or Club may appeal a disqualification notice are:

F. 1 5 . 1 .none of the Disqualifying Events set out in Rule F.1 apply;

F. 1 5 . 2 .in respect of a Conviction of a court of foreign jurisdiction under Rule F.1.5, or a finding of the conduct referred to in Rule F.1.6, or a suspension or ban by a sport ruling body under Rule F.1.11, or a suspension, disqualification or striking-off  by  a  professional  body  under  Rule  F.1.12,  or  a  finding  of  a breach  of  rule  by  a  ruling  body  of  football  pursuant  to  Rule  F.1.14.2,  there are  compelling  reasons  why  that  particular  Conviction,  suspension,  ban, finding, disqualification or striking-off, should not lead to disqualification;

F. 1 5 . 3 .it can be proven that the Disqualifying Event has, or will within 21 days of the notice of appeal, cease to exist;

F. 1 5 .4 .the Disqualifying Event is a Conviction imposed between 19th August 2004 and 5 June 2009 for an offence which would not have led to disqualification as  a  Director  under  the  Rules  of  the  League  as  they  applied  during  that period; or

F. 1 5 . 5 .the  Disqualifying  Event  is  a  Conviction  which  is  the  subject  of  an  appeal which has not yet been determined and in all the circumstances it would be unreasonable for the individual to be disqualified as a Director pending the determination of that appeal.

 

F.16.An appeal under the provisions of Rule F.13 shall lie to an appeal tribunal which shall hear  the  appeal  as  soon  as  reasonably  practicable.  The  appeal  tribunal  shall  be appointed  by  the  Chair  of  the  Judicial  Panel  and  shall  comprise  three  members  of the Judicial Panel including a legally qualified member who shall sit as chairman of the tribunal.

 

F. 17.The chairman of the appeal tribunal shall have regard to the procedures governing the  proceedings  of  Commissions  and  Appeal  Boards  set  out  in  Section  W  of  these Rules (Disciplinary) but, subject as aforesaid, shall have an overriding discretion as to the manner in which the appeal is conducted.

 

F. 18 .The  Person  or  Club  advancing  the  appeal  shall  have  the  burden  of  proving  the complaint. The standard of proof shall be the balance of probabilities.

 

F. 19.The appeal tribunal shall make its decision unanimously or by majority. No member of the appeal tribunal may abstain.

 

F. 2 0 .The appeal tribunal shall give written reasons for its decision.

 

F. 2 1 .The appeal tribunal shall have the following powers:

F. 2 1 . 1 .to allow the appeal in full;

F. 2 1 . 2 .to reject the appeal;

F. 2 1 . 3 .if  it  determines  that  a  Disqualifying  Event  exists,  to  determine  that  the individual  concerned  should  not  be  banned  for  that  period  during  which they  will  remain  subject  to  it  and  substitute  such  period  as  it  shall reasonably  determine,  having  regard  to  all  of  the  circumstances  of  the case;

F. 2 1 .4 .to declare that no Disqualifying Event ever existed or that any Disqualifying Event has ceased to exist;

F. 2 1 . 5 .to  order  the  deposit  to  be  forfeited  to  the  League  or  to  be  repaid  to  the appellant person or Club; and

F. 2 1 . 6 .to order the appellant Person or Club to pay or contribute to the costs of the  appeal  including  the  fees  and  expenses  of  members  of  the  appeal tribunal.

 

F. 2 2 .The  decision  of  the  appeal  tribunal  shall  be  final  and  binding  on  the  appellant Person and Club.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest godzilla

Is this one for the Mauriss takeover?

In his simple mind he thinks so, let's say the takeover is knocked back; there will be an appeal and then a court case to follow before any bid can be even agreed. Not very bright is Mr Edwards, unless he actually thinks the Saudi bid will win (somehow I don't think he does)

What evidence is there to suggest that there'd be a court case ?

Would there even be grounds for taking it to court?

It's the PL's O&D test, it's not British law to the best of my knowledge. If the buyers fail it,and then are unsuccessful with their appeal, then it's basically tough s*** isn't it ?

 

Do you know how many civil cases are taken to court by businesses each year? If the consortium feel (rightly) that they have evidence to show that they have been disqualified due to something outside the remit of the O&D test then they most certainly can and will.

 

Have you read the O&D test recently?

 

It seems pretty obvious that the PIF/PCP/RB bid can (and possibly should) fail the O&D test as written.

 

It seems equally obvious that the PL don't want to do that - because if they did, they would have done it four months ago.

 

The consortium is being given the opportunity to rectify the issues related to piracy. Whether the take that opportunity or not remains to be seen.

 

Yes I have thank you. Read my answer again explaining that the premier League can be taken to court by the consortium (once the appeal process has been undertaken) if they feel that they have been disqualified due to events outside of the D&O test, which is what I was stating that they can. They could do this even with events within the D&O test if they feel they have the evidence to support this and that the decision was made incorrectly. That's what the courts are there for (civil as not criminal offence), and as mentioned above was administered recently by the Court of Sport Arbitration between Man City and UEFA.

 

Let's entertain you though about the piracy, please show me one bit of evidence (including the WTO Report) where it states that either the state of KSA or PIF are directly responsible for the transmission of the piracy streams. They were concluded by the same report as being responsible for not doing enough to stop the streams, but that is a totally different to being directly responsible. The WTO Report also concluded that it was the states right to do this under TRIPS. KSA Minister of Sport has now taken steps to address this by the statements made a couple of weeks ago. Obvious has nothing to do with anything you need evidence to back that up.

