Takeover (Covid-19/20)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Darren Peacock's Ponytail said:
Scrap that. This is separate claim for damages
Click to expand...
he Claimant seeks:
(1) Damages for loss of profit or, alternatively, loss of opportunity.
(2) An injunction requiring the Defendant to withdraw the Director Decision and/or to reconsider the
same.
(3) Interest.
(4) Costs.
(5) Such further or other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheikh_of_Araby
Geordieginola said:
he Claimant seeks:
(1) Damages for loss of profit or, alternatively, loss of opportunity.
(2) An injunction requiring the Defendant to withdraw the Director Decision and/or to reconsider the
same.
(3) Interest.
(4) Costs.
(5) Such further or other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.
Click to expand...
I saw that but I don't fully understand
 
Geordieginola said:
he Claimant seeks:
(1) Damages for loss of profit or, alternatively, loss of opportunity.
(2) An injunction requiring the Defendant to withdraw the Director Decision and/or to reconsider the
same.
(3) Interest.
(4) Costs.
(5) Such further or other relief as the Tribunal considers appropriate.
Click to expand...
I said 6 months ago this was a claim for compensation. It really REALLY looks that way.

But point 2 is interesting. So basically compo OR a review.

Is this a separate claim? Wtf is going on?
 
Darren Peacock's Ponytail said:
I think this is a catch all scenarios

Review and takeover
Or
Pay me hundreds of millions
Click to expand...
The timing is of huge concern for me. I always felt it was a loss of profit claim by MA.

BUT.... it could as you say be a full cover all possibilities approach and it could in fact be a perfect option.

The fact is the PL have denied a sale of his asset and has cost him money/lost profit. That’s an actual fact.

My brain is fried with this. It needs fixed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flash
Talk about an accusation, ****ing hell.

In reaching the Director Decision, the Defendant failed to apply the Rules in a fair, objective and non-discriminatory fashion and/or used its powers under the Rules for the improper purpose of promoting its own commercial interests and/or the interests of its business associates and/or certain of the PL member-clubs in a manner that was detrimental to competition and consumers.
 
It’s not bad.

I don’t lay claim to great experience in this area but in general terms in any type of court action it’s customary to leave all options open and available when submitting a claim.

That’s what this appears to do and imo doesn’t change anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flash
The #Cans Master said:
It’s not bad.

I don’t lay claim to great experience in this area but in general terms in any type of court action it’s customary to leave all options open and available when submitting a claim.

That’s what this appears to do and imo doesn’t change anything.
Click to expand...
I feel like it’s an “**** the PL won’t pass the O & D test” so “Im going for the next best option”!

I suppose he has got to cover all angles.

But I’ve always said it was a compo claim. The rest is potentially smoke and mirrors.

Im sick of it. The timing of this is bizarre? Why do this if they feel confident of winning?

It makes me question whether PIF have turned around and said. You know what, with all the uncertainty with the ESL and the future revenue potential we are out!

What if PIF have said to Ashley, nope we are not moving ahead with this we recommend you explore your next option!

This is a viable situation?
 
Geordieginola said:
I feel like it’s an “**** the PL won’t pass the O & D test” so “Im going for the next best option”!

I suppose he has got to cover all angles.

But I’ve always said it was a compo claim. The rest is potentially smoke and mirrors.

Im sick of it. The timing of this is bizarre? Why do this if they feel confident of winning?

It makes me question whether PIF have turned around and said. You know what, with all the uncertainty with the ESL and the future revenue potential we are out!

What if PIF have said to Ashley, nope we are not moving ahead with this we recommend you explore your next option!

This is a viable situation?
Click to expand...
You must log in or register to see images
 
Geordieginola said:
I feel like it’s an “**** the PL won’t pass the O & D test” so “Im going for the next best option”!

I suppose he has got to cover all angles.

But I’ve always said it was a compo claim. The rest is potentially smoke and mirrors.

Im sick of it. The timing of this is bizarre? Why do this if they feel confident of winning?

It makes me question whether PIF have turned around and said. You know what, with all the uncertainty with the ESL and the future revenue potential we are out!

What if PIF have said to Ashley, nope we are not moving ahead with this we recommend you explore your next option!

This is a viable situation?
Click to expand...
As I said it covers all angles as I would expect it to.

When it gets to the actual hearing that would be where the specifics and the preferences are identified and ordered.

Any other interpretation is people just putting their own views and interpretation upon the papers. For me it supports my view that the takeover is still on. If it wasn’t why include that as part of the claim ie the injunction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flash and G4rdToonArmy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back