if they can’t be a director they can’t be named as one to suit an argument. It’s the chairman of PIF who would submit to the test. surely NDM just had to point to Man City as an example? I know they changed the ‘rules’ but precedent is set.
The judge talking about level of control required to be named as director. The only issue for arbitration is the degree of legal separation.
Directors and control are two separate things. You can be a director and have no control. So in my opinion this is a why the PL are ****ed under uk company law. KSA cannot be a director. That’s just a fact. MBS could but he’s not been named as one. Fact. Control is clearly PIF as they would 80% of the shares. Thus the directors of PCP is irrelevant. Then you look at who has control over PIF. This has been proven already in SA that no one individual has control. So surely this is easily proven. The fact that MBS is chair and ruler is also irrelevant. It’s an easy win for me.
The argument is the level of control KSA would have in the decision making of the club. A quasi director role. It sounds as though the PL wanted KSA to be named as director so they could fail the test. Thry just didn't want to be seen to be doing that. Make no mistake, this judgement establishes that the only issue is legal separation. NUFC establishes that the takeover happens.
If jacobs is right then even relegation won’t put off the Saudis. The EFL may wave the deal through then. I can see Mike still selling for less too as he’ll want to stick two fingers up at the PL. he can be vindictive.
I read that Ashley released a statement which was basically saying the fans and region deserve the takeover. That they have an opportunity that he feels they deserve and that it’s like them winning the lottery but for the prize to be withheld. Ashley wants out. Is clear as day.
Exactly. Why would the PL want to stop it? Because of their link to the chairman. That chairman will now be under immense scrutiny. De Marco has played a blinder. Expose bias.