 

The issue now which is being reported as the problem is due to KSA banning beIN from providing network coverage within Saudi Arabia. This is NOT part of the D&O test and as such is an event outside of the remit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to give it a rest with the "there will be a legal battle if it fails" bollocks. There will be no legal repercussions. All parties will say nothing and try to pretend that the whole farce never happened, allowing it to fizzle out with barely a murmur of complant. Meanwhile we will be left to pick up the pieces once again.

 

I get why people keep peddling the legal action line. Its because they feel that someone, somewhere needs to pay a price for making us fans suffer like this. But its not going to happen. Unfortunately we are the ones who will be in bits about this and all of the other parties will just walk away with a shrug.

This. And as Ben Jacobs put in one of his tweets "Sometimes I think NUFC fans just want to hear 'it's happening' regardless of truth/context" - we even had people claiming the Saudis banning Bein was positive news ffs.

 

When you realise that Staveley's track record isn't very good, and that she has been the only one confident of this happening, then sadly this falling though has looked the most likely outcome for a while now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chopey

The Saudis refused Bein sports the rights to the Joshua fight, so protracted negotiations took place and a company called Fightsportmax jumped in and showed the fight for $5 in loads of middle east and Scandinavian countries.

 

Masters is concerned that both Sky and BT will not pay big for the TV rights next time around and it took ages for Amazon to pick up the last package (apparently at a reduced rate) the premier league need maximum cash from the next TV deal the Saudis can and will provide that through a new or existing channel just like the boxing and like the boxing, Bahrain, Jordon, Lebanon, UAE, Egypt and others will follow suit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes I have thank you. Read my answer again explaining that the premier League can be taken to court by the consortium (once the appeal process has been undertaken) if they feel that they have been disqualified due to events outside of the D&O test, which is what I was stating that they can. They could do this even with events within the D&O test if they feel they have the evidence to support this and that the decision was made incorrectly. That's what the courts are there for (civil as not criminal offence), and as mentioned above was administered recently by the Court of Sport Arbitration between Man City and UEFA.

 

Let's entertain you though about the piracy, please show me one bit of evidence (including the WTO Report) where it states that either the state of KSA or PIF are directly responsible for the transmission of the piracy streams. They were concluded by the same report as being responsible for not doing enough to stop the streams, but that is a totally different to being directly responsible. The WTO Report also concluded that it was the states right to do this under TRIPS. KSA Minister of Sport has now taken steps to address this by the statements made a couple of weeks ago. Obvious has nothing to do with anything you need evidence to back that up.

 

The issue now which is being reported as the problem is due to KSA banning beIN from providing network coverage within Saudi Arabia. This is NOT part of the D&O test and as such is an event outside of the remit.

 

I don't believe you when you say you have read the test.

 

If you had, you would know the bolded part is immaterial.

 

Firstly, this fixation that PIF need to be directly tied to piracy is fallacious. The O&D Director test applies to not just PIF/PCP/RB directorial nominees, it applies to anyone whom the PL believes can exert influence (direct or indirect) over the club. Like so:

 

 

“Control” means  the  power  of  a  Person  to  exercise,  or  to  be  able  to  exercise  or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without  prejudice  to  the  generality  of  the  foregoing,  Control  shall  be  deemed  to include:

 

(a)the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or

 

(b)the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to  exercise  the  voting  rights  applicable  to,  Shares  in  the  Club  (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club.For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of  an  Associate  of  any  Person  or  of  a  Connected  Person  to  any  Person  shall  be attributed to that Person;

 

 

(from the PL handbook linked above)

 

I can appreciate that is very dense legalese, but there's no way the separation between PIF and the Saudi government can survive that definition. And it doesn't even need to be proven - just "reasonable opinion". Sure, they need to provide written explanations, and certainly they can try their luck in civil courts and international tribunals. But, reading back, it seems that's what you're hanging your hat on. I can only shake my head in disbelief that you have any faith in those institutions.

 

 

There's also the incredibly broad and nebulous disqualification clause that similarly requires only reasonable belief.

 

 

F.1.6 in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in  Rules  F.1.5.2  or  F.1.5.3,  if  such  conduct  had  taken  place  in  the  United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

F. 1 . 5 . 2 .in  respect  of  any  offence  involving  any  act  which  could reasonably  be  considered  to  be  dishonest  (and,  for  the avoidance  of  doubt,  irrespective  of  the  actual  sentence imposed); or

F. 1 . 5 . 3 .in  respect  of  an  offence  set  out  in  Appendix  1  (Schedule  of Offences)  or  a  directly  analogous  offence  in  a  foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

 

 

So I come back to my belief that while the PL could (and probably should) reject it according to its own rules. That they haven't indicates to me that they want to approve it, but there's a lot of massaging their aggravated half-billion pound commercial partner before that can happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to give it a rest with the "there will be a legal battle if it fails" bollocks. There will be no legal repercussions. All parties will say nothing and try to pretend that the whole farce never happened, allowing it to fizzle out with barely a murmur of complant. Meanwhile we will be left to pick up the pieces once again.

 

I get why people keep peddling the legal action line. Its because they feel that someone, somewhere needs to pay a price for making us fans suffer like this. But its not going to happen. Unfortunately we are the ones who will be in bits about this and all of the other parties will just walk away with a shrug.

 

Aye no bother The Saudis are just gonna let £17m go on the decision making of the PL without a fight. The Saudis also won’t want to lose face to Qatar without a fight. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Yorkie changed the title to Takeover Thread [ph]

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...