Both. Separation is recognised globally including our own Government. Only the PL seems to have adopted a contrary position. Why is this? CAT - The argument is that the ODT is anti competitive. Why? Because the PL as a company subject to undertakings from rival member clubs adopts a subjective approach as a supposed objective regulator. The effect being that rival clubs and commercial partners are allegedly influencing the regulatory test of ownership to dictate who can and cannot own a club and become part of the closed 'market.'
I was on the ball then, but unfortunately I didn't anticipate it not going through. In the early days I was arguing with people claiming it wasn't even real or it was a fakeover and I knew it was real. Unfortunately over the past year since the huge delay I've flip flipped from thinking it'll go through or not. I'm now convinced it's all going through before a court case of any kind.
I've never flip-flopped. Been a gullible believer from the beginning. Munse's code cracking of NDM's photos sent me headfirst over the cliff of factless optimism. IT'S ****ING HAPPENING.!
If St James Holdings wins the CAT, as positive as that might be for our proposed takeover, wouldn't that then set a precedent that would open the door for some very dodgy characters with money to be allowed into football and leave the FA/EFL with no legal framework to protect smaller clubs from exploitation and asset stripping, and ultimately hurt the sport itself in the long run?
It opens the door for an independent regulator. CAT can rule that the PL overseeing the test is anti-competitive and so should fall to an independent body. Said it all along- a legal body should carry out the test. Objective approach that protects clubs and promotes their welfare.
My apologies if this is "full ******" kind of question, but does the PL not hire outside legal teams to run the test then the board sit and review the findings and the recommendation before passing or failing a ODT?
S tandard tactic when you don’t want stuff in the public domain. Probably to hide the losses sustained. And also to hide the potential fact that he took money out to clear down his loan.
Football fans are on a drowning ship and I don't give a **** who else gets a lifeboat as long as I'm OK
They do in theory, but they are influenced by commercial partners. The PL's own legal team are responsible for assessing Rule A. The test under Rule F goes to guess who. Bird and Bird. The BEin letter is damning. I have heard a rumour (cannot confirm it) that BEin, the PL and the slimey six had a meeting where they discussed the takeover. If that is true is suggests influence. The whole dispute relates to Rule A and KSA being a person with significant control over PIF. That definition is applied by the PL's legal team.
I'm out of touch with what's happening mate, been working away for the last 3 weeks and spilled lime plaster over my phone which completely ****ed it up so been living like a trappist monk. I've got a new phone now so can keep up with the failed takeover..
